Mozilla to Europe: Handcuff Microsoft
|
News Analysis. With enemies like this, who can have friends? |
Friday's blog post by Mitchell Baker, Mozilla Foundation chairperson, puts Microsoft on notice. Nothing is forgiven. These days, Microsoft is fast to make sure most of its Web sites and services are quickly, if not immediately, compatible with Firefox. That's not good enough for Mozilla, or at least Mitchell.
She writes: "The damage Microsoft has done to competition, innovation and the pace of the Web development itself is both glaring and ongoing." So much for Microsoft's Firefox support or reports of Internet Explorer's declining marketshare. Ongoing means "still," right? She continues: "Microsoft's business practices have fundamentally diminished (in fact, came very close to eliminating) competition, choice and innovation in how people access the Internet."
But what's chilling, or should be for Microsoft as it prepares its response to the European Competition Commission, is how Mitchell ends the blog post:
I'll be paying close attention to the [European Commission's] activities, both personally and on behalf of Mozilla. Mozilla has enormous expertise in this area...I'd like to offer Mozilla's expertise as a resource to the EC as it considers what an effective remedy would entail. I'll be reaching out to people I know with particular history, expertise and ideas regarding these topics. If you've got specific ideas or concerns please feel free to contact me. I'll post more as the discussion develops.
Mozilla is ready and willing to offer advice to the European Commission on the remedy imposed on Microsoft. Mozilla won't be the first, or the last. Google has already provided something to the European Commission, as has at least Opera. But I have to ask: Are these competitors seeking justice or retribution? Are they seeking a reasonable remedy or are they instead engaging in competition by litigation? The answers are important, because antitrust remedies are supposed to restore competition for the future rather than punish for past sins. That's the case in the United States, anyway. Europe is a bit different, with respect to punishment (e.g., fines), but the primary goal of any remedy remains restoration of competition. Whether here or there.
Statement of Objections
Perhaps, it's best if I offer some brief background before proceeding. About three weeks ago, Microsoft received Statement of Objections from the European Commission, indicating that Microsoft's integrating—in legal parlance, tying—Internet Explorer to Windows violated local antitrust laws. Wow, what amazingly speedy justice. Microsoft integrated IE into the operating system well over a decade ago. U.S. trustbusters immediately filed against Microsoft, in 1998, leading to a nasty court battle.
Europe's findings are seemingly preliminary, with Microsoft having two months to respond. In reality, they're final. Microsoft's response must be an attempt to mitigate the remedy the European Commission chooses to impose. Mitchell's blog is clear: Mozilla wants to offer input into any remedy. Other competitors are sure to pipe in, too, although many won't likely be as public in their solicitation.
In crafting an appropriate remedy, two questions should be asked (and answered):
- Is the marketplace effectively restoring competition in ways that make government intervention unnecessary?
- If not, what intervention is necessary to jump-start competition?
The place to start is the past and the effects of Microsoft's competitive tactics. The U.S. case determined that Microsoft attempted to leverage its monopoly in Intel-based operating systems into the Web browser market. While true, Netscape contributed to its own end. The company made several strategic mistakes that I won't go into here. That said, one could argue that without competitive pressure from Microsoft, Netscape might have made better business decisions.
Mitchell observes that Microsoft won the war only to abandon the territory:
Internet Explorer ended up with well over 90 percent market share. Once this happened, Microsoft stopped browser development; even disbanding its browser team. The product stagnated and then became a prime vector for bad actors to inject spyware onto consumers' computers. There was no meaningful response or innovation from Microsoft.
A Case In Remedy
She's absolutely right. The question is "Why?" Mitchell's position is clear: Anti-competitive monopoly behavior. I have another reason, which is sure to stir up debate among Microsoft Watch commenters: The U.S. antitrust case. Microsoft executives were uncooperative and combative during the main portion of the case, from 1998 to 2001. They didn't want to be told how to develop software. The case targeted four kinds of so-called middleware:
- Instant messaging
- Media playback
- Web browsing
Microsoft pulled back development in all four categories, not just Web browsing, following the November 2001 settlement (approved a year later). I contend that Microsoft lost its incentive to compete in the technologies targeted by the case. In an August 2007 blog post, I explained that there had been increased competition in some so-called middleware categories, but largely in spite of the settlement, not because of it. U.S. Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly imposed the settlement as the remedy in November 2002. But the marketplace has restored competition in ways the U.S. case's remedy failed to—in part because it didn't go far enough and because the competitive landscape changed.
Browser competition renewed despite Microsoft's abandoned browser development and largely regardless of the U.S. remedy. In the early days of the century, Overture pioneered the paid search business that Google would later perfect. Paid search created a new business model for Web browsers, even when given away for free. Mozilla would tap into the revenue opportunity with Firefox, which released about 15 months after Yahoo bought Overture.
