....thanks to the god damn EU.
Some of you may remember the court case 2 years ago between the European Union and Microsoft where the EU claimed Microsoft was being anti-competitive by bundling Media Player and Internet Explorer with the Windows product line for free (yeah I know, the bastards! How dare they give us something for free!
). Microsoft was forced to pay the EU 899m euros (£765m) when they lost the case. This was of course a total joke, becuase we all know that most other companies get away with this becuase its common bloody sense to include free tools for the user to take advantage of out of the box. Mac has been doing this for years with Safari and of course many other applications (like iLife).
The bloody European Union is at it again however, claiming that Microsoft is being anti competitive (again) by bundling Internet Explorer 8 with the upcoming Windows 7.
WHAT... A... JOKE!!
Can someone explain to me firstly: what is wrong with a company offering a free OPTION to use a pre-installed internet browser in their software, especially when they know many users and businesses rely on Microsoft's Internet Explorer already? And secondly: if it does not come with a browser, how the heck are you meant to get online and download a 3rd party one!?
Well... representatives from the EU and Microsoft now say that apparently in order to get a third party browser (not IE) you would have to go out of your way to install IE on the computer manually (becuase it's not allowed to ship with one), use it to download another browser, then un-install IE.
Wow, great plan guys... how about just letting them bundle IE with Windows (like it always had been) and STILL give the people that option (like they always have) without the need to do something that most of your average users will not know how to do!
I can understand if you had to pay for Internet Explorer and you were forced to do so... but it's free! To me it sounds like another lame attempt from the EU to get more money from Microsoft. As some of you may remember the EU managed to get $1.4bn from Intel becuase apparently they offered vendors special deals for selling Intel units. A grey area, but even so it was not worth $1.4bn in fines.
So what are your thoughts on this whole thing? Do you find anything wrong with Microsoft giving users a free browser with windows for convenience? Has the integration of IE in Windows ever prevented you from subsequently choosing your own browser? Is it fair that Microsoft keep getting bullied like this while other companies continue to get away with it?
It's good to know the EU has figured out a way of surviving the global financial crisis.
-Cub. =o)
Some of you may remember the court case 2 years ago between the European Union and Microsoft where the EU claimed Microsoft was being anti-competitive by bundling Media Player and Internet Explorer with the Windows product line for free (yeah I know, the bastards! How dare they give us something for free!
). Microsoft was forced to pay the EU 899m euros (£765m) when they lost the case. This was of course a total joke, becuase we all know that most other companies get away with this becuase its common bloody sense to include free tools for the user to take advantage of out of the box. Mac has been doing this for years with Safari and of course many other applications (like iLife).The bloody European Union is at it again however, claiming that Microsoft is being anti competitive (again) by bundling Internet Explorer 8 with the upcoming Windows 7.
WHAT... A... JOKE!!
Can someone explain to me firstly: what is wrong with a company offering a free OPTION to use a pre-installed internet browser in their software, especially when they know many users and businesses rely on Microsoft's Internet Explorer already? And secondly: if it does not come with a browser, how the heck are you meant to get online and download a 3rd party one!?
Well... representatives from the EU and Microsoft now say that apparently in order to get a third party browser (not IE) you would have to go out of your way to install IE on the computer manually (becuase it's not allowed to ship with one), use it to download another browser, then un-install IE.
Wow, great plan guys... how about just letting them bundle IE with Windows (like it always had been) and STILL give the people that option (like they always have) without the need to do something that most of your average users will not know how to do!
I can understand if you had to pay for Internet Explorer and you were forced to do so... but it's free! To me it sounds like another lame attempt from the EU to get more money from Microsoft. As some of you may remember the EU managed to get $1.4bn from Intel becuase apparently they offered vendors special deals for selling Intel units. A grey area, but even so it was not worth $1.4bn in fines.
So what are your thoughts on this whole thing? Do you find anything wrong with Microsoft giving users a free browser with windows for convenience? Has the integration of IE in Windows ever prevented you from subsequently choosing your own browser? Is it fair that Microsoft keep getting bullied like this while other companies continue to get away with it?
