EU to Test MSFT's Browser Ballot Screen Solution

so they finally got their head out of their A$$ES and accepted something, which i believe was rediculous to start with. we here dont complain that we get internet explorer, we know we can still download another browser if we choose. and to think europeans call americans stupid.

still don't understand why a company must offer its competitions products in its own..

You might try reading the summary of their decisions:
EU - What MS did wrong and why it was bad.
MS - 2VYJ4dHsksJ:www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/eu-msft/docs/07-24-09Commitment.doc+ballot+microsoft+internet+explorer&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" title="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache2VYJ4dHsksJ:www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/eu-msft/docs/07-24-09Commitment.doc+ballot+microsoft+internet+explorer&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us">Ballot, IE uninstallation, and API disclosures proposal.
EU - Why they went with the ballot screen suggested by Microsoft instead of letting MS just drop IE entirely.
And the latest press release by the EU is at the bottom of the article we're commenting on.

so.. you need to remove IE to make it fair for all .. so people can go out there and buy a car by searching the net.. but they cant go online via IE to search for other browsers?
This brings up the saying
"You need a drivers license to buy a car but any idiot can be a dad"

Dunno how the hell that fits in..but i think we need to ban idiots from using the net till they know what its all about... get internet certified!

Damn Google .doc->HTML + Tom's emotes broke the link.
Here's the MS proposal that the EU accepted: link (.doc)

Understand now?

Internet explorer, unlike wordpad and paint, is a full version of a browser. The browser isn't considered an essential part of the OS and there are other companies who offer alternatives and want to be able to get a fair chance too.

With IE pre-installed it offers an unfair advantage for IE. It's irrelevant that MS has done everything in it's power to put IE as the backbone of their entire OS, they choose to do so, it's not a requirement to build an OS.

Now these companies are getting a fair chance to compete. And everyone can get the car examples out there and say but I get a BMW chair with my BMW, but it's a different product. The OS and the browser are (or should be) independent.

The EU's way to deal with these problems with fees and things isn't the greatest way either and luckily for once it resulted in something good. But they are right and the other browsers asked the EU to try to find a way to solve the problem for them. It's not just the EU who wanted this change.

I think this whole anti-trust case is bull. Rather than forcing a company to actually advertise competitors, the EU should take it upon itself to educate the people who they think are suffering.

Yes, IE should not form the backbone of Windows. That's all they should have to reconfigure, and make IE easy to uninstall.

It's a shame for Microsoft that Europe forms a large part of their market. Otherwise I'd be all for the idea of yanking Microsoft products out of Europe. The EU right now is showing how money oriented it is in these cases, and at the very least if they're forcing this through, they should not be imposing fees at all.

It's not about money, it's about rules. The rules dictate how the game is played. The person who makes the rules has to have a way to enforce the rules. They use money.

Other option would be to exclude a product from the market, but that won't benefit the people who they represent. They don't have a good alternative.

So while money isn't the most ideal system (it will force prices up as the company never pays for it), there has to be some form of punishment for breaking the rules.

And these aren't European rules, the European Government just want to show that they have a reason to exist and they want to have fair trade within the borders of Europe. Why other countries are ignoring this and letting big companies prevent smaller companies from having a chance is a mystery, but in stead of pointing a finger at Europe and saying they are doing bad, maybe these changes will in the end help everyone.

If these companies want to compete with thier browsers so badly, .... where are they making thier money off of us using them? They are all free, so how is it a free product can be considered for competetive commerce? Much more, how can they impose a fine on a free product.

Man, I never want to offer anything for free simply because some idiot will sue you for it.

"EU to see EU's own stpidity in action"

Is this still going on? I thought this was solved weeks ago...

My system has firefox and chrome on it, yet it still works just as well as it did in the past...

Its not like MS is forcing us to use IE and crippling windows abilities if we use another product on the side.

*Cough, nVidia Physx, cough*

Are they done bitching about this now?

Crap, I thought the EU was going to try to do some online voting stuff, that would have been much more interesting than this continued anti-trust stuff. I mean, I understand the complaints and all, but what's the alternative, really? MAC? Hah, those yuppie fucks can keep that shit, if I can't even buy computer parts and install it myself. And I'm too stupid to understand linux.