My point: The marketplace has accomplished what trustbusters couldn't: Revive browser competition. But is it healthy competition? Mitchell says not, in part because IE ships with Windows. One possible remedy would remove the browser from the operating system. But would competition really benefit? The past may hold the answer.
In 2004, the European Commission demanded that Microsoft ship a version of Windows without the media player. There is no indication that such action has benefited competition. Instead, Apple's success with iPod and iTunes brought real competition to media playback as did the enormous success of Flash Video. Why should separation of IE from Windows do any better than pulling Windows Media Player from the operating system? I don't believe it would.
Personally, I'm opposed to an integrated browser. I believe that Microsoft's integration has demonstrated that the browser causes too much trouble, such as unnecessary bloat and security vulnerabilities. But bundled browsers are operating system developers' design of choice. I visited my first Web site using the browser included with IBM OS/2 Warp (circa, October 1994). Apple bundles Safari with Mac OS X and iPhone 2.0. Mozilla bundles Chrome with Android.
Where Is There Competition?
There's still the question about what's enough browser competition. By all accounts, Internet Explorer usage share is declining. According to XiTiMonitor, IE share has fallen below 60 percent in Europe. According to ComScore, Google's search share is about the same on the Continent—and it's more than 70 percent in some countries. If 60 percent makes Microsoft a dangerous monopoly, why not Google?
The numbers tell me that the European Commission waited too long. Any desktop remedy deals with the past, because IE share is diminishing and because the future of browsing isn't the desktop. It's the mobile phone. There, Microsoft lags way behind competitors. Mobile Chrome and Safari are much superior browsers to the version of IE shipping with Windows Mobile. Microsoft is actually retreating in the smartphone market, where Windows Mobile has dropped from No. 2 to No. 4 in shipment share in less than a year, according to Gartner.
People using Chrome, Opera, Safari and even Firefox on mobile phones will be more likely to use the same browsers on the desktop. I predict a reversal, where as mobile browsing increases product preferences/allegiances on the cell phone will be primary. The dominant browsers in the future will be those most successful on cell phones in 2009-2010.
My point: The marketplace continues to grow and influence choices, regardless of Microsoft's desktop operating system and browser monopolies. From that perspective, the European Commission should either impose no remedy or one that anticipates the future. Problem: The case is largely built around past behavior and market conditions. Mitchell and I agree on one thing. She writes: "An effective remedy would be a watershed event; a poorly constructed remedy could cause unfortunate damage."
Some Microsoft Watch commenters will blast me for taking the company's side. That's not so. Appeals courts in Europe and the United States already have determined that Microsoft abused its monopoly position. But Microsoft's wrongs don't make competitors right. Additionally, I question the effectiveness of recent antitrust remedies, because the business cops have acted too slowly and technology markets change too quickly.
Microsoft is responding to increased desktop browser competition by competing better. Internet Explorer 8 is the best version of the browser in more than a decade. Version 8 should help Microsoft slow down IE usage share erosion and even regain some. For Mozilla and other Microsoft competitors, the European Commission offers opportunity to engage in competition by litigation.
Payback is a bitch.
[Please send your tips or rumors to watchtips at live.com].
Related Posts:
- Europe to Microsoft: Untie Me, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 16, 2009
- Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Microsoft Watch, June 5, 2008
- Microsoft Appeals €899M Fine, Microsoft Watch, May 9, 2008
- Microsoft, the EU and Broken Promises, Microsoft Watch, March 3, 2008
- The New European Drama Unfolds, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 14, 2008
- Samba Licenses, Microsoft Benefits, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 21, 2007
- IE 8 and the New Browser War, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 20, 2007
- The EU: Microsoft's New Taskmaster, Microsoft Watch, Oct. 22, 2007
- What Microsoft's EU Ruling Means to You, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 19, 2007
- EU Ruling: A Reporter's Notebook, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 18, 2007
- The European Drama Unfolds, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 17, 2007
- Microsoft Employees React to EU Appeals Decision, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 17, 2007
- Microsoft's Stunning Court Defeat, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 17, 2007
- Microsoft's Antitrust Cases Stand in Judgment, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 10, 2007
- Did Microsoft's Consent Decree Benefit You?, Microsoft Watch, Aug. 31, 2007
- Search This, Google!, Microsoft Watch, June 26, 2007
- Microsoft Will Modify Vista Search, Microsoft Watch, June 20, 2007
- And There Was One, Microsoft Watch, March 8, 2007
- Microsoft Competitors' 'Wow' Moment, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 26, 2007
- Microsoft Resubmits Technical Documents to the EU, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 23, 2006
- Microsoft's Antitrust Control Problem, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 22, 2006
- Who You Gonna Call? Trustbusters!, Nov. 17, 2006
Comments (39)
This is the part where certain posters are going to accuse me of being in some sort of euphoria, sitting in my Linux dungeon in my parents house, desperately wishing for a girlfriend and attacking anything that is Microsoft whilst celebrating anything that goes against it.
