Microsoft Statement on EU Browser Choice Screen Compliance

[wabbitseason]

Wouldn't a nanny state be handing a browser to users without letting them make any decisions or choices, such as making Internet Explorer the default?

This isn't nanny state, but regulations.

That is such an incredible fail. Your title cringed at this post man.

 

[Azhar]

That is such an incredible fail. Your title cringed at this post man.

So enlighten us, little wabbit, instead of flinging mean words at people.

I made a point of view. It's not wrong, it's just another way to look at it.

 

[rclapcar]

The point of Anti-Trust law is to prevent Anti-Competitive behavior, because of the VERY long history of business robbing consumers blind when there is little to no competition.

But hey, I'm sure if Comcast brought every ISP out, they NEVER would count bandwidth usage differently if you connected to their networks rather then Netflix...

Oh god how will be ever live with Microsoft robbing us blind with that FREE browser.

A web browser is NOT a critical OS function. Useful yes, but not critical. Neither is notepad/wordpad quite frankly, but at least the users are free to remove them from the host OS if they choose. MSE isn't pre-installed to the OS, so isn't relevent to this discussion. Only windows explorer is a critical OS function in my mind.

Shit why don't we go even further. That GUI you're using? You don't really need that. Hell lets all go back to the command prompt. Oh Oh Oh even better. Why don't we just put each program we use on a bootable DVD and have no OS what so ever.

Also I would find it very hard to argue that a browser isn't a REQUIRED feature of any OS these days. 10 years ago...maybe. But not now. Imagine if smartphones or tables didn't come with a browser. FYI Win 8 will come with MSE integrated from the start...and about damn time.

But Anti-Trust law is NOT about choice, which you fail to grasp. Its about competition. Competition you assume will continue to exist despite unlawful market dominance.

After Netscape failed, guess how many browser choices users had? NONE. It wasn't until firefox was developed that there was a viable alternative on the market. And even that had issues due to the before mentioned use of IE only extensioned, which eliminated the choice for many users.

Umm....Netscape lasted into 2008 before finally being put out of it's misery. I'm pretty sure that Firefox was going strong by then, started back in 2003. Chrome came out later in 2008. Opera has been around since 1994. And Safari started way back in 2003. Hardly a lack of alternatives. Theres also the less popular browsers released over the years.

Netscape lost the war because IE, given away for free with Windows, ate away its market share. This dried up the funding needing to improve Netscape.

Imagine that people CHOOSE to use a product that worked as well or better and cost them nothing. Linux is FREE and yet it has been completely unable to make any inroads against Windows on the desktop. (And before you say it, PC manufacturers are free to include Linux on the machines they sell. Dell tried it for a while but gave up due to poor sales.)

No, its the effect of lack of competition on the market, which has the side effect of farther solidifying Microsofts hold on the browser market. How many people tried and ditched Firefox over the years because one website or another couldn't open properly in the browser?

Microsoft provided features in their browser that a site could CHOOSE to implement. For most features there were no alternatives at the time. Now with the slow evolution of HTML5 there is less and less need for these kinds of customizations. Hell how many people ditched IE because their Firefox addons would not work on it.

Again, you assume another viable browser currently exists on the market.

Several do exist (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera,and others). All are free, some are gaining markeshare as fast or faster than IE ever did.

Yes it is. Its a direct downside of having IE tied directly to the OS.

IE provieds alot of service application rely on to make developing them easier and faster. Most programs use the IE libraries for this like showing help files and downloading files. Without IE alot of this code would have to be constantly duplicated by had to be included in each application.

Remember when Windows didn't have a TCP/IP stack and you had to BUY WinSock?

Flash lost because its a piece of junk, and was outcompeted on the market. Thats the point: Free competition, something MS didn't do with IE.

Flash is loosing (hasn't completely lost yet) because viable alternatives are finally coming out. Without flash things like online games (browser based) or video would never have been possible. Now with the slowly maturing alternatives in HTML5 it's usefulness is slowly declining. (Video is still done best using Flash, trying to get HTML5 video to work is an excercise in frustration at this point).

No, its about ensuring the marketplace doesn't break due to lack of competition, which is seems you assume will always exist. You do NOT have the right to selectively enforce the law.

Competition has always existed. It simply wasn't as good at the time. Once Firefox got going that began to change, and now there are several as good or better alternative to IE.

A couple of examples of this insanity going too far.

If I buy a new TV should the manufacturer be forced to show me all the alternative remote control that I could use with their in case the DEFAULT remote the TV comes with isn't to my liking?

Should a car manufacturer show me every brand of tire or radio when I buy a new car because the DEFAULT equipment that comes with the car might not be to my liking? Shit why don't they show me all the possible manufacturers of the glass on the car because their DEFAULT choice might not be to my liking.