It's good to know the EU has figured out a way of surviving the global financial crisis.
-Cub. =o)
I remember what you're talking about... There was a case similar here in the states as well... They didn't win here... We still get IE and many other Microsoft programs preinstalled... I guess we'll have to wait and see if this new Windows 7 comes with it or not here...
I agree with you though, it's nothing but a joke... Just a way for politicians and other people to get their hands in the money bag... Kind of like about how you talked about distributors in that other thread...
I have to echo what you said... How are you suppose to go online if you don't have a browser with your computer??? Netscape no longer exists and that is the only browser I ever remember seeing on a CD, and even they stopped doing CDs after Netscape 5, unless you wrote and asked them for one...
I agree with you though, it's nothing but a joke... Just a way for politicians and other people to get their hands in the money bag... Kind of like about how you talked about distributors in that other thread...
I have to echo what you said... How are you suppose to go online if you don't have a browser with your computer??? Netscape no longer exists and that is the only browser I ever remember seeing on a CD, and even they stopped doing CDs after Netscape 5, unless you wrote and asked them for one...
The Paved Straight Road, Won't Always Get You Farther Than The Winding Dirt Road...
Can You Run Your Game??? Click Here And Find Out...
*Note, Not All Games Have Been Tested & Therefore May Not Be Listed...
Can You Run Your Game??? Click Here And Find Out...
*Note, Not All Games Have Been Tested & Therefore May Not Be Listed...
Don't look at me! 
Norway's not a part of EU and thank god for small favors!
-Fred
Norway's not a part of EU and thank god for small favors!-Fred
Pirates, vampires, zombies, ninjas, ghouls, aliens, goblins, monsters, robots, sorcerers, undead, werewolves, demons, mutated dinosaur-cyborgs and those pesky phone salesmen! The shotgun is a one-size-fits-all solution!
This actually goes way back to Windows 95 when Netscape were the default browser, charging £30 for their software. Microsoft, who were caught unawares with the rise of the internet, announced that they were going to bundle it for free in order to compete.
This was obviously a serious blow to Netscape (and where are they now?) and Microsoft even emailed AOL saying that they wanted to do all they could to put Netscape out of business. At the same time, most people were listening to music on Winamp. AOL then bought Netscape and Winamp.
So Microsoft put Internet Explorer into Windows 98 and said it was a fundamental part of the operating system and that it couldn't be separated, yet someone (in Australia from memory) managed to do just that.
Microsoft did all they could to slow the case down.
Now, digressing quickly, Microsoft have apparently been doing this since their inception - and the litigation prior to this was long, drawn out etc, so by the time the courts said 'You cannot sell Windows 3.0 anymore', the new operating system was out and no one was buying it anyway. Their idea, from what I've heard, was that they'd do the same thing with this - the idea being that they'd be told they couldn't sell Windows 95 anymore. This was where the anti-trust idea came about in the states, which then moved over to the EU
So anyway, it took years and years, Microsoft were fined left right and centre. At one point when they were fined $1 million a day, Bill Gates was reported to have shrugged his shoulders and said he earned twice that anyway. So the fines got a little bigger.
So after the judgment, Microsoft appealed, and things dragged on. Fines were levied for Microsoft failing to do things in time, and it got to the point where the EU nearly banned all sales of Microsoft Windows in the EU (Apple and linux users I'm sure would have loved that).
So they were ordered to sell two versions of their operating system, one with Internet Explorer and one without. So they made a version without, full of bugs, and claimed that it just couldn't work. But the EU judges didn't accept that and the fines and restrictions got tighter. Eventually an agreement was reached. I don't know all the ins and outs, but essentially that's why there has to be a version without Internet Explorer, and it has to be cheaper than the version that does include it.
But as far as I remember there should be both options available when you buy it. Maybe the one without now has to come as standard on pre-installed machines, I don't know.
