Microsoft fined €561m in browser choice lapse

Theophany · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:03

As of January 2013:

Chrome: 36.5%
IE: 30.7%
Firefox: 21.4%

Bake into the equation that a large percentage of IE traffic will be enterprise (hello IE6...) and I really don't see what the problem is here. To my mind what Microsoft did was no less anti-competitive than Apple forcing iPod users to use iTunes and actively preventing them from using far superior alternatives. :confused:

Efour · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:03

sbi5ar said:
First reply and the Apple bashing starts...

not bashing just a fact... "market share" and all.

Burnsy2023 · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:05

Theophany said:
As of January 2013:

Chrome: 36.5%
IE: 30.7%
Firefox: 21.4%

Bake into the equation that a large percentage of IE traffic will be enterprise (hello IE6...) and I really don't see what the problem is here. To my mind what Microsoft did was no less anti-competitive than Apple forcing iPod users to use iTunes and actively preventing them from using far superior alternatives.

It wasn't the stupid browser choice window that took IE off top spot either.

Cosimo · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:06

ElliorR said:
Why can apple get away with consumers having to use iTunes with their products?

Because nobody with a viable alternative has complained to the EU about their anti-competitive practices.

Morba · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:06

sbi5ar said:
First reply and the Apple bashing starts...

Comparing a similar platform and browser scenario to the MS / IE one is apple bashing?

You are trying to start something with your post tbh.

fez · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:07

Theophany said:
As of January 2013:

Chrome: 36.5%
IE: 30.7%
Firefox: 21.4%

Bake into the equation that a large percentage of IE traffic will be enterprise (hello IE6...) and I really don't see what the problem is here. To my mind what Microsoft did was no less anti-competitive than Apple forcing iPod users to use iTunes and actively preventing them from using far superior alternatives.

Bake into the equation that this is nothing to do with 2013, and you are missing the entire point. This happened years ago and the ruling had finally come in on microsoft not bothering to adhere to a previous ruling for over a year.

Seriously, what is tricky about all this. Stop looking at it from the current situation. 5 years ago, MS IE was still the huge market leader in browsers. When the worst example of a product is the market leader, there is a problem if they are not making consumers aware of alternatives.

Burnsy2023 · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:07

fez said:
Bake into the equation that this is nothing to do with 2013, and you are missing the entire point. This happened years ago and the ruling had finally come in on microsoft not bothering to adhere to a previous ruling for over a year.

Seriously, what is tricky about all this. Stop looking at it from the current situation. 5 years ago, MS IE was still the huge market leader in browsers. When the worst example of a product is the market leader, there is a problem if they are not making consumers aware of alternatives.

But the lapse was in 2011/2012? Surely the ruling is completely redundant now?

AlbertBarkley · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:09

Will Microsoft pay this fine or will appeal against this fine?

Morba · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:10

AlbertBarkley said:
Will Microsoft pay this fine or will appeal against this fine?

I can't see why any company would not appeal such a fine....

sbi5ar · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:12

Morba said:
Comparing a similar platform and browser scenario to the MS / IE one is apple bashing?

You are trying to start something with your post tbh.

How is that so?

The first thing someone thinks of when they read this was to automatically pick up on apple. That would make them the person trying to start something no?

Microsoft deserve this as they were told to do something and ultimately they didn't. Apple weren't told and as such do not need to do anything. Therefore I believe Shapyer was being intentional in his Apple bashing

Theophany · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:13

fez said:
Bake into the equation that this is nothing to do with 2013, and you are missing the entire point. This happened years ago and the ruling had finally come in on microsoft not bothering to adhere to a previous ruling for over a year.

Seriously, what is tricky about all this. Stop looking at it from the current situation. 5 years ago, MS IE was still the huge market leader in browsers. When the worst example of a product is the market leader, there is a problem if they are not making consumers aware of alternatives.

