Microsoft accused on net browser

[HorseArcher]

A complaint has been filed to the European Commission accusing Microsoft of stifling competition by tying its browser to Windows.

Opera Software said the close ties between Internet Explorer (IE) and Windows made it hard for rivals to be a serious choice for web users.

Opera also said Microsoft flouted web standards, making it much harder for browsers to be interoperable.

Microsoft said putting its browser in its operating system benefited users.

Unfair advantage

The EC confirmed that it had received the complaint from the Norwegian software firm and said it would be studied carefully.

The complaint said the bundling of IE with Windows gave the software giant an unfair advantage and made competition much more difficult.

In a statement Opera said it wanted the Commission to make Microsoft separate IE from Windows and pre-install alternative browsers on new PCs.

It also wants Microsoft to be forced to follow web specifications rather than its own "de facto" standards.

"Our complaint is necessary to get Microsoft to amend its practices," said Jason Hoida, Opera Software's deputy general counsel.

'Free to choose'

In response Microsoft said the company would co-operate with any enquiries and added: "We believe the inclusion of the browser into the operating system benefits consumers, and that consumers and PC manufacturers already are free to choose any browsers they wish."

It added that the IE browser had been part of Windows for more than a decade.

The dominance of Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser has been dented in recent years by the success of other net surfing programs such as Firefox.

Estimates vary but IE is thought to be used by approximately 80% of web users. Opera is believed to have a 1-2% market share of web users.

The complaint comes after Microsoft lost a long-running competition dispute with the European Commission.

After its final appeal against the ruling over its bundling of its media player with Windows, Microsoft had to pay a 497m euro (£343m; $690m) fine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7143912.stm


by the way, if you want to try the Opera browser, here is the link.
http://www.opera.com/products/desktop/

I like it, but I use Firefox. Opera is actually better than Firefox IMO.

IE?

I only use it when I reinstall windows and i log on the first time find the firefox website.

[Ragabash]

EU should give much more harsher penalties to Microsoft. A mere 500 million € is cheaper for the company than make the necessary changes and allow more competition within the operating system.

[Simetrical]

IE7 is a step forward in terms of standards compliance, and it seems like IE8 might actually bring Microsoft close to par with other major browsers in terms of CSS (the latest alphas of IE8 pass the Acid2 test). So forcing it to follow standards is hopefully not a problem now. Bundling with the operating system, sure, maybe. My computer came with a choice of IE or Opera, I think.

I do like Opera. The major advantage of Firefox is extensions . . . I can't do without my Web development extensions, Firebug and Tamper Data especially. Opera's substitutes for those are poor, that I've seen. (Also, Firefox is open-source, which I feel inclined to support for ideological reasons.)

[spartan_phalanx]

I like Opera, use it once in awhile and am definitely not a Microsoft fan, but I think this is a bit frivolous. The only complaint I can see is that IE is tied into the OS and cannot be removed. As far as simply including I see no wrong.

It's their OS why can't they include what they want with it? Where is the lawsuit against Apple for including their browser with any of their OS's? Why isn't Firefox complaining about this as well? If they don't include IE what are they suppose to include (internet browsing is one of the primary reasons average consumers have a PC)? Why is this complaint coming from one of the companies that has the least amount of market share?

There are a ton of questions to be asked but in the end what's going to happen when software developers are told what they can and can't include with their own software?

[Simetrical]

I like Opera, use it once in awhile and am definitely not a Microsoft fan, but I think this is a bit frivolous. The only complaint I can see is that IE is tied into the OS and cannot be removed. As far as simply including I see no wrong.

The wrong is anticompetitive practices: using their monopoly on one product (an operating system) to gain a huge and undeserved advantage on another (a Web browser). It hurts consumers when a cruddy browser is packaged as the default simply because a single corporation requires that it be so. This is known as "tying in", and it's a crime in all developed countries today. Whether this particular case qualifies as tying in is of course debatable, and that's what Opera is trying to get decided.

It's their OS why can't they include what they want with it? Where is the lawsuit against Apple for including their browser with any of their OS's?

Apple is not a monopoly. I find their practices objectionable too, but it doesn't cause much harm, because people who don't like it can just use Windows. That's not an option for Windows users ― many simply cannot use other operating systems for software compatibility or other reasons.

Why isn't Firefox complaining about this as well?

Firefox is produced by a non-profit organization, and its aim is to put out a good browser, not to make money. Mozilla would probably see a lawsuit as a waste of money, of which it has little.

(Strictly speaking, Firefox is developed by the Mozilla Corporation, which is for-profit. However, the Mozilla Corporation is wholly owned by the Mozilla Foundation, which is not-for-profit.)

If they don't include IE what are they suppose to include (internet browsing is one of the primary reasons average consumers have a PC)?

Microsoft shouldn't include anything. It should provide an operating system, and optionally offer an unrelated selection of software to go with it. Then computer manufacturers and computer buyers could choose what to package or what to get, respectively. In the case of IE, it's not possible not to package it with Windows, and this gives it an undeserved advantage over all other browsers. This is the essence of tying in: packaging a product people don't much want with one you have a monopoly on, and forcing them to pay for both or neither.

Why is this complaint coming from one of the companies that has the least amount of market share?

It has the third-most market share for Windows Web browsers, after IE and Firefox, actually. It has a larger stake than anyone, save Mozilla (which as I say is probably not interested in suing).

There are a ton of questions to be asked but in the end what's going to happen when software developers are told what they can and can't include with their own software?

Only monopolies are being told what to do, because their negative effect on the marketplace needs to be checked. The answer should be, really, to order that Microsoft be split into two companies: one to create an operating system, one to create other software. Microsoft is using its operating system monopoly to push its software, and its software to reinforce its operating system monopoly. This causes the quality of all its products to suffer. In a freer market, it would have to improve its products to compete, not just tie them in with products that people are forced by the market to use.

[danzig]

The wrong is anticompetitive practices: using their monopoly on one product (an operating system) to gain a huge and undeserved advantage on another (a Web browser). It hurts consumers when a cruddy browser is packaged as the default simply because a single corporation requires that it be so. This is known as "tying in", and it's a crime in all developed countries today. Whether this particular case qualifies as tying in is of course debatable, and that's what Opera is trying to get decided.

You could argue considering a browser as basically its own seperate entity would be like calling a steering wheel on a car one. By themselves that wheel and a browser are useless but they are also necessary to drive the OS/car. Wonder how a car with an optional steering wheel would sell to the public....maybe GM, Toyota etc can include a disclaimer *steering wheel not included*.

Apple is not a monopoly. I find their practices objectionable too, but it doesn't cause much harm, because people who don't like it can just use Windows. That's not an option for Windows users ― many simply cannot use other operating systems for software compatibility or other reasons.

Only reason Apple isnt considered a monopoly is because their platform lost and isnt the dominate one. If Apple had "won" the battle with Microsoft we'd be talking about them instead since Apple has historically been more "closed" than MS and that has only changed when they had little choice.

Microsoft shouldn't include anything. It should provide an operating system, and optionally offer an unrelated selection of software to go with it. Then computer manufacturers and computer buyers could choose what to package or what to get, respectively. In the case of IE, it's not possible not to package it with Windows, and this gives it an undeserved advantage over all other browsers. This is the essence of tying in: packaging a product people don't much want with one you have a monopoly on, and forcing them to pay for both or neither.

And make it overly complicated? The average consumer isnt exactly a computer whiz to decide what would best suit their needs and if one of those 3rd party pieces of software fails who is the consumer going to complain to? Microsoft even though its not their product.

Only monopolies are being told what to do, because their negative effect on the marketplace needs to be checked. The answer should be, really, to order that Microsoft be split into two companies: one to create an operating system, one to create other software. Microsoft is using its operating system monopoly to push its software, and its software to reinforce its operating system monopoly. This causes the quality of all its products to suffer. In a freer market, it would have to improve its products to compete, not just tie them in with products that people are forced by the market to use.

