EU says Microsoft violated law with IE on Windows

BlackDragon

BlackDragon

BlackDragon

Soldato
Joined
9 Jun 2006
Posts
2,642
I hope this hasn't been posted before.

It infuriates me that EU think that they know what they are talking about.

Do the EU realise that people have a choice to install another browser? I can't see how it is being anti-competitive, MS are simply including useful utilities/programs so you can use your computer once you have the OS installed. If you wanted something better, you always have the option of installing better software (i.e. IE->FF3, WMP->Winamp).

The average non-techie user is going to be completely satisfied with IE, if you take it away, how do you expect them to get on the WWW?

I don't know what Opera are complaining about. They have a low market share because frankly, their browser is awful (in my experience).

Edit: BBC Article
 
Last edited:
Is this a new ruling? I thought it was decided a couple of years back?

People have a choice to install another browser but if there is one which works well enough already installed then the chances are improved for Microsoft that they'll simply stick with what is there rather than going for something else.

//edit and Microsoft did have to release versions of Windows without Internet Explorer if memory serves but they sold in the low thousands of units across the whole EU so there doesn't appear to be a huge demand for it.
 
Indeed, when the IE exploit was found late last year my parents had to call me over to install firefox for them; without IE as standard people would be lost.
 
Edit: link removed.

Not this again, MS have already been fined, the EU don’t seem to have anything better to do.
 
Last edited:
BlackDragon said:
It infuriates me that EU think that they know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
You clearly don't understand how the Commission works - it's made up of people with far more knowledge and expertise than you and I.

BlackDragon said:
Do the EU realise that people have a choice to install another browser?
Click to expand...
Of course they do.

BlackDragon said:
I can't see how it is being anti-competitive, MS are simply including useful utilities/programs so you can use your computer once you have the OS installed.
Click to expand...
It's very simple. By installing their program from the off people are far more likely to use their program than any other even if they know that others exist. Imagine if Opera was installed on every PC by default instead of IE - what do you think the usage graphs of each browser would then look like? IE has dominance because most people just turn on their computer and use it rather than fiddling around installing alternatives - especially within industry. Back in the Windows 95 days you couldn't even uninstall IE if you wanted to.

BlackDragon said:
The average non-techie user is going to be completely satisfied with IE, if you take it away, how do you expect them to get on the WWW?
Click to expand...
That's like saying 'the average person will be completely satisfied with a Ford Focus and thus we're going to allow Ford to automatically send you a Focus on your 17th birthday'. It is not about how satisfied a person might be or how good the product might be, it is about how it warps and negatively effects the market. Free market principles tell us that products should start on an equal footing (thus most of the point of the EEA). Any advantage that one product has that is not available to any other company's product should thus (and usually is) investigated to see if it is anti-competitive.

For more info see Articles 81 and 82
 
Last edited:
it's bloody ridiculous, of course a company is going to protect their interest by including their own software with the operating system, i bloody hate people who try to stifle a business because it's doing better than theirs.
if people are knowledgeable enough to get a better browser then MS aren't stopping them and surely that's all that matters?
 
fini said:
You clearly don't understand how the Commission works - it's made up of people with far more knowledge and expertise than you and I.
Click to expand...

Yeah - at stealing money from big corporations. That's all its about.

If its your only PC you cant even download another browser without IE.
 
Last edited:
vincent1989 said:
if people are knowledgeable enough to get a better browser then MS aren't stopping them and surely that's all that matters?
Click to expand...
Imagine that all the major high-street electronics retailers did a deal with Panasonic to say that they would only sell Panasonic TVs. If people are knowledgeable enough they could still go online and buy any other brand, but it would be impossible to walk in to the high street and see anything, but Panasonic TVs. Would this be fair for every other company and would it be good for competition in the market? The answer has to be a resounding 'no'. This is why the policing of anti-competitive practices is important. Anything that preserves competition in the marketplace is ultimately good for the consumer because it sparks innovation and drives down prices.
 
vincent1989 said:
the obvious solution i would have thought was to install opera from the start


oh wait...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And you expect people who are new computers to install another browser hehe it wouldn't happen in a million years. Microsoft's aim to make an OS as easy to use as possible without a browser them new users would be stuffed.
 
The eu has some good points and some bad, this is just stupid, it's like saying a car should come without a radio.

Also, if you don't have ie, how do you get online in the first place to download a browser.
 
RockLobster said:
Fini if Microsoft didn't include a browser how do you envisage people downloading a different browser?
Click to expand...
Most people buy pre-made computers from people like HP and Dell. It would thus then be up to HP and Dell to decide what browser they installed - they could even put it as an option when speccing the PC just like you can with how much RAM is installed. Alternatively Dell, HP etc could have software that runs when your computer first runs giving you the option of the top browsers to install (IE, FF, Opera, Safari).
 
I have been saying the same thing since the very first ruling against Microsoft.
Nobody is saying that Microsoft are a particular "nice" company.
Like all company's they have share holders to keep happy and they are at their happiest when the company is making money - and plenty of it.

However for these so called experts to be used to tell the courts what "Jo Public" thinks is a complete load of rubbish.

Now give me a PC with no browser, no GUI FTP program and I could get myself up and running.
However I have been in the computer industry since I was 16 (17 years).
However Mr. & Mrs. Smith with their brand new Dell are not going to know how to get hold of a web browser for their machine on their own.
Can anyone here imagine their parents knowing how to get hold of a browser armed with nothing more than a command line FTP program?

Now I am also going to say that I can understand some of the arguments against Microsoft.
They are supplying the OS used on 90% of machines in the world, by including their browser with the OS they have this amssive potential market.
Every Windows user gets IE and many not in the know will still with it without knowing about the alternatives (I stick with it knowing about the alternatives).
However it is then down to the other browsers to tell people about how good they are - about what killer features they offer.

Netscape died.
Because Microsoft were bundling IE in with their OS?
No.
Netscape dies because they sat back on their arses and hoped their name would carry them through.
Netscape was the best browser bar none.
Microsoft released IE and then IE2 and they didn't come anywhere near.
Did Netscape use their years of advantage and push the boundries further?
No, they sat back.
IE 3 was released, closer but still not a patch on Netscape.
Did Netscape see MS getting closer and push things on?
No, they sat back.
IE4 was released and that was it, a browser every bit as good as Netscape and in many respects better.
Was this the final warning shot to Netscape?
Did they now relase it wasn't just their market?
No, once more they made new revisions and pushed the boundries nowhere.
IE5 and it was game, set & match.
Time for Netscape to hit the courts and accuse MS of being evil when their only downfall was because simply put, their browser wasn't as good as IE.

Courts are far too quick to tell us what we want - maybe it's about time courts actually listened to the people these so called "experts" are supposed to be representing.
 
Kemik said:
This is starting to get stupid. They won't go after Apple for installing Safari or Ubuntu for FF.
Click to expand...

This is because part of what goes in to the equation when working out if the market is being negatively effected is the size of the company and the percentage interest that company has in the market - i.e. if a small company does something that could be anti-competitive it effects the market a lot less than if a market with 80% market share does it. Apple are being, if memory serves me correctly, investigated over the link between ipods and itunes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom