The email of the species is more macho than the femail (Inq Bad Language)
|
|
|
Google defence for Microsoft in the EU
MICROSOFT WILL APPARENTLY try to distract the European Commission antitrust inquiry by pointing a finger at Google and claiming, "If you destroy our browser monopoly, Google will just step right in instead".
The European Competition Commission is set to give a final ruling on Microsoft's anti-trust investigation next month, after having already given its "preliminary view" that the Vole stands guilty as charged, by Opera and others, of violating antitrust laws by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.
The Commission claims it wants to give punters in the EU a choice of which browser will be shipped with new computers, but a New York Times mystery source reckons Microsoft will try to turn the argument on its head by claiming that "such a move would strengthen its rival Google's dominance in the global search-advertising market."
Granted, it's a bizarre argument for Microsoft to make, since it seems to admit that, given the choice, punters will overwhelmingly flock to Google's Chrome or Mozilla's Firefox (which uses Google Search), regardless of how spiffing Internet Explorer 8 is supposed to be.
But there is method in the madness, with Microsoft apparently doing its utmost to protect itself from what could be a very large fine. And deflecting the attention to Google is a smart move, especially since the Internet search behemoth seems to be attracting more and more negative attention from regulators of late.
Just recently Google has been embroiled in two FTC antitrust inquiries in the US, one involving the ties between the incestuous Google and Apple boards and the other owing to a proposed settlement between Google and book publishers and authors over the company's Book Search service.
Back in November, Google also had to make a hasty retreat from forming an advertising partnership with the floundering Internet firm Yahoo, after the US Justice Department growled and threatened to file an antitrust lawsuit to block the deal. Regulators believed the deal would have given Google far too much sway over the search advertising market, where it already has 76 per cent market share.
This, incidentally, is the crux of the Microsoft argument, with the Vole's NY Times source claiming that if IE was to be unbundled from the 90 per cent of machines which shipped with Microsoft Windows, "Not only would Google's browser Chrome suddenly be on all Windows PCs, but it would strengthen Google's dominance in search advertising".
As for Google's reaction to all this, the firm's CEO has been particularly firm in denying any wrongdoing, first by denying any conflict of interest issues with sitting on Apple's board, claiming he recuses himself whenever anyone mentions the Iphone, and secondly by painting his firm as fragile and vulnerable.
Google's Eric Schmidt, aware that the search monster's freakish size and success are bound to draw attention from regulators, recently told journos, "we are more careful about when and how we do things," adding, in rather oxymoronic fashion "but it hasn't prevented us from doing anything."
So, as hypocritical and farcicle as it might be, Microsoft's finger pointing at Google whilst jumping up and down shouting 'Look at them, they're just as bad as us', might have some shred of merit to it. µ
Share this:
Share
Microsoft: But your Honors, Google...
Judges: Google isn't the issue here...
Microsoft: But your Honors, Google...
Judges: We don't want to have to repeat ourselves. This has nothing to do with Google. This is clearly a matter of the abuse of your monopoly position and it is our job to protect the consumer and uphold the laws of the EU.
Microsoft: But Google....
Judges: Cease, one more outburst and we'll add to your fine.
Microsoft: We appologize...
Judges: Fine, silence, and let's explain. Google is another matter entirely. They are not part of this case. The case is about Microsoft's manipulation to incur an unfair position in one market using a monopoly where they've been shown to participate in illegal activity.
If we decide to pursue Google that will be another matter. As of now Google is out of the picture. If it emboldens the competition I think that's what this case is about. We want competition. If Google is ruled a monopoly and they violate our laws then that will be addressed at that time.
No more. The judgement is...the fine is...the ruling is final.
Microsoft is right now replacing their customer's default browser with that lame Internet Explorer 8 via Windows update.
How stupid can they be?
The EU is sure to make Steve Ballmer throw chairs again. This guy is asking for it.
Go, Neelie, go!
In my opinion, eliminating IE from a computer only goes part way toward fixing the problem. Microsoft should be forced into presenting the following internet link on initial startup:
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
(and others for other Linux distributions).
The customer could use this to not only completely purge any Microsoft software (including IE) that happens to have been shipped with their new computer, but also to install a more secure OS and free software library (and get a refund in the process if they just say no to the Microsoft EULA). We can all use a bit of extra cash these days.
Could someone please tell me where can I find the uninstall button for IE?
This is all really simple, there HAS to be a browser, without one you cant install any other browser. MS cant install 3rd party apps since it does not support them, if anything went wrong MS would be to blame regardless of the fact it has nothing to do with them.
SO you download the browser of your choice, install it, assign it as default and....WHATS THE PROBLEM????
there is no point giving the user a option to install IE or not at install firstly because most users dont care or they dont have install CDs of other browsers. secondly MOST users have windows pre-installed very few install the OS them selves so its the vendor that isnt installing different browsers, and they wont do that because MOST users users only know how to use IE.