Why should success be punished? Like it or not Microsoft helped pave the way to an industry worth billion up billion of dollars now a days and having done that it almost seems like some people want to go ok good job now step aside. Microsoft might not have any competition now a days but lets not forget all the competition they DID have and thanks to being smarter (as opposed to being better) and having a good amount of luck they came out ahead. Microsoft isnt Nurve and Windows isnt Synapse after all

[Simetrical]

You could argue considering a browser as basically its own seperate entity would be like calling a steering wheel on a car one. By themselves that wheel and a browser are useless but they are also necessary to drive the OS/car. Wonder how a car with an optional steering wheel would sell to the public....maybe GM, Toyota etc can include a disclaimer *steering wheel not included*.

The same could be argued for any program, but the fact of the matter is, the overwhelming majority of programs are separate from operating systems. I don't say that computers should come without a browser ― just that what browser they come with shouldn't be decided by Microsoft.

Only reason Apple isnt considered a monopoly is because their platform lost and isnt the dominate one. If Apple had "won" the battle with Microsoft we'd be talking about them instead since Apple has historically been more "closed" than MS and that has only changed when they had little choice.

Of course. If Apple had won, and decided to do the same as Microsoft did with Web browsers, Opera would be suing Apple instead.

And make it overly complicated? The average consumer isnt exactly a computer whiz to decide what would best suit their needs and if one of those 3rd party pieces of software fails who is the consumer going to complain to? Microsoft even though its not their product.

No, they'll complain to the one they have a support contract with, which is probably Dell or HP or whatever. Typical computers from big manufacturers don't come with a Microsoft support contract ― one of several reasons, I suppose, that they get a steep discount in buying the OS from Microsoft. And Dell or HP or whoever will be perfectly well equipped to provide support for whatever browser they ship by default.

Why should success be punished?

It should not, but nor should it be left unchecked when it would harm consumers. Let Microsoft be as successful as the merit of their product allows ― without piggybacking their lousy products on top of their must-buy flagship (which is must-buy due to network effects more than quality).

Like it or not Microsoft helped pave the way to an industry worth billion up billion of dollars now a days and having done that it almost seems like some people want to go ok good job now step aside. Microsoft might not have any competition now a days but lets not forget all the competition they DID have and thanks to being smarter (as opposed to being better) and having a good amount of luck they came out ahead.

Sure. All the robber barons also got their market because of outcompeting the others, in the Gilded Age. Doesn't mean anti-trust laws were unjustified, then or now. It's great if you outcompete everyone, the problem is if then you don't have to compete with anyone ever again. Just look at the other thread right in this forum where everyone is worrying about how poorly AMD/ATI are doing, because of the potential for an Intel/NVIDIA monopoly to hurt the market.

[danzig]

The same could be argued for any program, but the fact of the matter is, the overwhelming majority of programs are separate from operating systems. I don't say that computers should come without a browser ― just that what browser they come with shouldn't be decided by Microsoft.

Few programs are as vital to modern day computer usage as a webbrowser though. It isnt an optional part of an OS anymore then wheels are for a car or wings on an airplane. Why shouldnt it be decided by Microsoft? It is after all their product and you still have the ability to change the software if you dont like it, its why alot of us use Firefox after all.

Of course. If Apple had won, and decided to do the same as Microsoft did with Web browsers, Opera would be suing Apple instead.

So Microsoft should be punished because they were more successful.

No, they'll complain to the one they have a support contract with, which is probably Dell or HP or whatever. Typical computers from big manufacturers don't come with a Microsoft support contract ― one of several reasons, I suppose, that they get a steep discount in buying the OS from Microsoft. And Dell or HP or whoever will be perfectly well equipped to provide support for whatever browser they ship by default.

Yeah far enough but I used the example for the sake of making a point, Microsoft would still get a share of the blame and bad PR if one of the third party options failed....hell they get it now with their own stuff.

Sure. All the robber barons also got their market because of outcompeting the others, in the Gilded Age. Doesn't mean anti-trust laws were unjustified, then or now. It's great if you outcompete everyone, the problem is if then you don't have to compete with anyone ever again. Just look at the other thread right in this forum where everyone is worrying about how poorly AMD/ATI are doing, because of the potential for an Intel/NVIDIA monopoly to hurt the market.

