Google and Opera Snitched Out Microsoft To The EU

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I don't find this hard to believe. In fact, this whole thing makes perfect sense now.

Brussels punished Microsoft for failing to give at least 15m consumers a choice of web browser – a violation of a voluntary antitrust pact that was spotted and raised by Google and Opera, according to several people familiar with the case.
Click to expand...
 
The fine is going to fund Opera with american moneiz!!!!!!!!!
 
Bunch of bullshit. If they want another browser download the motherfucker. Why doesn't Apple get sued for only including safari with their OS. Are people across the pond that stupid they need a option right in their faces.
 
I knew opera pulled it.. was unaware about Google. Shame on you Google, you are big enough you don't need to pull shit that failing companies are.
 
It's not really a surprise, after all:

EU wants the "internet money"
Microsoft has the "internet money"
Google wants more market share/may wish to screw over MS for that Scroogled campaign. :p
Opera will take anything they get.


face2palm said:
Not much of a surprise really. Opera has always been a bunch of little bitches.
Click to expand...

lol. Sums it up.

Posted from a Windows 7 machine using Opera 12.14
 
I say Microsoft should just remove all internet browsers from their OS! Sounds like it would be fun :D
 
NickJames said:
I say Microsoft should just remove all internet browsers from their OS! Sounds like it would be fun :D
Click to expand...

I agree.
Let all the dumb-ass European peoples search out their own browser.

Microsoft call center: How may I help you?

European guy: I can't get the interweb on my pc.

Microsoft call center: you must search out and find a web browser to use.

European guy: ?
 
Bit of MS boot-licking going on here. MS had an agreement with the EU and they violated it. Does it really matter how the the corporation (not person) was turned in?

Oh and let's not forget: EU laws =/= US Laws
 
LOL.

So they can't figure out how to download chrome? Bing it.

http:///b8drdgf

Fucking pussies. Was that so fucking hard?

This is just the EU making another withdrawal from the ATM.
 
HisSvt76 said:
Bunch of bullshit. If they want another browser download the motherfucker. Why doesn't Apple get [FINED] for only including safari with their OS
Click to expand...

I wonder the same thing. I'm guessing because Apple only controls a small 2.x% of the desktop/laptop market. Probably why you don't see them going after various linux distos either for bundling various web-browsers.

Its possible that it's also in response to MS making IE a core component of Windows (I believe since 98?)... opposed to a simple application that runs in windows
 
I could careless Microsoft makes if a pain to install another brower on anything prior to Windows XP SP3 because you need the service packs to install Internet Explorer 8, but it won't let you install and download the Service Packs because you don't have Internet Explorer 8. Its an endless loop and a problem I was helping my brother with. Also I don't use Internet Exploder because it doesn't have a built in Flash Player, so its more likely to get a virus or Malware from a fake Flash Player update. Not that Opera is any better or has a built in flash player, but Google Chrome does.
 
@dr.stevil

The EU can't really go after Linux distros because a) all of the desktop distros are free - nobody makes money off them and b) none of the distros push only their own browser.

@ HisSvt76

You make a fair point re: Apple. Even if they only occupy a vast minority share of the desktop market, the ruling should apply to them also and equally.
 
HisSvt76 said:
Bunch of bullshit. If they want another browser download the motherfucker. Why doesn't Apple get sued for only including safari with their OS. Are people across the pond that stupid they need a option right in their faces.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
So someone should get sued/fined for abusing a monopoly even if they only hold a minority market position? Where do you guys come up with this stuff? That's the definition of *not* having a monopoly. LMFAO!

Additionally, if an end user doesn't want to use Safari that person can simply delete it and it won't hose OSX nor have any impact on the rest of the system at all other than asking how the user would like to open up content that was previously opened via Safari.
 
mope54 said:
So someone should get sued/fined for abusing a monopoly even if they only hold a minority market position? Where do you guys come up with this stuff? That's the definition of *not* having a monopoly. LMFAO!

Additionally, if an end user doesn't want to use Safari that person can simply delete it and it won't hose OSX nor have any impact on the rest of the system at all other than asking how the user would like to open up content that was previously opened via Safari.
Click to expand...

But the thing is microsoft isn't PREVENTING anyone from using alternative browsers. Who cares if IE is integrated into windows as a core component, it doesn't mean you are FORCED to use it. It should be a companies choice as to what products they GIVE you in your purchase as long as they don't PREVENT you from using other peoples products. It's like trying to sue Frigidaire or another appliance company for GIVING you an ice cube tray with your refrigerator but not giving you a list of alternative ice cube trays that you can also use.
 