This was obviously a serious blow to Netscape (and where are they now?) and Microsoft even emailed AOL saying that they wanted to do all they could to put Netscape out of business. At the same time, most people were listening to music on Winamp. AOL then bought Netscape and Winamp.
So Microsoft put Internet Explorer into Windows 98 and said it was a fundamental part of the operating system and that it couldn't be separated, yet someone (in Australia from memory) managed to do just that.
Microsoft did all they could to slow the case down.
Now, digressing quickly, Microsoft have apparently been doing this since their inception - and the litigation prior to this was long, drawn out etc, so by the time the courts said 'You cannot sell Windows 3.0 anymore', the new operating system was out and no one was buying it anyway. Their idea, from what I've heard, was that they'd do the same thing with this - the idea being that they'd be told they couldn't sell Windows 95 anymore. This was where the anti-trust idea came about in the states, which then moved over to the EU
So anyway, it took years and years, Microsoft were fined left right and centre. At one point when they were fined $1 million a day, Bill Gates was reported to have shrugged his shoulders and said he earned twice that anyway. So the fines got a little bigger.
So after the judgment, Microsoft appealed, and things dragged on. Fines were levied for Microsoft failing to do things in time, and it got to the point where the EU nearly banned all sales of Microsoft Windows in the EU (Apple and linux users I'm sure would have loved that).
So they were ordered to sell two versions of their operating system, one with Internet Explorer and one without. So they made a version without, full of bugs, and claimed that it just couldn't work. But the EU judges didn't accept that and the fines and restrictions got tighter. Eventually an agreement was reached. I don't know all the ins and outs, but essentially that's why there has to be a version without Internet Explorer, and it has to be cheaper than the version that does include it.
But as far as I remember there should be both options available when you buy it. Maybe the one without now has to come as standard on pre-installed machines, I don't know.
David
Ever since Windows XP it has become almost impossible for many functions of the Windows environment to function without Internet Explorer, or at least facets of it. The operating system's internet connectivity is managed by processes in IE software (but not the actual browser itself), windows Live! and Outlook require it as well as part of their 'seamless' integration. Not only that, most (if not all) businesses using the Windows operating system require it to perform networking functions.Demonlawyer wrote: But as far as I remember there should be both options available when you buy it. Maybe the one without now has to come as standard on pre-installed machines, I don't know.
All those thing you pointed out in your thread are indeed true, and that's how things panned out. But I just want to clarify a few points...
Firstly, IE was indeed able to be separated by a 3rd party despite Microsoft saying that it could not be done. But many pieces of software that relied in its integration either ceased working or got extremely buggy as a result becuase it had (by that time) been an essential component of the OS. You can technically take the oil filter out of a car too... does not mean it will work well for long.
Secondly, the version of windows without integration you mentioned was not made full of bugs... it was buggy because (as mentioned above) most other software (not developed by Microsoft) could not handle missing the integration for which it was programmed to use. The operating system itself ran fine for the most part. But of course, they were forced to remove not only the browser but fundamental shell elements of internet connectivity which the EU 'claimed' to be part of IE.
Thirdly, whilst it may have been anti-competitive of them during the Netscape days, why are people so quick to forget that before the free IE, they were forced to pay for Netspace to use the internet? And even now; if IE is free and you can freely choose to install another browser and have it run as default (essentially never heaving to actually see IE ever again, which is what I do) then what's the problem? Do you see people suing car companies for including Ford branded floor mats in Ford cars becuase it's not fair to generic floor mat manufacturers?
Yes, Microsoft has done some shady dealings. But I personally think the EU is a joke... they are, after all this, the big bullies. It's almost become a personal vendetta against Microsoft. They will probably be the first to sue Microsoft when businesses come back and complain about a lack of out-of-the-box connectivity.
But by this logic, Macintosh should be sued for bundling iLife with OSX becuase there are plenty of other applications out there that consumers might prefer to use.