I'm still wondering if the EU will ask Apple to add a browser ballot screen when Safari launches for the first time too.

Agreed. What about all Linux distros?

Honestly, I'm not too happy neither when I want to install firefox, a lot of my diskspace is still taken by internet explorer (which I ONLY use to manually update Windows, or when a certain script is not working on FF)!

This is stupid but if it shuts the EU up then I guess that is a good thing I personally do not feel that MS should have to change their own software to make other companies happy if these said companies want to be added to the install screen then they should have to pay a small fee to have that right it is only fair. I also think that Apple should be forced to do the same thing with their OS as well that would also be fair to everyone & when Google comes out with theit so called Chrome OS they should have to do the same thing. That way everybody is treated the same & I do not think that just because MS has more of the market share that they should be singled out from the rest of the companies that have OS's on the market.

Show me the monopoly.

Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.

Economic competiton for free software ... doesn't apply as far as im concerned ... unless the competitors are wanting to start charging for thier software, but they would need Microshaft to quit supplying it for free.

AHHHH so thats their plan.

I can not understand which part about MONOPOLY and the EU commission decision appears to be so complcated to these americans.

Microsoft is a MONOPOLIST in the OS market and by selling their OS and IE as a package, MS can bankrupt any IE competitor. Of course IE is not free - there are people working on the project and they are being paid wages by MS - but the price for IE is included in the price of your Windows copy.

The only thing the EU commission wants is for MS to offer a Windows version without IE (cheaper - less the cost for making IE) and a version with IE (prised to include IE production costs).

BUT MS DOES NOT WANT TO SELL YOU THE TWO PRODUCTS SEPERATELY!

And because MS is a MONOPOLIST in the operating systems market - they FORCE more than 90% of computer owners to buy IE as well, i.e. MICROSOFT USES ITS MONOPOLY TO GET UNFAIR ADVANTAGE TO OTHER BROWSER MAKERS AND SELL IE.

Apple's OS X and Linux distros together hold less than 10% of the OS market and they do not threaten to harm any other browser makers.

For example, imagine your local water company (usually a monopolist) starts making beer and does not whant to give you water supply if you don't also buy from them a 100 cans of beer each month. Wouldn't this bankrupt all competing breweries as well?
This is what using monopoly to gain unfair advantage means.

Mozilla and Opera seem to make quite a bit of money despite offering their desktop browsers for free. There are other ways of generating revenue through browser installation, like Google's deal with Mozilla in which they pay a certain amount to have Google as the default search page in Firefox. There is also the detrimental effect on the market of only having one major option, such as the stagnation and security issues we all know and hate from the IE6 era. Then there's new and upcoming web apps like Google Wave that just will not work in IE because it doesn't have the performance of its competition, especially in terms of javascript execution. The press releases give an outline of why the MS/IE monopoly was an issue and if you would just FUCKING READ you might not have this problem.

But how is Apple not a Monopoly then? Just because Windows is run on 95% of the world's computers why are they being punished? Why doesn't the EU force Apple to offer IE as an option with it's OS? Your arguement that Microsft is a monopoly and Apple isn't holds no water. Apple is MORE of a Monopoly the Microsoft will ever be since Apple controls the hardware AND software. If you don't like Windows then don't use it... make a better OS then and leave the people who like Windows and IE alone.

to people whining about linux's default browser, firefox:

i'm not sure about _every_ distro, but at least those using Anaconda to install (RedHat/Fedora) and those built from ground up (Gentoo/Slackware), you _do_ get a choice during installation. hell, the choices aren't even limited to which browser. even office suites, window managers, and for source built distros, even down to the compilation options.

its the same problem all around imho - its lack of knowledge and awareness. the EU is whining for those who do not know they have a choice. i guess they figure these people are like prisoners staying in their cells just coz they didn't know the door was unlocked.

i suppose its alot cheaper (and potentially profitable) for them to pick on companies than to actually educate and inform their citizens. all about the money in the end i suppose.

So basically this all boils down to an advertising gimmick by playing the monoploy card. Its the easiest and most effective way to advertise your product by claiming you can't advertise against a monopoly without help, and force that company to advertise for you.