-
Back to reality and the real facts that Goblin is just a family man with kids and a wife who is considering taking Linux to the Jerry Springer show for taking her husband away from her for so long, I have this to say about this anti-trust issues and the EU.
-
Over in the UK we experienced it in a very big way. Take the landline phone provider. For so long we were restricted mostly to British Telecom. I remember thinking at the time that by having so many other phone call providers it would be great for the consumer. I looked forward to looking around a supermarket of providers and wondered how many great deals I could haggle out of their sales reps.
-
Then we had the reality, unhanded selling tactics by door to door salespersons, meant that my bill needed changing more times than Steve Ballmers shirt during an all day stage presentation.
Saving money was a thing of the past, since it was difficult to know who was providing your calls and the call providers often argued with each other over who was getting the custom. The real treat would come a few months later with a surprise that was about as welcome as Bill Gates turning up on your doorstep with a box of mosquito's. The bill (no pun intended)- often wrong and extortionately high, increased as I spent time complaining and challenging.
-
So my view? As a touched on with a previous post, on paper looks great, in action? IMO every example of it in the UK, be it directory services, gas, electricity has been fraught with headaches. Now apply that to a PC environment? and possibly a new computer user? I am dubious at best on how its going to be implemented.
-
I wait with baited breath. As I said before, for better or worse, we'd better like however its done. We will be stuck with it regardless.
Posted by Goblin | February 9, 2009 2:54 AM
When they made a better browser, IE share declined substantially. I suggest that they focus on doing just that, instead of winning and crying all the time...
Posted by evan | February 9, 2009 4:12 AM
I don't get this comparison with Google. Everybody is free to set their preferred search and it's way much easier than changing the browser. You can't really remove Internet Explorer and it comes bundled with the operating system so you get it automatically with the computer purchase. Microsoft should leave it to pc manufacturers and resellers to offer users a choice, and users themselves can then type in the browser whatever they want. But they won't do it unless somebody makes them, I know I wouldn't.
Posted by Philip | February 9, 2009 6:55 AM
For a moment there I thought this would be about the recent surge in virus attacks within the British and French military. Grounding some units.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | February 9, 2009 6:58 AM
Why doesn't the EU Commission do something about the energy monopolies they have in just about every EU country. Those monopolies add real costs for all 450 million citizens and every business that operates in the EU. What is the financial impact on EU citizens and businesses of having IE in Windows - practically zilch especially when compared with the energy monopolies, not to mention the airport monopolies, etc, etc.
Answer : because the energy companies have the EU politicians in their pockets. If I were Ballmer I'd wait for Iceland to join the EU, then I'd buy it and exercise the veto powers that every EU country has at the Commission.
If there is an institution that's more worthy of loathing than MS, it has to be the EU.
Posted by RightPaddock | February 9, 2009 7:33 AM
Changing the default browser is easy. After all you just have to download one and it will ask if you want it to be default. Done deal. IE is still in the system as a way of making sure that things like Update services occur in a secure controlled way.
"Microsoft should leave it to pc manufacturers and resellers to offer users a choice, and users themselves can then type in the browser whatever they want."
Yeah they can add a few more GB of crapware so that when I start a new computer, I'll not only have 15 image editors, 32 ISP shortcuts all over the desktop, 750 Yahoo toolbars and now a few dozen browsers as well. All of them will have an auto-load stub and call home every time I log in.
Posted by neil | February 9, 2009 8:01 AM
Why do you have to remove IE to not use it?
You install a new browser (which you couldn't get hold of if IE wasn't there) and when you run it it will ask if you want to make it your default, from then on you browse with your choice.
The fact is, Netscape became awful, IE became better, then nothing changed until Firefox came along and sparked some more innovation, which has meant a better IE, firefox & chrome.
There is plenty of competition in browsers.
Posted by Will | February 9, 2009 8:18 AM
Just wanted to note that the above poster is not me (the Will that has been active the last few days posting).
Accidental pick of poster name, I guess. Maybe I should change my handle to something less easily picked by chance.
Posted by Will | February 9, 2009 8:26 AM
@neil, why would you need a web browser to update an OS? If I have automatic updates enabled on my computer does in mean IE is running in the background. And if it isn't then I guess IE need not be installed at all to start with.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | February 9, 2009 8:32 AM
"Changing the default browser is easy. After all you just have to download one and it will ask if you want it to be default."
