Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th Jan 2009 11:56 UTC
Internet & Networking Earlier this month, news got out that the European Commission is charging Microsoft with unlawful competition regarding its bundling of the Internet Explorer web bowser with Windows. At the time, information was scarce, but thanks to Microsoft's quarterly filing at the Securities and Exchange Commission. we now have a little more insight into what the EU might force Microsoft to do.
Thread beginning with comment 345731
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Abitrary and unfair
by fluxy on Tue 27th Jan 2009 14:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Abitrary and unfair"
Member since:

It is what happens to BIG BAD companies.

How do you define "BIG"? Is a company with a revenue of $32B big enough?
And "BAD"?

I'd think that a company locking it's OS to a specific hardware and having a monopoly on its hardware would be bad - or even locking products it has monopoly on to using only its services...

Apple is a minority player.

What I meant above is, they are fields where Apple is far from a minority - the first one coming to mind being the iPod. What did it do? Lock iPod to iTunes, and iTunes to iTunes store and App Store. Aren't they abusing of their monopoly power in this case?

Specially when they have an absolute control on what can be published in App Store and have been having DRM protected music in iTunes store such that only iPods be able to play these?

So unless the above is not bad, and apple is not a big company, I am tempted to believing that your "rule" of "BIG BAD" companies getting "slapped on the wrist if they cross the line" is only being arbitrarily applied.

When it comes to Linux distributions they give you almost every browser under the sun that they can legally distribute.

I know linux is a minority player and all, but with linux geared to play a major role in netbooks, maybe we should not ignore it. Admittedly "they give you almost every browser under the sun that they can legally distribute", but do they come by default?

Taking ubuntu, the currently most popular linux distribution (which is delivered for free to your doorstep with a cherry on top), or even eeePC's and Aspire One's preinstalled linux offering, what browser / Office suite are installed on default? Mozilla Firefox and Is the user given any choice during setup? No. So if the user is unaware of any other offerings, the same issue may arise.

I don't believe you ...

Well you don't need to, but just for the fun, let me tell you that I'm posting this from xubuntu, my primary OS.

What would be nice is to have Microsoft barred from default install.

Actually this would be more interesting, rather than forcing Microsoft to dismember its product or advertise for its competitors, why not force OEMs to let their users choose their OS at buy time and inform them of possible choices? As it is, many people buy windows because they are unaware of alternatives.

Every governement does , do you think radio communication standards and pollution emission have no cost on car makers ?

I was talking of brand not of standards.

since they put the price at zero their is no real after market.

You must be kidding. All major browsers out there have a zero price tag, and all have to compete based on their technical abilities and marketing prowess - both of which having contributed to firefox's growth.

OEM are not breaking the law Microsoft is ...

The parent used OEM to mean OEM licensed OS.

Microsoft gave them Vista ...

What I mean is, perhaps it is time for MS to stop having its software as a preinstalled OS, and instead give it as a free voucher for a Basic version of their OS. The interesting part is OEMs should not restrict their vouchers to MS, and MS gets to have its "OEM" (it wouldn't be OEM anymore) OS the same way as the commercial ones.

No , your an ASTROTURFER.

Omg o_0 that's so funny. And you what are you? A freedom nazi?

On Windows, IE is a required mandatory system component that Microsoft want you to keep on the system, and make it too hard to remove.

That's a very valid point. It will be definitely very appreciated if IE could be fully uninstallable, if technically possible - perhaps some libraries could be kept in case required by certain system components, but without the browser program itself being kept. However as far as the issue of Choice of Browsers during setup is concerned, I still believe MS, or anyone else for that matter, should not be forced to advertise for its competitors. Perhaps an option at setup asking whether IE should be installed or not, exactly as said by Thom in the article:

I think the most reasonable thing to demand from Microsoft is that Internet Explorer can be fully removed from Windows, and replaced by another browser. Shipping an operating system without a browser is ridiculous; forcing customers to choose between an arbitrary set of browses even more so.

Reply Parent Score: 3