That analogy would make sense if ice cube trays were an integrated core component of the refrigerator.

If you actually go look at the internals of your fridge you'll find that you'd be hard pressed to replace the guts necessary to make it function with whatever you want from any company whatsoever.


Aside from that, Frigidaire doesn't control over 90% of the market for kitchen appliances.

And finally, the reason MS doesn't prevent anyone from using alternative browsers is because it was facing anti-trust suits from the EU *and* the US and backed off from what it was doing.
Read up on the history of the subject if you're curious about the facts.
 
What Google and Opera did really rubs me the wrong way so I will continue to not use these two browsers. And I hold grudges a long time.
 
HisSvt76 said:
Are people across the pond that stupid they need a option right in their faces.
Click to expand...
magoo said:
I agree.
Let all the dumb-ass European peoples search out their own browser.
Click to expand...
statcounterbrowserwwmon.jpg


statcounterbrowserusmon.jpg


Looks like Americans are the ones having trouble figuring this out...
 
mope54 said:
That analogy would make sense if ice cube trays were an integrated core component of the refrigerator.

If you actually go look at the internals of your fridge you'll find that you'd be hard pressed to replace the guts necessary to make it function with whatever you want from any company whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Does this mean that this could the one time a car analogy actually makes sense? :eek:
 
Semantics said:
Just because you don't like IE doesn't mean everyone else doesn't like it brah.
Click to expand...

It is not about liking. That is the whole point, MS forces out competition in a way which seems trivial , look at OS/2 you prolly never heard about it.

If Internet exploder was such a good browser why is it not available on every other platforms so people can enjoy the best browser mankind has ever known , you know the answer to that one...

No one with an Intel mac would ditch their own OS and run windows just for internet exploder. and so on and so forth.

for all those who previously figured out to hold a grudge against Opera, It is the only browser with a small code base. Less code smaller change of errors, the bigger the program the more change of errors.

Since most of you can't get past like, when using software like is like nothing. Either it is good and functional or it is waste of time and space.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
If Internet exploder was such a good browser why is it not available on every other platforms so people can enjoy the best browser mankind has ever known , you know the answer to that one...
Click to expand...

IE was available for OS X for a number of years. Microsoft doesn't monetize it's browser directly through apps and ads, there's really not a lot to be gained by Microsoft to develop IE for other platforms. The point of IE currently is to leverage the top line features in Windows while conforming to conventional standards.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
No, Europeans just don't like IE because it is MS software. IE10 is a fine browser.
Click to expand...

Well this may come as a shock to you but in the EU most people use internet exploder, so it has nothing to do with the browser being fine.
 
heatlesssun said:
IE was available for OS X for a number of years. Microsoft doesn't monetize it's browser directly through apps and ads, there's really not a lot to be gained by Microsoft to develop IE for other platforms. The point of IE currently is to leverage the top line features in Windows while conforming to conventional standards.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point, if it was that good they could ask money for it since they will not have people switch OS for it basically they could get rich of just selling their webbrowser on ANY platform.

Yet MS which is about money somehow doesn't care ?
 
Pieter3dnow said:
You are missing the point, if it was that good they could ask money for it since they will not have people switch OS for it basically they could get rich of just selling their webbrowser on ANY platform.

Yet MS which is about money somehow doesn't care ?
Click to expand...

Nobody's browser is good enough to sell for money. Indeed Microsoft got into this situation in part by giving away IE while others were charging money for their browsers. At that point no one could sell a browser.

Microsoft has played more than its share of dirty pool however giving away IE was a doubled edged sword. Very harmful to competitors but very beneficial to consumers.
 
mope54 said:
That analogy would make sense if ice cube trays were an integrated core component of the refrigerator.

If you actually go look at the internals of your fridge you'll find that you'd be hard pressed to replace the guts necessary to make it function with whatever you want from any company whatsoever.


Aside from that, Frigidaire doesn't control over 90% of the market for kitchen appliances.

And finally, the reason MS doesn't prevent anyone from using alternative browsers is because it was facing anti-trust suits from the EU *and* the US and backed off from what it was doing.
Read up on the history of the subject if you're curious about the facts.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the big bucket for icecube makers in freezers, not the trays you manually fill with water. The analogy still works. The maker is the integrated component of the machine, the bucket is kinda integrated(designed to fit and work with the backend). Think of it like the parts of IE that are core to the OS as the maker, and the actual browser the bucket. The maker is integrated, designed to work with the whole product, just like the backend of IE is integrated, designed, into the whole product, the bucket(IE) is just the front end easily replaceable and no one is forcing you to not replace it and use something different.

And the size of a company doesn't determine if it is using its monopoly in an anti-competitive fashion. Microsoft isn't being anti-competitive in this case, they don't prevent you from using an alternative, why should they be punished for the way they design their OS if they don't prevent you from installing whatever the fuck you want on it. It's not their duty to help their competitors out, it's the adversaries duty to be good enough to be competitive.

So just because a company is big and good at what it does it must have artificial handicaps put in place because they are good at what they do? Sounds like a child running to mommy and crying, tell older brother to stop beating me at football, poker, what have you, because the older brother is better at the game than the younger. Even better yet it's like the gym teacher being forced to tie the athletic students arms behind their backs so the fat slow kids can compete. It's not fair to either party, but the fat kids are never going to complain that their winning or competitiveness came wrongly to them, they're the ones benefiting, if ever so wrongly. It's nothing more than the EU trying to artificially, and wrongly, help EU companies as well as a cash grab. Nothing more. governments shouldn't hamper companies that do well, they should only hamper companies that are actually anti-competitive.
 
DocFaustus said:
Bit of MS boot-licking going on here. MS had an agreement with the EU after they were extorted and they violated it. Does it really matter how the the corporation (not person) was turned in?

Oh and let's not forget: EU laws =/= US Laws
Click to expand...

Fixty
 
@randomdean100
that should have been "integral" not integrated

Microsoft specifically stated that the main purpose for integrating IE into Windows was to choke Netscape out of the market. The open API's other browsers have access to now came as a direct result of the anti-trust settlement MS reached with the US DOJ.

Some of you just take this stuff about installing and uninstalling software, the icons showing up on the desktop, and the thing actually working with Windows for granted. It wasn't like that before the anti-trust settlements.

As for the EU ruling that was a whole 'nother animal. Novell sued MS because they were forcing anyone who sold Microsoft Windows to pay royalties for every single computer sold regardless of whether it had Windows on it. This was back in the day when places sold "bare-bones" computers. Some places still sell "bare-bones" computers but it's not as big of a deal because computers aren't selling for $3,000 anymore.

Most people whining about this now would shit bricks if it cost an extra $300 dollars when they wanted to buy a motherboard, cpu, and a case because MS was forcing Newegg to pay them for every kit as if it had Windows installed on it.
 
mope54 said:
@randomdean100
that should have been "integral" not integrated

Microsoft specifically stated that the main purpose for integrating IE into Windows was to choke Netscape out of the market. The open API's other browsers have access to now came as a direct result of the anti-trust settlement MS reached with the US DOJ.

Some of you just take this stuff about installing and uninstalling software, the icons showing up on the desktop, and the thing actually working with Windows for granted. It wasn't like that before the anti-trust settlements.

As for the EU ruling that was a whole 'nother animal. Novell sued MS because they were forcing anyone who sold Microsoft Windows to pay royalties for every single computer sold regardless of whether it had Windows on it. This was back in the day when places sold "bare-bones" computers. Some places still sell "bare-bones" computers but it's not as big of a deal because computers aren't selling for $3,000 anymore.

Most people whining about this now would shit bricks if it cost an extra $300 dollars when they wanted to buy a motherboard, cpu, and a case because MS was forcing Newegg to pay them for every kit as if it had Windows installed on it.
Click to expand...

But the thing is, those were in the past, this is now. The past should not affect the current ruling, only that they should be under special review, not special laws tailored only for microsoft. To do so is fallacious, and just downright wrong. If obama breaks the law we punish him for that law, and then in the future we don't create laws just to punish him with just because he broke a previous law, the law should still applly equally, regardless of past offenses.
 
heatlesssun said:
Nobody's browser is good enough to sell for money. Indeed Microsoft got into this situation in part by giving away IE while others were charging money for their browsers. At that point no one could sell a browser.

Microsoft has played more than its share of dirty pool however giving away IE was a doubled edged sword. Very harmful to competitors but very beneficial to consumers.
Click to expand...

Really Opera been selling it's browser for a good while now , on the DS and Wii and more platforms then that?
 
randomdean100 said:
But the thing is, those were in the past, this is now. The past should not affect the current ruling, only that they should be under special review, not special laws tailored only for microsoft. To do so is fallacious, and just downright wrong. If obama breaks the law we punish him for that law, and then in the future we don't create laws just to punish him with just because he broke a previous law, the law should still applly equally, regardless of past offenses.
Click to expand...

Are you against a murderer being put to justice years after his crime is solved? If not, why shouldn't this apply to business?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top