Then you have the problem that all the IE only sites do not work in your nice easy-to-install browser. This is exactly what Mozilla are complaining about.
It has nothing to do with how good the browser is, it has to do with Microsoft encouraging site owners to use markup which works only on IE.
The good part is that Microsoft are being hit by their own incompatibilities. IE 8 does not work properly on a lot of sites because those sites write specifically for IE.
I am glad that the EU has some balls (unlike your DoJ). Hopefully we can get some proper standards in this business.
Posted by billybob | February 9, 2009 9:41 AM
uh, Gerardo-- I think that you're confusing the topics at hand.
If you cannot run Automatic Updates, then maybe you should stop pirating software!!!
Seriously-- what's the big deal about being forced to use IE in order to run windows update?
Honestly-- what _NEEDS_ to happen to make the browser wars interesting again-- is to get the other browsers to include the ability to run ActiveX!
Dead serious-- if firefox and chrome and safari used ActiveX then maybe-- just maybe-- they'd be relevent to me.
or how about vbScript-- on the clientside.
So what if the other browsers don't have them-- I won't use other browsers until they do have them!
Maybe instead of everyone looking at this as a 'every webpage should use CSS and Java' then maybe-- just maybe-- your basic premise is wrong.
Other browsers-- pardon my french-- friggin suck-- because they don't include the functionality that comes with IE.
Maybe when everyone else begins to respect com/activeX/.net-- then maybe-- just maybe-- these other browsers will have the _RIGHT_ to be used by people whenever and wherever they want.
I won't use firefox, because it won't run office web components.
Maybe some of you guys should make the same decision as me-- maybe we should be forcing Firefox to follow the standards that MS sets-- instead of trying to boss around Microsoft.
This past decade has proven that Microsoft has tons of competition and anyone making anti-trust claims is just being emotional.
Google is the real monopoly.
And McDonalds is also.
And so is Exxon.
And Bank of America.
And you know what??
Microsoft ain't a monopoly right now; and I swear to god-- europe sure doesn't have jurisdiction over the U.S.!!
I think that we should tell those brits to build a better browser!! If they want a better european browser-- they can screw themselves and build it themselves!
Posted by Aaron | February 9, 2009 9:52 AM
It is really time that Microsoft insist that any rules applied to them applies to others in Europe [if the Europeans go ahead with this].
Apple ties a browser to its operating system. Many Linux distibutions [such as RedHat] also come with a browser tied into their default file explorers. And RedHat is a sold for money operating system competing with Microsoft for the PC.
What is going on with Apple Inc. on the Apple platform is much much more a monopoly than Microsoft's OS on the PC [which is an open platform].
Microsoft does have real competition on PC computers (FreeBSD, RedHat Linux [which is sold], Ubuntu, UNIX varients [some which are sold], even FreeDOS etc. etc.) whereas on Apple hardware there's a near total software monopoly: Apple's OSX. But Apple also monopolizes the *hardware* on the Apple computing platform making it near impossible to manufacture an Apple compatible computer. Apple has arranged - yes arranged by many means including lawsuit - a complete monopoly for itself on the Apple compatible computing platform.
Microsoft should insist that Apple's operating system monopoly and Apple's hardware monopoly also not come with a browser and that any sold Linux distributions and sold UNIX distributions also be browser free. That way everyone is equal before that law.
Or is this whole thing a phoney set up to take a swipe at a successful company and steal their profits?
Posted by Yump n Yiminy | February 9, 2009 10:09 AM
"Honestly-- what _NEEDS_ to happen to make the browser wars interesting again-- is to get the other browsers to include the ability to run ActiveX!"
No problem - just get Microsoft to document the entire protocol and rewrite any dependent libraries as OSS so that we can implement it on Linux and OSX (and any other OS that comes up in the future).
HTML 5 and CSS 3 are better and safer than ActiveX so I am more interested in MS supporting that. It seems like their developers are not good enough, judging by their Acid 3 score.
"europe sure doesn't have jurisdiction over the U.S.!!"
The EU does have jurisdiction over MS when they have companies based in the EU. MS has plenty of companies and assets in the EU. If they want to give up those assets and income then the EU would be powerless.
"maybe we should be forcing Firefox to follow the standards that MS sets"
They do NOT set standards, that is the problem. Instead they ignore standards that everyone agrees on and makes their own which they do not document. Other browsers have spent 10 years trying to implement their ever changing 'standards'.
It is funny how the US is pursuing Microsoft in a very similar way, yet we don't get the same sort of protectionist drivel coming from US residents.
Why not talk about this case Joe?