This whole thing is crazy why on earth the EU is entertaining this i do not know.... actually thats a lie, they are doing it to prove that they are doing something, its about politics justifying there existance.
They are also skint, the company tasked with auditing the EU finances QUIT and they havent been audited in the last decade!!
Man, i'm totally on microsoft's side, i mean they made the OS. And i don't care what the commission or anti-trust says, this is bullshit and i cannot understand why they cannot put their own bowser in their own OS. ITS THEIR OS, not googles, not opera or mozilla. This is highs of bullshit as far as i'm consired and i'm not a fan of MS by any means. Its like buying a set of sony speakers but sony not being allowed to put their speakers in it, its like buying a HP printer but HP not allowed to put their own ink in the damn thing. Ridicualas, if you don't bloody will like it DON"T BUY IT. If google got a big problem with this MAKE YOUR OWN OS, id buy it but anyways Microsoft at least leaves the option for installing a different Browser which i think is BONUS for mozilla opera or whatever. They should be thankfull of that. Anti-trust is not being broken, it's their OS this is what MS designed for the OS. This makes no since and if the others got a problem.....MAKE YOUR OWN OS!
You do have an option to what webbrowser to use
but its not micrsoft responsibility to educate the stupid/ill educated people.
Its up to the PC manufactures to bundle the software on the PC, or provide a cd with the web browser, or up to the store to sell web browser cds (or give them away).
But the last time you saw a store sell a web browser cd was in the dial up days of the web brower wars.
Like I said in my previous post, microsoft can't bundle 3rd party browsers with their OS, as there is many problems that arise from this (responsibility, tech support, security, who to blame etc) as the people with lack of knowledge will not understand that the 3rd party software is not from microsoft but rather a 3rd party.
IE is not forced at anyone. It just comes with windows for convenience.
You will be surprised how many people end up installing 3rd party web browsers within the first few months as a lot of web sites advertise firefox, or their friends or the computer store recommends it.
Windows does let you set a default web browser.
So IE solution is not forced at anyone.
Yes I know that IE is hard to remove.
But their is a lot of reasons for that. A lot of common DLL files, integration with explorer
Ever tried to type c:\ in the web browser?
You know what funny?
Instead of people bitching, if they don't like it, go buy another OS. or get linux etc.
Why complain?
EU is just out for money. They should be making other provisions for computer stores or pc manufactures to well inform the customers so they know their choices and make these choice easily available instead of wasting tax payers money on a stupid trial.
Do you understand ,DO YOU UNDERSTAND? DUH , They are not OUTLAWING Microsoft to INCLUDE a browser on the Winduhs CD's , Now read my lips...AS AN OPTION..u idiots get it yet ...OPTION.
Like it used to be on win95/98. And not currently FORCED INTO being part of the OS like they now currently do. Microsoft forceable tied the Browser into the OS after Win98 so you CANNOT totaly REMOVE IT . So what used to be a uninstallable IE Browser has now become FORCEWARE. You understand yet ?????? DUH
Surely some people have a good knowledge of file transfer and communication protocols, but the vast majority of people DO NOT HAVE the same level of knowledge...
Try to ask people to use Telnet, and then tell me their addresses and I'll gladly serve them a full box of Kleenex just for the laughter.
An OS needs a browser, not having it os pointless.
Andrew Buchanan: "AND FIGURE THIS ONE OUT! If windows didn't come with IE how would 99% of the world download and install firefox (or anything else for that matter)...."
FTP, telnet, etc. My tasty noobcake... Nham Nham Nham
The EU just likes to bitch, they need money, so they will try to sue Microsoft.
From todays standards, and OS must be Internet ready, cdrw/dvdrw compatable, media capable etc.
Pushing it too far might be msn messenger.
Microsoft can't just put 3rd party webbrowsers on their install dvd becuase:
1) microsoft can't garantee the 3rd party software
2) microsoft wont support that 3rd party software
3) if microsoft did carry 3rd part software, then someone would have to pay microsoft do do that like how a site pays to have its links inserted under favorites by default.(why should microsoft market someone elses software?)
4) microsoft can only provide updates to microsoft software, having 3rd party software won't be up to date for best experience and security.
5) Microsoft doesn't want to be liable for 3rd party software incase it fails, is a security risk, or if the 3rd party software causes the customer to return tghe product.
6) microsoft can't legally distribute 3rd party software
There is no way microsoft will bunder a 3rd party webbrowser unless microsoft maintains the software or overviews it, and if microsoft maintains it then we are back to the same old situation over again.
So there is no solution to this problem.
The EU is just dreaming.
The EU is just out for money.
The EU is evil.....