I suggest you read TFA before accusing people of missing the point. The lapse for which this fine has been awarded occurred from February 2011 through to April 2012.

Hence, this lapse has had little to no effect in helping IE reclaim the top spot and makes the entire ruling a farce. Especially when you consider this and note how Chrome's share of the desktop only market was rising rapidly as IE's was falling during this period.

e: look even closer and you'll see Firefox's market share has been in decline since late 2010.

fez · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:14

2007 there was a complaint from opera that MS were not allowing competition, MS make the rubbish argument that it benefits users.

Eventually in 2010 they include the options switcher at which point they still have a large market share. The ruling simple says to include it till 2014 which they didn't do.

It doesn't matter if MS don't even make a browser any more, you can't avoid a ruling simply because the climate around the decision has changed. They benefitted from ignoring it for over a year. Its the same in any business.

If you were found guilty of stealing secrets from a company 5 years ago, you wouldn't expect to get away with it because "I don't do that any more" or "the company doesn't exist any more". You break the ruling you would expect to pay the price.

VIPER258 · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:14

wow thats's really harsh on MS

Firestar_3x · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:14

I would state that a fine of such a magnitude has made us consider our business interests and employment opportunities in Belgium, and as such office closures and job losses will be taking place.

Someone needs to stick the boot into the policy makers in the EU imho, it's a joke.

Destination · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:15

InertProtocol said:
The EC is stupid and a joke.

Who gets the money?
Who gets to spent this fine?

Always wondered this with european court fines, i know the chumps at every level are well paid, but this is a massive amont of money.

Unfair if you ask me.
Safari on ipad here, forced to use it, no choice given unless i go out of my way to try to find an app.

fez · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:17

Theophany said:
Hence, this lapse has had little to no effect in helping IE reclaim the top spot and makes the entire ruling a farce. Especially when you consider this and note how Chrome's share of the desktop only market was rising rapidly as IE's was falling during this period.

Dear lord man, its nothing to do with IE's market share. That was the cause of the initial ruling. You can't just ignore it because you don't think its fair. They have been losing market share for a few years now, that hasn't changed the ruling. There was a ruling saying they had to include this switcher till 2014. They didn't. They got fined.

The ruling didn't say, "until 2014 unless you lose majority market share or you feel like you don't want it anymore".

antijoke · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:17

What a joke.

Janesy B · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:20

I wonder if the makers of freeware paint software will moan to the EU that Microsoft 'force' people to use their Paint program instead of theirs?

Theophany · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:29

fez said:
Dear lord man, its nothing to do with IE's market share. That was the cause of the initial ruling. You can't just ignore it because you don't think its fair. They have been losing market share for a few years now, that hasn't changed the ruling. There was a ruling saying they had to include this switcher till 2014. They didn't. They got fined.

The ruling didn't say, "until 2014 unless you lose majority market share or you feel like you don't want it anymore".

So that makes it right to impose the fine? Just because a ruling that is outdated now says so? You really believe this is a victory for the rule of law and not just a half-arsed money-spinner?

I'm all for big corporations getting fined for anti-competitive behaviour and being kept in check by adequate regulation, but this is just daft, as is reflected by the general opinion of tech savvy people in this thread.

matt_fsr · 6 Mar 2013 at 12:29

Burnsy2023 said:
What an absolute joke: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21684329

This is totally outdated and it seems completely unfair that MS is singled out here.

Disagree, to be honest. Microsoft agreed to promote alternative browsers, in order to escape a large fine for monopolistic practices relating to IE, and the bundling/standards lapses that prevented other browsers gaining traction.

MS could have played ball, played nicely, behaved and kept dishing out the rubbish browser choice screen, except they didn't. We'll never know whether this was a deliberate attempt to keep IE market share, or a simple idiot blunder. (Come on then MS, convince me this was a genuine mistake... you'll have a hard time doing so!)

Either way, it's basically contempt of court because it flies in the face of their agreement they they put in place to dodge a big fine in the first place!