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f241600/241677.htm
Lets not forget that most of the complaints in the EU court are brought by US companies. Just like in this case. Novell complained before, followed closely by Sun. The Novell and Sun case was the one that led to the N edition of Windows.
Posted by billybob | February 9, 2009 10:25 AM
You can have lots of browsers installed. I run Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera and IE. My default browser is Chrome because it seems fastest and to me has the cleanest interface that provides what I need without being intrusive. I use IE whenever I have to use an ActiveX control, which includes WebEx (don't mention the Java control), MSDN, internal corporate sharepoint and Windows Update. I use Firefox for development tasks due to Firebug, and other add-ons.
I find Firefox renders non-MS pages the best (better than IE). I like the spell checking in Chrome (which I'm using right now).
Anyway I think there needs to be restrictions/penalties on MS because they do have a track record of bullying the market. Quite a few anti-competitive practices have been coming to light. Right now MS really puts the brakes on new web standards and tends to really drag their feet in supporting things in IE. Otherwise look for MS to really turn up the heat with anti-competitive practices to use their monopoly clout with Windows 7 to severely restrict and attack Mozilla, Google, Opera and others. MS's practices have been very damaging to the Software Development Industry eco-system and need to be forcibly changed.
Posted by smist08 | February 9, 2009 11:08 AM
"But Microsoft's wrongs don't make competitors right." --> What have competitors done wrong in this case?
Nothing.
Sure the Commission waited to get a court precedence ruling. This case is a rematch.
Posted by Andre | February 9, 2009 11:15 AM
@Aaron, maybe I didn't make myself clear. My Windows machines are up to date and its been weeks if not months since I've fired up IE on them. So I don't need IE for updates.
Apple includes Safari as a browser, but the updates are handled by the OS not the browser. So I could take it out and still have a fully updated Mac. Same applies to Linux.
Google sure is a monopoly, but it doesn't force me to use Chrome to check my gmail nor my company's email hosted on their system. If I used Exchange I'd be out of luck.
To be a monopoly is not illegal, to leverage such monopoly is in certain cases.
You raise a valid point regarding ActiveX, but before that happens a) Microsoft would need to make ActiveX available on non Windows platforms (like it does with Silverlight) b) make ActiveX secure. Until that happens there are (and have been for quite some time) solutions that work on Windows and other platforms that do not bind you to ridiculous EULA from Microsoft.
Microsoft has great products that are locked out for me because they're not multi platform. Thus they limit their usability to Windows. And I can't limit myself deliberately when there are so many cross platform solutions out there like Flash, Java, php, python, etc etc etc.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | February 9, 2009 11:48 AM
To: billybob
Quote: "Instead they ignore standards .."
Microsoft a while back announced they will try very hard to meet the standards. IE7 was a solid move towards that goal - and IE8, to all intents and purposes, meets the main standards to near 100%.
Note: There are a lot of "web standards" published by the W3 consortium and no browser on earth both includes all and all, but of the important standards sets for the WWW e.g. HTML and CSS, IE8 is closing in on 100%.
Posted by Yump 'n Yiminy | February 9, 2009 12:02 PM
@Philip:
Re: "I don't get this comparison with Google. Everybody is free to set their preferred search and it's way much easier than changing the browser. You can't really remove Internet Explorer and it comes bundled with the operating system so you get it automatically with the computer purchase."
It's easy, once you understand the context. As Aaron and Yump n Yiminy so clearly explain, Microsoft is not a company. It's a Church, Windows is the One True Religion, Bill Gates is its god, and Steve Ballmer is its One True Prophet.
See how it makes sense? If Microsoft holds 90% or more of the desktop, it's not a monopoly because it's the One True Religion. If Google is the preferred search destination, then it's Evil; not because of any back-room deals or lock-in, but because it is Not The One True Religion, it entices True Believers to renounce their Microsoft faith, and therefore it is an Evil Non-Believer.
Or, it's Politics (which is really the exact same thing as organized religion). If one is a cruel dictator whose regime imprisons, tortures, and murders its citizens, that regime is still True and Right because it says so. And attempts to point out the problems, or to simply try and escape from them, are Evil because they contradict the True and Right Regime.
And another country that offers freedom and opportunity to all is Evil because it also contradicts the True and Right Regime and is complicit in its citizens' desires to escape.
It's been my long experience that you can tell how convinced a person is by how calm and reasoned they make their points, and you can tell how terrified a person is by how much emotion and lies they spew in defense of their dearly-held views. If Linux' market share was really 0.83% and stagnant or falling, Windows' adherents would not be emotional and combative; they would either ignore us or laugh at us and move on.
Look at how religious leaders treat the adherents of different religions. Or at how cruel dictators treat those who hold different opinions about human rights. They are livid and combative, not because they dismiss those who disagree with the "Party Line", but because they recognize the threat that freedom and free thought represent to their power.