Seriously where do you draw the line in this stuff. Where I think Microsoft got into trouble for all this was when they told PC manufacturers they were NOT allowed to install an alternative browser on the PC's they sold. I think Microsoft learned their lesson and they don't appear to be doing anything of the sort anymore. I have seen several PC's come with Chrome preinstalled and set as the default browser for example.

PS

When you run IE for the first time it DOES give you the choice to select a search provider. Most people just choose the default because they don't really care to make the choice. Bing is of course the default since I don't expect Microsoft to make Google the default. (Just like I don't expect Google to make Bing the default on Android.)

 

[MrGuvernment]

This doesn't make sense to me why isn't microsoft also getting sued for their WM player and all of their other prebundled ultilties/software as well?

Why isnt apple and linux version being sued.......

 

[wonderfield]

Video is still done best using Flash, trying to get HTML5 video to work is an excercise in frustration at this point

Just curious: are you saying this from your position as a user or as a developer? My experience with developing controllers for the HTML5 media objects has been mostly delightful.

 

[Veilrap]

Just curious: are you saying this from your position as a user or as a developer? My experience with developing controllers for the HTML5 media objects has been mostly delightful.

It's my impression (could be faulty) that flash video tends to 'just work' better than html 5 video at this point from both a user and a dev stand point.

For my personal use: My laptop cannot handle html5 video under linux (due to driver issues I assume) but flash works just fine.

From a developer stand point: Flash (and other plugins like silverlight) is significantly better at rights management which is important for streaming sites like Hulu and Netflix.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Oh god how will be ever live with Microsoft robbing us blind with that FREE browser.

*sigh* You just don't seem to understand basic market concepts do you?

It's not hurting anyone today, but if allowed to continue it will. Not might, not possibly, not probably. It definitely will. Historical evidence has shown us that whenever one player takes over a market they abuse their power in it, development stagnates, and prices go up.

Analogy:

What Walmart Does:

- Build a new store in a new market. Make prices super low (or in the browser example, free) so everyone comes to you instead of the competition.
- Continue to operate like this for a while losing money hand over fist, because your prices are lower than your costs.
- Once all of the competition has gone out of business, raise prices to where they were before you entered the market (or higher, cause now there are no alternatives left), lower quality of service (because it is cheaper) and profit.

Is the above something you are OK with? This is also illegal, and something that the DOJ only gives lipservice towards enforcing.

Umm....Netscape lasted into 2008 before finally being put out of it's misery. I'm pretty sure that Firefox was going strong by then, started back in 2003. Chrome came out later in 2008. Opera has been around since 1994. And Safari started way back in 2003. Hardly a lack of alternatives. Theres also the less popular browsers released over the years.

*Sigh* it wasn't that long ago, how quickly people forget.

Netscape Communications was more or less dead in late 1997, early 1998 after the unfair market practices Microsoft used in the browser wars. What was once the best browser on the market, could not keep up, once its customer base was diverted to Microsoft own browser when they abused their OS market dominance and bundled IE with Windows. (Something for which they later settled with the DOJ for to avoid going to trial.)

Netscape Communications, facing major layoffs and likely going out of business founded the Mozilla Foundation and released the Netscape Communicator source code as open source. Shortly later AOL bought Netscape Communications for a song (probably just so they could sue Microsoft for the ongoing DOJ proceedings and earn a profit). Netscape was included with AOL for a period of time (as special build taken from the now open source Mozilla Project)

The DOJ case against Microsoft went on for longer than anyone expected, and when Microsoft finally settled with the DOJ, AOL sued them, resulting in a $750M settlement which included the rights to include IE with AOL. This killed the already pretty much dead Netscape in 2003.

Essentially, Netscape Communications died in 1997. The Browser lived on under some sort of Zombie company under AOL ownership, with little of its own development, relying on the open source Mozilla Project, but Microsoft's illicit behavior killed the company in 1997.

Imagine that people CHOOSE to use a product that worked as well or better and cost them nothing. Linux is FREE and yet it has been completely unable to make any inroads against Windows on the desktop. (And before you say it, PC manufacturers are free to include Linux on the machines they sell. Dell tried it for a while but gave up due to poor sales.)

This is irrelevant. There is no market dominant computer company shipping Linux as the default installed OS on all their computers, and as such the parallels to our current discussion are weak at best.

Several do exist (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera,and others). All are free, some are gaining markeshare as fast or faster than IE ever did.

This still does not excuse Microsoft from using its OS dominance muscle to gain market share. It is called Tying, and it is illegal. Plain and simple. There is no debate on this subject.

Flash is loosing (hasn't completely lost yet) because viable alternatives are finally coming out. Without flash things like online games (browser based) or video would never have been possible. Now with the slowly maturing alternatives in HTML5 it's usefulness is slowly declining. (Video is still done best using Flash, trying to get HTML5 video to work is an excercise in frustration at this point).

And that is fine. Better, more efficient technologies SHOULD kill off inferior ones. That's how a free market works. You just can't use your market dominance to push something, thereby taking market share.