By the way, the EU is just waisting TAX payers money with this situation.
So whats the real solution?
1) Ask stores to sell or distribute 3rd party web browers, so new computer users have an option
2) Ask computer companies to bundle 3rd party web browers
But take note a company will only do that if they don't mind providing some sort of support or being liable for that product etc. New computer users tend to blame things or need help due to the lack of their knowledge.
Free the Browser is right.
This case goes back a few years and I don't know why court systems take so long to do what they do.
Remember when MS was saying IE could not be removed without breaking their OS. That's what this is about, purposely forcing IE to stay in their OS. It still to this day stays there, they just hid it of you choose to remove it. It is not really unistalled.
Some will say what about OS X and Safari. Well I had a Mac for years and all you had to do was drag the Safari Icon/program to the trash can and it was gone, I know because I did it and had to dig around Apples site to get it back.
That MS do not want you to have a choice - they've been compelled to give you a choice. Even if you don't use the badly insecure IE you'll still find junk left in IE locations when you download updates from MS - which you can't get unless you have IE installed. A run of an index.dat analyzer is most informative. Also, IE's cookie control is very poor. Remember also that some time ago a university reseracher proved in court that IE could be unloaded with a little knowledge which MS didn't want you to have or be able to use.
I can't help but to agree with most people here. How is Microsoft's alleged 'bundling' harming the market when IE's market share continues to erode? This suit would have been appropriate ten years ago, sure, but we're WAY past that now. And I have to say, Apple is FAR more guilty of the 'bundling' offense.
So what message is the EC trying to send? That bundling is sometimes punishable and sometimes not? Either it's illegal or it isn't: you can't just make up the rules as you go along. If the EC wants to throw its weight around and play nanny state, then it has to decide on the rules and make everyone play by them. OS X can't be allowed to come with all of its movie editors, photo croppers, and media do-dads (in addition to Safari and iTunes...) if Microsoft can't have IE and WMP.
Somehow Microsoft's unpopularity makes it a good target. Apple users, fans, and fanbois would come out of the woodwork if the EC said OS X needed to be stripped down to 'just an OS', but few people are ready to riot when the EC threatens to take away IE and WMP, even when it makes no sense.
What's the point of the OS anyways if you start to take away everything that could be considered 'bundled'? If you can't have a media player and a web browser, can you have a calculator, a search function, games, screen savers, wallpapers, firewalls, anti-viruses, email clients, calendars? Other companies make those too, you know.
But you can delete the shortcuts and it will act like its not there... who the hell honestly cares if its there or not? Just don't use the damn thing - it's not like its hogging your memory and CPU by just being installed. What benefits will uninstalling IE bring you? A few MB of HDD space? Woooowwwww!
People who get their panties in a twist about this kinda of stuff really need to get laid or something. It's just NOT a big deal.
@Jeri said it BEST "...the argument here not that IE is bundled but more it can't be removed" Microsoft created this "unremoveable trick" on purpose when the Netscape competition was looking to good in Netscapes favor.
And another point everyone seems to miss is ,GOOGLE DOES NOT MAKE or SELL AN OPERATING SYSTEM ,so there is no compairison on monopoly in that respect.
This is EXACTLY why Microsoft is crying about Google. It's a smoke and mirrors trick to get the less steady minded to lose focus on the REAL facts.....and from reading most these posts it's looks like it works.
Don't be a fool, you know all this really amounts to money and control fights for the benefits and greed of the corporations and less choices for the people.
Throwing EU toyies out of the pram... causing a spectacle of EU is never attractive. EU do the maths, or EU turn-on, tune-in or drop-out. Sauve qui peut! EU must have the shedloads with unmitigated gaul! How would any fines be paid? With a loan from the Germans? Forget it. IMFO, the fiat cats will have to do if they want to dodge. A shedload of tosh dosh, highly contestable sovereignty before PIGS. The only solution here is a large boot. Shmatta! -- I can't give it away on the Champs Elysées. Aa-Ww-Kk-Ww-Aa-Rr-Dd@
Is the argument here not that IE is bundled but more it can't be removed. In Mac OS, Linux, and Solaris there is one or more default browsers installed that can be fully removed if the user chooses to replace them.
IE is the only browser that can not be fully removed from a OS and it should be a vender option to sell there computers with a different browser, and for users to choose not to have internet explorer installed.
Microsoft also bundles a free basic calculator with Windows--dealing a critical blow to software calculator businesses.
A bit like trying to distract a charging lion by wishing it would go away. The Commission is used to dealing with wilier and bigger fish than Microsoft which seems not to understand the nature of Europe or the EU Competition Commission. I'd have thought that they'd have learned by now.
I swear... what is fair competition these days? It seems that if You are too successful you get to the back of the line and have to let everyone else in front! How does that make sense? This is a bad precident to set. You can install Firefox and Chrome after you install windows, but most people would be lost without a browser to use.. make all the arguements you want, I don't think MS would be required to place a link to a competing software as part of their OS. If they wanted to shut everyone up, just Pull IE from an OS version, sell it seperately with an agreement you will never install Internet Explorer (or a statement excluding liscensing for the product), then make sure IE can never be used on that OS (unliscenced). I think you wouldn't see that selling much. You guys act like they grab insane profits from it, the only thing that gets them some juice is the Search defaults to MSN. That's it.. it doesn't cost you anything cause it comes with the OS.. it's all part of the same piece.. switch to Linux if you're so worried about the "Microsoft Monster"
I heard KDE bundles Konquerer.
I would like to sue Linux now, please.
They're being asked to give people a choice. If people want to use Chrome, let them. Let them decide what to use. If they still want to stick with IE after being given a choice, fine..
So what about all other OS's? if Microsoft gets done for this, does that mean OSX and Linux with ship without a browser?
IE is by no way the best browser, but its nowhere near as bad as people make out.
they should have just used Chewbacca defense instead
Well, it is very easy to write a simple download program to the main Firefox FTP or they can just package the global version with the OS disc and download the locale date for language stuff,
I can see Microsoft pointing that Goggle does have a search box by the address bar but that can be set to anything, all that firefox needs to do is just don't set it to default and that argument falls to pieces
Other products would emerge anyway, especially open source ones.
Do you remeber what was MS' policy against Netscape when they were trying to push IE 5? Do anything to get them off the market.
MS knew thet Netscape's browser was way better, so much money changed hands back then...
Now what do we get? A broken browser, from which you just cannot escape.
Aaand... you don't have to download software to install it.
100% Agree. What good is an operating system without a browser.
AND FIGURE THIS ONE OUT! If windows didn't come with IE how would 99% of the world download and install firefox (or anything else for that matter)....
The MS argument is without merit.
Neither Firefox nor Chrome are forced upon users when installing an Operating System nor is any OS dependent on them to access updates as MS forces users to use IE for accessing updates at windows.com .
Often the updates or "hotfixes" required are not auto-downloaded but are in the "custom" section.
Again MS makes a fallacious argument and should be forced to make their update site accessible to all browsers
Not just IE.
It cannot be a matter of standards compliance as IE does not conform to standards it only conforms to the internal whims of the MS behemoth.
It's standard practice to bundle an OS with a browser these days. Will the European Commission stop beating a decade-old horse? If this is about bundling, perhaps they should also apply their criteria to Apple and their browser, among other apps?
Personally, I'm thankful for Microsoft bundling these apps: their competitors were forced to offer their products for free. Pay for a browser? Hell no! Mozilla and Firefox are the byproduct of Netscape's demise, for which we have all benefitted.
On the media player front, I'm happy that Real Networks got its ass kicked. Real's media player was the first intrusive adware product I can remember; its obnoxious ads, tray persistence, and overall model was borderline malware. I did all I could to avoid it. Windows Media player helped force Real to offer their media player for free, and ultimately open source their software.
How ironic that Microsoft indirectly adds to the open source movement, by causing competitors to release their source code to stay competitive.
"If IE was to be unbundled from the 90 per cent of machines which shipped with Microsoft Windows, "Not only would Google's browser Chrome suddenly be on all Windows PCs, but it would strengthen Google's dominance in search advertising".
Maybe not, I mean there are other browsers, are Microsoft ignoring Firefox and Opera.
Rob
Yeah... but.
Standards compilant (w3c) websites work pretty nice in FF. So complain about webmasters, not FF.
MS is giving product with so many security holes, packed with MS' own interpretation of standards, making www developement real hell sometimes. Basicly, their browser is broken. On the other hand, Notepad works quite well as for simple text editor, same goes about Paint.
If IE was a really good browser nobody would complain. I mean "really", not "sometimes good". Or at least standards compilant.
First, I'll mention that not every website works correctly with FireFox, Chrome, Safari, etc. IE is what I use for any site that doesn't work with FireFox.
On to the main point though..
If I write a calculator program, can I sue MicroSoft for unfair competitive practices because Windows comes with a calculator?
Can the WinAMP guys sue MicroSoft because windows comes with a media player?
Same for:
File browser (Explorer)
Text Editor (Notepad, WordPad)
Image Editor (Paint, Photo Gallery)
Solitaire
Or, to the same end, if I write a plugin for FireFox that allows the user to view the source of a webpage, can I sue mozilla because their software comes with that utility built in?
I'm not a huge MS fan, but this is a crappy way to go about fighting them.
It still comes down to this basic fact.
I still trust Google while I don't trust Microsoft as far as I could throw their corporate headquarters!!!
Balmer is a slimeball.
K