But fortunately, Microsoft isn't a Church or a Dictatorship (not yet, anyway) and lack the power to physically subdue alternate views and beliefs. And so, instead of invoking terror in those who happen to like to use Apple, Linux, or some variant of Unix, they provide great entertainment to us instead.
As Mark Twain once said, "Billiards is an amusing game. When I am winning, it amuses me. And when I am losing, I yell and curse and stomp around and foam at the mouth, and that most certainly must amuse you."
Mr. Ballmer, you and your minions most certainly amuse me. Thank you!
Posted by Philosopher | February 9, 2009 12:07 PM
Since 2001, PC manufacturers have had the right to
(a) include any browser they want in Windows and
(b) remove access to IE (all icons, all defaults, everything).
The code is not removed because IE's components are part of the OS API set (i.e. any application -- and tens of thousands do -- can use the IE components to connect to the web, parse HTML or render HTML. In fact, Google Chrome, in its first release, used the IE HTTP stack to avoid having to write their own, and get to market faster).
The ability to hide IE completely is available to all users -- just click on "Set program access and defaults" on the start menu, and use the options you find there.
Finally, since XP, nothing in the OS has required IE. XP still requires IE for getting updates, but only if you manually get it yourself. Automatic updates do not require it. Vista and Win7 have no requirements to run IE -- ever.
It's an interesting question why almost no PC manufacturer has chosen to take this option. Microsoft is forbidden from even discussing it with PC manufacturers, so it's not any form of coercion. Microsoft is also forbidden from any form of price discrimination with PC manufacturers #all manufacturers above a certain volume get Windows for exactly the same price#.
Posted by Sean | February 9, 2009 12:11 PM
To: Andre
Quote: "Nothing."
Wrong. Apple is a real monopoly on the Apple compatible computing plaform. They have made it next to impossible to build computers [hardware] for that platform and to all intents and purposes have monopolized the software operating systems for that platform.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is not engaged in monopolizing the hardware on the PC platform, not at all. In fact they have have real competition on the platform. The only thing is, let's face it, for the most part people do not want Linux on the desktop even if they give it away.
Walmart tried to sell Linux PCs and what happens? People want Windows. Linux is more likely to be found on university computers. Noting is stopping manufacturers from putting on something other than Windows, but there's just no market for it.
Apple on the other hand aggressively and with various tricks [including lawsuit and manipulating BIOS firmware] prevent other softwares from being installed on the Apple platform. Furthermore, Apple prevents other computer manufacturers from building Apple platform compatible computers: i.e. they've built a monopoly and a vertical one at that.
Seems though that the Europeans don't care about fairness but only what they can fleece from a successful company.
Posted by Yump 'n Yiminy | February 9, 2009 12:15 PM
Yump 'n Yiminy : There is a big difference between planning to implement a standard and actually implementing it fully and without bugs.
Your definition of important is obviously not in line with most web developers. Most of us would like Canvas, SVG, W3C events not to mention things like the video and audio tags. Instead the implement some features but make them so buggy that we still have to work around IE as a special case. It is too obvious that they would rather their Silverlight won over HTML5. Just like ActiveX won over DHTML and Java.
We can see how bad the problem is because IE8 has a special compatibility mode which uses the IE7 rendering engine. IE clearly still has an unfair advantage here.
At the same time as implementing standards badly they introduce more non-standard features without consulting the rest of the community. For example the new XDomainRequest and the million and one new headers.
We need them to hurry up, they are only now implementing 1990's technology. Everyone else can handle 21st century HTML. Why is IE still so far behind (and holding everyone back in the process).
AFAIK this is the only modern test of important standards and IE fails miserably.
http://acid3.acidtests.org/
Developers care about passing the Acid test so that we can make progress. Why else was Microsoft so happy when they finally passed Acid2? IE scores around 10% on this test with Firefox 3.1 getting 96%. I think Opera now has 100%. How long will we have to wait for IE? 10 years?
Posted by billybob | February 9, 2009 12:24 PM
Joe Says:
"Are these competitors seeking justice or retribution? Are they seeking a reasonable remedy or are they instead engaging in competition by litigation? The answers are important, because antitrust remedies are supposed to restore competition for the future rather than punish for past sins. That's the case in the United States, anyway. Europe is a bit different, with respect to punishment (e.g., fines), but the primary goal of any remedy remains restoration of competition."
----------------------------------------------------
Punishment (fines) needs to be a part of the process. Only in that way, can the EU put MS on notice that if it doesn't comply, there will be another fine with interest. As far as retribution, that would involve settlements to other browser companies, which is different than a fine. I have not seen the EU do that one yet, but I would guess that its within their powers.