-Cub. =o)
It's a big fat joke, and the main reason why we can't take government intervention seriously anymore. It makes it all very difficult to defend the body of democracy when they prove themselves to be elected bullies. And the EU is the biggest of them all, silencing and ridiculing all who disagree with their homogeneous point of view.
FOR THE COMMON GOOD!
Seriously though, this decision is entirely devoid of logic.
FOR THE COMMON GOOD!
Seriously though, this decision is entirely devoid of logic.
Part-Time Nomad
I look at it this way... We'll use Netscape for example from back in the day... You don't like the fact that Microsoft Windows is putting Microsoft Software Components in Microsoft Window Computers, then here is what you do... You Make YOUR OWN Operating System that you can put YOUR OWN Software Components into...
Otherwise quit complaining and hope people use your stuff...
It's not Microsoft's fault that few have come up with an Operating System for computers... The market is there, if you want to compete, go make an Operating System... Otherwise quit complaining that they are cornering the market... They are only corning it because no one is competing against them...
Could you imagine what would happen to the price of lumber if Loews didn't exist??? Home Depot would blow it through the roof and corner the market... But no, someone stepped up and said "We're Going To Compete"...
I find it funny when people sue over stuff like this... It's unbelievable that courts even hear the case, and much more unbelievable when they decide in favor of the Plaintiff... Case should have been thrown out...
Otherwise quit complaining and hope people use your stuff...
It's not Microsoft's fault that few have come up with an Operating System for computers... The market is there, if you want to compete, go make an Operating System... Otherwise quit complaining that they are cornering the market... They are only corning it because no one is competing against them...
Could you imagine what would happen to the price of lumber if Loews didn't exist??? Home Depot would blow it through the roof and corner the market... But no, someone stepped up and said "We're Going To Compete"...
I find it funny when people sue over stuff like this... It's unbelievable that courts even hear the case, and much more unbelievable when they decide in favor of the Plaintiff... Case should have been thrown out...
The Paved Straight Road, Won't Always Get You Farther Than The Winding Dirt Road...
Can You Run Your Game??? Click Here And Find Out...
*Note, Not All Games Have Been Tested & Therefore May Not Be Listed...
Can You Run Your Game??? Click Here And Find Out...
*Note, Not All Games Have Been Tested & Therefore May Not Be Listed...
I agree that these days virtually nothing can run without a browser - the more we use wifi (and most things now use it for one thing or another) the more we need software that uses the internet - like a web browser. I think the problem that's arisen is that this all started so many years ago when people still paid for internet browsers and it was in an attempt to stop microsoft putting their competitors out of business that they never saw the way that things have now turned out and it's now too late to close the stable door now that the horse has bolted. The laws are made on the case as it was.
I'm not sure how it worked for Mac when the internet all started out - was Netscape on mac as well? I'm just guessing here, but did Apple include Safari after Microsoft announced theirs for free? Also, I think the mac version of safari isn't built into the OS like Internet Explorer is in windows, so I suspect it might be different.
I think from memory the whole reason for Windows Plus was allegedly down to something similar as well. They were sued from including media software in earlier versions of windows and the deal they made was that they wouldn't sell windows with that stuff in. After the contracts were all signed, they simply brought out Windows plus, which included all the things they said they wouldn't bundle with windows, but it was supposed to make the original OS that much better (I can't remember all the stuff I heard).
I'm not sure how it worked for Mac when the internet all started out - was Netscape on mac as well? I'm just guessing here, but did Apple include Safari after Microsoft announced theirs for free? Also, I think the mac version of safari isn't built into the OS like Internet Explorer is in windows, so I suspect it might be different.
I think from memory the whole reason for Windows Plus was allegedly down to something similar as well. They were sued from including media software in earlier versions of windows and the deal they made was that they wouldn't sell windows with that stuff in. After the contracts were all signed, they simply brought out Windows plus, which included all the things they said they wouldn't bundle with windows, but it was supposed to make the original OS that much better (I can't remember all the stuff I heard).
David