Right competition is good but it doesnt mean you need to play softball for fear of harming a poorly run competitor. Ive said in the AMD thread I hate to see them fail because of competition issue but does that mean Intel or Nvidia should go easy on them to not push them over the edge? If you want to compete you need to produce something better then your competition, Firefox for the most part has done that and replacing IE with Firefox doesnt exactly require much effort if that is what someone wants to run instead. AMD for the most part hasnt done this with their x2 and now the flawed Phenom quad cores so they pay the price. Microsoft went down this road, its not their fault they simply managed to win. If IBM had shown more commitment to OS/2, if Apple had realized locking their OS to their machines only was a galactically stupid idea, if Digital Research actually realized what they had, if Xerox had actually been lead by non chimps etc then we'd probably see a different landscape as far as OS goes.

[spartan_phalanx]

The wrong is anticompetitive practices: using their monopoly on one product (an operating system) to gain a huge and undeserved advantage on another (a Web browser). It hurts consumers when a cruddy browser is packaged as the default simply because a single corporation requires that it be so. This is known as "tying in", and it's a crime in all developed countries today. Whether this particular case qualifies as tying in is of course debatable, and that's what Opera is trying to get decided.

Since when is it monopolistic to bundle products together to compete? Companies do it all the time but they aren't Microsoft so they're not being sued.

Apple is not a monopoly. I find their practices objectionable too, but it doesn't cause much harm, because people who don't like it can just use Windows. That's not an option for Windows users ― many simply cannot use other operating systems for software compatibility or other reasons.

On that basis, if people don't like IE they can use another browser. Microsoft doesn't disallow or even actively prevent consumers from using a different browser.

Microsoft shouldn't include anything. It should provide an operating system, and optionally offer an unrelated selection of software to go with it. Then computer manufacturers and computer buyers could choose what to package or what to get, respectively. In the case of IE, it's not possible not to package it with Windows, and this gives it an undeserved advantage over all other browsers. This is the essence of tying in: packaging a product people don't much want with one you have a monopoly on, and forcing them to pay for both or neither.

Who's to say people don't want, roughly 80% of the market seem to. If Microsoft was to remove IE completely then consumers would be required to install a browser. As danzig pointed out this is a major inconvenience to consumers, so why would they purposely want to inconvenience their customers?

Only monopolies are being told what to do, because their negative effect on the marketplace needs to be checked. The answer should be, really, to order that Microsoft be split into two companies: one to create an operating system, one to create other software. Microsoft is using its operating system monopoly to push its software, and its software to reinforce its operating system monopoly. This causes the quality of all its products to suffer. In a freer market, it would have to improve its products to compete, not just tie them in with products that people are forced by the market to use.

Why is it only negative if a Monopoly does something to the marketplace? Again Microsoft is providing convenience to their customers by bundling IE with it's OS, nothing more. If consumers don't want it they can choose something else and this in turn is only an inconvenience to those that choose not to use IE. So Microsoft saves face to those customers that want to use IE conveniently (~80%) and only makes it inconvenient to those that want something else. It upsets the least amount of consumers.

[Simetrical]

Since when is it monopolistic to bundle products together to compete? Companies do it all the time but they aren't Microsoft so they're not being sued.

It's monopolistic in the U.S. since at least 1958:

(a) A tying arrangement, whereby a party agrees to sell one product only on condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees that he will not purchase that product from any other supplier, is per se unreasonable and unlawful under the Sherman Act whenever the seller has sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to restrain appreciably free competition in the market for the tied product, and a "not insubstantial" amount of interstate commerce is affected. Pp. 5-7. (Source: Northern Pacific Railway Co. et al. v. United States)

The fact is, it's illegal, in America and in Europe. Under Clinton, in fact, the DOJ won an order to dissolve Microsoft, and split in into two companies: one to produce an OS and one to produce software like IE. On appeal, a retrial was ordered, and under Bush's administration the DOJ (being less anti-monopoly) halted the prosecution with a Microsoft-friendly settlement. If they had pursued it, in all likelihood Microsoft would have had to face a very nasty judgment. But either way, the fact is that multiple courts in Europe and America have affirmed that practices like bundling IE break the law.