--------------------------------------------------
Joe says:
" * Is the marketplace effectively restoring competition in ways that make government intervention unnecessary?
* If not, what intervention is necessary to jump-start competition?"
--------------------------------------------------
NO on the first question, as the power of bundling has given IE extreme advantage. On the second question, for starters, the EU needs to prevent, MS, from, bundling IE in any other product, or even allowing it to be downloaded in the EU as a separate product. The reason for the latter, is that many people use the default, and have now become so indoctrinated to use IE they would just download it, if it was not available bundled with Windows. The EU and the World for that matter, would be far safer and better off, if IE would cease to exist. By not letting MS or anyone else, distribute IE, in any way shape of form,in the EU, it helps to restore the advantage that MS gained over the years, for alternative browsers.
The EU should go further, with this bundling issue of IE, and also revisit the N-Version of Windows without Media Player, and Outlook. By that I mean all these products should be removed from Windows sold in the IE as the only legal version of Windows allowed to be sold there.
--------------------------------------------------
Joe says:
"My point: The marketplace has accomplished what trustbusters couldn't: Revive browser competition. But is it healthy competition? Mitchell says not, in part because IE ships with Windows. One possible remedy would remove the browser from the operating system. But would competition really benefit?
--------------------------------------------------
If IE still has a 60 to 70% would market share of browsers, then its clear that other better browsers have not been able as of yet, to overtake IE, because of the monopolistic bundling practices of MS. Yes, its obvious that the competition would benefit if MS could not bundle IE with Windows.
--------------------------------------------------
Joe Says:
"I believe that Microsoft's integration has demonstrated that the browser causes too much trouble, such as unnecessary bloat and security vulnerabilities. But bundled browsers are operating system developers' design of choice. I visited my first Web site using the browser included with IBM OS/2 Warp (circa, October 1994). Apple bundles Safari with Mac OS X and iPhone 2.0. Mozilla bundles Chrome with Android."
--------------------------------------------------
Agreed, IE causes many security problems. So don't Outlook email, WMP, and Windows Messenger. They should be unbundled and made illegal to distribute as well.
Now, the reason others can bundle and not MS, is these other systems, or company are not considered to be Monopolies. Although, one could make a case for Apple being somewhat of a monopoly. Still, the 2 wrongs do not make a right, before the softies write in to say, "well what about Apple, MS should be able to do this is Apple can." Apples Mac OS X does have a 100% monopoly on its computers. Apples day in court may come at a latter date. But as far as I know, Apple does not make it next to impossible to uninstall it product, like MS has done with IE, WMP, etc. MS making it hard to uninstall these products, are even a worse crime than bundling.
And Joe also cites that Google is bundling and is a monopoly. It could be argued that Google is a monopoly on search only. Its so easy to just switch the home page to another search service, so your argument fall flat on that one. But Google has started to release Operating Systems now, Android is the first one. If those Google OS (Android) on desktop computers, were to ever reach 50% then even google might have to change its bundling.
Posted by Chips B Malroy | February 9, 2009 12:57 PM
I think bundling is a distraction from the real issue of standards. The original complaint was about standards.
The bundling has only come into play because IE uses it's own standards which nobody else can interoperate with. If IE was standards compliant then it would not matter if it were bundled because it could be replaced easily without breaking sites. Who cares that Windows comes with MSHTML.dll? It does not slow down you PC and it does not matter if it is bundled.
Simply unbundling IE would not solve anything. They need to force IE to follow standards so that they do not have an unfair advantage. I think forcing them to make IE9 based on webkit, plus renaming IE6 as something undesirable like '20th century intranet browser' should do it.
If IE suddenly became standards compliant (without any fallback) then web site owners would soon make sure their site worked properly in all browsers instead we have a terrible situation like this where Microsoft have to manually switch rendering engines just to get sites to work properly. No other browser manufacturer has that luxury.
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/02/06/compatibility-list-faq.aspx
Posted by billybob | February 9, 2009 1:14 PM
@billybob:
Great point that MS in general needs to become "standards compliant.
Posted by Chips B Malroy | February 9, 2009 1:48 PM
@billybob,
I agree with your point; it's not about bundling but about standards. Bundling is only an issue when it's an attempt to encourage wide-spread non-standard behavior, using a dominant position to stifle competition.
Case in point: OWA (Outlook Web Access).
The Microsoft Exchange mail services permit the best experience from Microsoft Outlook, with decent IMAP4 and LDAP support (if enabled) allowing Thunderbird on Linux to work well enough.
The second-best client experience is from IE, or from Firefox with the IE Tab extension, both of which are available ONLY on Windows. From Linux, Unix, or Mac, Firefox and Safari yield an abysmal user experience.