If you think im wrong, Name another os anywher that either a, doesn't inclue a web browser, or b, gives you the same ballot box that MS is forced to do so they can advertise other companies.

I am not saying that the EU necessarily wrong about IE, but its wrong to force another company to do your advertising for you for free.

apple has a monopoly on fanatics how else do you get soooo Much people to pay sooo much for so little? they do look pretty though i think that helps the fanaticism alot.

I still go to Mc Donald's asking for a whopper, still no dice... Someday the EU will come through for me to.

How about MS just doesn't include any browser with there OS's in Europe?

I agree wholeheartly. This decision was nothing more than free advertisement for IE competitors.




By your definition Apple needs to unpackage it's Safaria browser from their OS. Good Luck with that one. No one needs a car example because you just gave the best one. Apple, another OS, will not have to follow the same ruling. There's your example (you just said it). Your point whole hold so much more weight it MS actually blocked you from downloading another FREE brower, but they don't. Ever seen an ad for FireFox, Opera, or Chrome that wasn't online? If these companies wanted they could have advertise and got word out about their browser. They can be downloaded without restriction.

This decision is bull nothing more.

Ever used a Mac OS? Which Browser did it have? Did it come with it? Did you have a choice?

If you can't see Apple has the same "browser monopoly" as Windows then you are truly "Confused"...

Let's look at the definition of a monopoly (as defined by Wikipedia):
"In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος alone or single + polein / πωλειν, to sell) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."

By this definition MS is not Monopolistic because they allow you to download any other browser you wish. These other companies just don't want to pay for advertising so now their getting their wish.

I would LOVE to see you cite something from the article or other articles on Tom's to support that conclusion. Same goes for anybody else griping about Opera wanting free advertisement.

This tends not to work if the company you're trying to compete with is not, in fact, a monopoly. If they are a monopoly, maybe it is harder to compete with them fairly?

NAME ANOTHER OPERATING SYSTEM WITH A MONOPOLY ON THE DESKTOP MARKET


That would cost them more money than any EU fines.



Being a "monopoly" doesn't mean "you bundle things together." How is Apple a monopoly when they only have some 10% of the PC market? MS isn't being punished because Windows is on 90% of PCs, they're being punished because they used that monopoly status to give Internet Explorer more marketshare than it would otherwise have ever had. At the time Opera filed the complaint, IE was the leading browser at 85%. Apple never had that advantage, nor Linux, so what they bundle doesn't matter because it hasn't contributed to an unfair advantage for those pieces of software. If you would just read some of the links I posted earlier you would know what the problem is. Are you allergic to knowledge?

But they're competing against other companies like Dell and Microsoft, each of which alone owns much more of the market than Apple does for hardware or software. That's what determines monopolies.



I gave up arguing with you in the other thread. If you would actually care to read the material I've posted you'd know this isn't about being able to install a browser, it's about giving IE an unfair advantage over other browsers because it ships by default on the OS that owns 90% of the desktop market. That is, MS abused it's monopoly in one market (OS) to give its product from another market (browser) an unfair advantage culminating in a similar monopoly, and this has had a detrimental effect on the web.
You're free to disagree with the EU Commission's conclusions, but at least understand what you're objecting to. Until you can demonstrate some level of reading comprehension any discussion with you would just be a monumental waste of time. I'd rather argue with Creationists.

I other words, yours is the only opinion that matters to you, so be it. But to the open minded, exacly how is it fair to force one company to package thier product entirely different than any other company in existence just because they hold more marke share? Why do they hold more market share? Maybe you should look into the root of the problem instead of just jumping the bandwagon complaining about it trying to fuel the fire without knowing why its even there.

If other companies fail to advertise or offer idiot proof support, thats thier problem. Make an OS that any idiot can use and MS will lose shares, plain and simple. I have tried other OS, linux sucks because you have to try and find resources to be able to use it.

Heck, on my laptop, I installed win7 from vista, couldn't find drivers, clicked on windows update, guess what? Windows found the drivers for my video card, network card, and wireless, problem solved. Give me that with Linux or some other os, sure ill use it.