Competition has always existed. It simply wasn't as good at the time. Once Firefox got going that began to change, and now there are several as good or better alternative to IE.

A couple of examples of this insanity going too far.

If I buy a new TV should the manufacturer be forced to show me all the alternative remote control that I could use with their in case the DEFAULT remote the TV comes with isn't to my liking?

If remotes and TV's had been distributed separately for a long time, and then the one dominant TV company decided to change this by tying the TV to a remote purchase, in order to forcefully gain market share in the remote control business, then maybe.

Each case is different, and what Microsoft is doing with Browsers and Search Engines (especially after they already settled with the DOJ for this same behavior) is clearly wrong, and a violation of law.

Seriously where do you draw the line in this stuff. Where I think Microsoft got into trouble for all this was when they told PC manufacturers they were NOT allowed to install an alternative browser on the PC's they sold. I think Microsoft learned their lesson and they don't appear to be doing anything of the sort anymore. I have seen several PC's come with Chrome preinstalled and set as the default browser for example.

A valid point to a certain degree. I don't think much of an eyebrow would have been raised in this situation if not for Microsoft history of predatory monopolistic behavior, but once you have a record, people scrutinize you more closely, and maybe you can't get away with the same things those with a clean record get away with...

 

[Monkey God]

OMG, where am I going to get coffee tomorrow morning? Someone better force Starbucks to put a sign up listing all the other coffee places in town. Christ, what a bunch of sandy vaginas.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

OMG, where am I going to get coffee tomorrow morning? Someone better force Starbucks to put a sign up listing all the other coffee places in town. Christ, what a bunch of sandy vaginas.

Stupid comparison is stupid.

Everyone knows how to walk to a different coffee shop if they choose to.

Only a rather small minority of computer users install software on their computers unless they absolutely have to, and then usually with their "geeky computer family member's" help.

Most people would rather stab themselves in the face with a sharp pencil than do any computer maintenance at all, including software installation, and this allows a company like Microsoft with a OS dominance to take advantage of this, and abuse the fair open market.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Why isnt apple and linux version being sued.......

Because Linux is not one company/operating system but rather many different distributions each with their own choice of which browser comes standard, and Apple even though growing in the last few years doesn't have a dominant presence in the operating system world from which to control the market.

Even if Apple and all Linux distributions joined forces and all decided on the same browser, they couldn't control the browser market through their OS.

Microsoft can and has in the past, and that is why this is an issue.

 

[Azhar]

OMG, where am I going to get coffee tomorrow morning? Someone better force Starbucks to put a sign up listing all the other coffee places in town. Christ, what a bunch of sandy vaginas.

Would you like coffee? In addition to Starbucks you could also go to Caribou Coffee, Intelligentsia, Einstein Bros, Duncan Donuts, Illy, Red Cup, Gloria Jeans, Lou Mitchells, LavAza, Bridgeport Coffeehouse, Cafecito, Ch'ava, Asado Coffee Co., Darkcloud Urban Coffee Lab, Coffee Studio, A De-li-cious Cafe, @Spot Cafe, Ip Sento Coffee House, Robust Coffee Lounge, Beverly Bakery, The Wormhole, Julius Meinl Coffee House, Istria, Star Lounge Coffee Bar, Bourgeois Pig, and F212.

 

[Monkey God]

Stupid comparison is stupid.

Everyone knows how to walk to a different coffee shop if they choose to.

Only a rather small minority of computer users install software on their computers unless they absolutely have to, and then usually with their "geeky computer family member's" help.

I disagree with this. Some people may not, but most people do. And the ones who dont...how exactly are they harmed? They are not. I keep asking this question and no one can answer. SOME DAY IN THE FUTURE MICROSOFT WILL DO BAD THINGS WITH IE USERS

Most people would rather stab themselves in the face with a sharp pencil than do any computer maintenance at all, including software installation, and this allows a company like Microsoft with a OS dominance to take advantage of this, and abuse the fair open market.

"Take advantage", "Abuse the fair open market."

Nebulous words with no substance. Classic FUD. Bottom line, the EU hates American companies and does everything it can to "keep them in their place."

 

[Azhar]

I disagree with this. Some people may not, but most people do. And the ones who dont...how exactly are they harmed? They are not. I keep asking this question and no one can answer. SOME DAY IN THE FUTURE MICROSOFT WILL DO BAD THINGS WITH IE USERS

When Windows 98 first launched, they tightly integrated IE4 into Windows so that when IE crashes, your entire computer goes with it. They also deliberately sabotaged third party attempts to run stable installs of browsers, particularly Netscape Navigator. That's what started this entire thing - third party browser developers are paranoid that Microsoft will do it again, that's why Microsoft browsers are being watched under a microscope. So they won't do it again.

So yes, Microsoft did once do bad things with Windows users and third party developers.

 

[Trepidati0n]

Irony is the EU is acting as a monopoly and causing harm to American businesses.