On that basis, if people don't like IE they can use another browser. Microsoft doesn't disallow or even actively prevent consumers from using a different browser.

No, it just gives itself an advantage that doesn't stem from the quality of its product. When Apple does that with Safari, the advantage is small, so who cares ― not many people use Macs anyway. When Microsoft does it, it's considerably more difficult to compete.

Who's to say people don't want, roughly 80% of the market seem to. If Microsoft was to remove IE completely then consumers would be required to install a browser.

Wrong, they would get one preinstalled just as they do now. It might even be IE. But it wouldn't have to be, if the distributor didn't want it to be.

Why is it only negative if a Monopoly does something to the marketplace?

Because in a competitive market, no one player can greatly disadvantage anyone by tying, or indeed any other strategy, because by definition no one competitor can greatly affect a competitive market in any way. Therefore there's nothing much to worry about or regulate, in that case. A monopoly can drive companies that sell a superior product out of business by tying their products, harming the market. That is, in fact, precisely what Microsoft did to Netscape with Internet Explorer (although at the time IE also ended up being temporarily superior).

Again Microsoft is providing convenience to their customers by bundling IE with it's OS, nothing more. If consumers don't want it they can choose something else and this in turn is only an inconvenience to those that choose not to use IE. So Microsoft saves face to those customers that want to use IE conveniently (~80%) and only makes it inconvenient to those that want something else. It upsets the least amount of consumers.

Consumers don't prefer IE, they simply use it because it's what Microsoft has packaged by default for a decade.

[HorseArcher]

I don't know if any of you remember, but back in the day like 8-10 years ago, my college (especially the library) was using Netscape as the default web browser. I still haven't figured out why, but later all the schools switched to IE (I think after IE 6.0), even though they could have followed up to Firefox or Mozilla browser instead, of which (Mozilla) was already a far more advanced (and IMO Netscape too) than IE 6.0.

[Simetrical]

There was a period of a few years when Netscape was the best Web browser, followed by a couple of years when IE was both a superior browser and packaged for free with every copy of Windows. This ended up killing Netscape's market share. Netscape responded by open-sourcing its browser code to found the Mozilla project. For a while, then, IE was the only major browser that was any good, so everyone used it and its developers stopped innovating. Now with competition heating up again, IE7 is greatly improved in a number of ways, and IE8 will undoubtedly be even better. Probably, I suspect, on par with Firefox, or at least close to it.

So IE has market share due to history, and because it's the default Windows browser. "Oh, well, let's not bother installing Firefox, we already have a web browser installed on all these machines." . . . invariably IE. That's what Opera is trying to change. Of course, even if Microsoft loses, it will probably just ship different versions for the EU and the U.S., until we get a president willing to pursue Microsoft again over antitrust.

[snuggans]

wow, go Opera. lovely, cheers.
whatever pisses off Microsoft fills me with joy.
pretty tired of them unnecessarily releasing games solely for Vista when they barely use any of the DX10 features, they'll do nearly anything to get people to buy their newest and buggiest OS. with great regret, i'll join the numbers soon.

anyway, didn't someone else try this similar case against Microsoft a while back? something about IE unable to be completely uninstalled..

[sapi]

wow, go Opera. lovely, cheers.
whatever pisses off Microsoft fills me with joy.
pretty tired of them unnecessarily releasing games solely for Vista when they barely use any of the DX10 features, they'll do nearly anything to get people to buy their newest and buggiest OS. with great regret, i'll join the numbers soon.

anyway, didn't someone else try this similar case against Microsoft a while back? something about IE unable to be completely uninstalled..

I'm not sure if we're thinking of the same thing, but an action was brought against microsoft (and won) in the EU regarding the anti-competitive nature of bundling windows media player with the OS; and now there are special versions of windows for that market that ship without it.

[Roman Clone]

I say we sue Microsoft till Gates he ends up in a work house.

[Poisoner]

MS packaging their web browser with the OS is nothing more than good capitalism. Shame on you socialists for scolding their tactics. Maybe from now on you can PAY for IE instead of using it for free to download a new browser. I say the price of Windows should go up to reflect the price of IE.

[Simetrical]

anyway, didn't someone else try this similar case against Microsoft a while back? something about IE unable to be completely uninstalled..

You're thinking of United States v. Microsoft, which was going to nail it on antitrust until Bush took office and it got called off.

I'm not sure if we're thinking of the same thing, but an action was brought against microsoft (and won) in the EU regarding the anti-competitive nature of bundling windows media player with the OS; and now there are special versions of windows for that market that ship without it.

Yup. If this case succeeds (and I don't know why it wouldn't), probably the EU version also won't ship IE tied in.

MS packaging their web browser with the OS is nothing more than good capitalism. Shame on you socialists for scolding their tactics.

I am adamantly in favor of a competitive market, as the most efficient way to produce cheap and high-quality products. I am against a non-competitive, monopolized market, for exactly the same reasons I'm against socialism: monopolies are inefficient. They produce low-quality goods for high prices, and Microsoft exemplifies that. That's why I'm against Microsoft.

Maybe from now on you can PAY for IE instead of using it for free to download a new browser. I say the price of Windows should go up to reflect the price of IE.

Uh, the price of Windows has gone up to pay for IE. The money for its development has to come from somewhere, you know.

And the distributor of Windows can package other browsers, you know. I think on this computer, I originally installed Firefox using Opera, which was in turn installed by default by Compaq (in addition to IE, which has to be installed by default). And then when I installed Linux, of course Firefox was the default.

[Poisoner]

You're thinking of United States v. Microsoft, which was going to nail it on antitrust until Bush took office and it got called off.

Yup. If this case succeeds (and I don't know why it wouldn't), probably the EU version also won't ship IE tied in.

I am adamantly in favor of a competitive market, as the most efficient way to produce cheap and high-quality products. I am against a non-competitive, monopolized market, for exactly the same reasons I'm against socialism: monopolies are inefficient. They produce low-quality goods for high prices, and Microsoft exemplifies that. That's why I'm against Microsoft.

Uh, the price of Windows has gone up to pay for IE. The money for its development has to come from somewhere, you know.

And the distributor of Windows can package other browsers, you know. I think on this computer, I originally installed Firefox using Opera, which was in turn installed by default by Compaq (in addition to IE, which has to be installed by default). And then when I installed Linux, of course Firefox was the default.

I too am against Microsoft, but you can't get mad at them for practicing smart business. Yes Microsoft is evil, but until we hit a bottle neck where we can't develop faster hardware anymore, when we will not be able to power through Window's sorry ass, bloated, horrible OS anymore, then the need for more efficient will arise.

[Simetrical]

Of course it will. But cutting down on monopolies' anticompetitive practices is pretty much always something I'm in favor of. I'm not mad at Microsoft. As my high school social studies teacher liked to say: don't get angry, get even. Microsoft's anti-competitive practices should be stopped, whether or not their motives are reasonable. The robber barons practiced smart business, too. The point is that business needs to be curtailed when it hurts the market, smart or not.

Incidentally, I'm not sure Microsoft is actually being smart, for exactly this reason. It stands to lose a lot if it's held to be in violation of antitrust law. Voluntarily separating its products would avoid expensive lawsuits and fines, and for that matter avoid possibly being split up (as Clinton's administration would have had it). I suspect it's being short-sighted here.

[sapi]

The question is, Sim, whether microsoft can actually ship windows without IE. I generally agree with what you're saying, but explorer is far more than a browser these days, it's an integral component of many parts of the windows UI (not to mention other programs which can and do use the rendering engine). Certainly they could remove the explorer GUI from the windows 'bundle', and remove the ability for users to access it in order to browse the web, but it would still be there, really...