On the other hand, Gmail, Google's Mail, works very smoothly and equally well from IE on Windows, Firefox on Mac, and Firefox on Linux.
Therefore, it CAN be done. There are only two valid excuses for Microsoft Exchange not providing proper support for non-IE clients from OWA:
1. Stupidity. Pure, simple, and abject stupidity. One-brain-cell-away-from-death stupidity. Primitive one-celled bacterium stupidity.
2. Leveraging a dominant market share to drive out competition from non-Microsoft clients.
I'll let the EU figure out which it is.
Posted by Philosopher | February 9, 2009 4:15 PM
Will : "Maybe I should change my handle to something less easily picked by chance."
Let know your new nickname.
--------------
Posted by Marco | February 9, 2009 5:27 PM
Dillo
There is a browser out there that is probably the fastest browser available. It loads pages at the speed of light. It is called Dillo. No bloat and it is lean and mean.
http://www.dillo.org/
Sorry, it isn't available for Windows. But it can work with GNU/Linux BSD, OSX, Solaris 10.
If Firefox could make a browser this fast, they could have a 90 to 95% share.
Posted by Ralph | February 9, 2009 7:42 PM
MS is still engaging in abuse of its monopoly power. Why are there now so many "versions" of each Windows product? The "Home" versions are pretty useless so most people go for the "Pro" (now 'business'?) and pay more money - for what? I can see a need to differentiate a 'server' edition (more CPUs, bundled services like IIS, administrative tools) but the numerous illusory choices available to consumers is a joke. The MS strategy is clear: kill off competition then charge $$$ for those 'free' bits they bundle in. How much longer before you have to pay for the MS Media Player?
Another example of MS monopoly abuse: SilverLight (I call it 'silverblight'). Yet another non-standard piece of software for lock-in. I'm not happy with alternatives either - 'Flash' (Adobe), 'Air' (also Adobe) - they're all proprietary and only serve to make websites less accessible as silly web page designers cram in more non-compatible rubbish (for example: why do I need 'Flash' to navigate a manufacturer's product list?)
Posted by Anonymouse | February 9, 2009 9:05 PM
wtf? it's their OS, why can't they put their own software on it
Posted by puppet | February 10, 2009 12:27 AM
It might be even more interesting when the EU gets around to looking at standards for MS Office, and how the ISO standards were corrupted by MS. Expect a very large fine there.
Posted by chips b malroy | February 10, 2009 1:31 AM
Re: "wtf?"
"Windows trashes freedom"?????
Posted by Philosopher | February 10, 2009 9:37 AM
Gee, wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that MS has money? If you can take them for a few billion who cares? The main goal is to tear down every large corporation out there.
My question is: At what point does the little guy become too big? I remember when Novell was King and was torn down. Now look at them. Who is next? Google, Apple, etc.?
Final note: What did the EU do with the money it received from MS? Whose pocket got a little extra padding?
Posted by Jack | February 10, 2009 3:32 PM
You're all barking up the wrong tree. The problem is not "browser market share" on the internet. The problem is that most Microsoft products for the enterprise market demand Internet Exploder as the "One True Browser" to make them work. You can have Mozilla Firefox installed on your Windows Desktop, but you cannot get away from IE, because the enterprise applications for business will not work correctly with other browsers. The use of custom ActiveX components, the IEDs of the internet, is a (design flaw/design win) of Windows. No other browser will take the risk of integrating so dangerous a technology into their product, but Microsoft demands you accept it into your walled garden in your business.
Microsoft has ensured that IE is integrated with the Windows O/S by sprinkling little bits and pieces of IE throughout the DLLs that actually do all the work. This was done several years ago in anticipation of the requirement to gut the O/S of IE and to back up Microsoft's claim that the browser was too closely integrated to remove. The integration was designed to produce the result that you could select another browser, but IE was still required to run Windows.
The battleground for browsers is for the business marketplace, where undocumented features and secret sauce ActiveX components are the methods that Microsoft uses to prevent its business/enterprise customers from defecting. I am writing this on a corporate system that REQUIRES Internet Exploder as the only browser due to corporate support requirements, no doubt influenced by requirements from Microsoft on what they will support.
The best remedy would be to outlaw the use of ActiveX or any other component that is not FULLY documented AND with at least one independent implementation in a competing browser.
Posted by AlphaGeek | February 10, 2009 5:00 PM
Standards are key. Microsoft has ever sought to impose its own standards on the rest of the computing world. ActiveX, Microsoft's Office 2007 document format, the wmi media player format, etc. are all Microsoft's proprietary attempts to control and manipulate their monopoly position. It is this behavior that both the DoJ and the EU went after Microsoft for. Contrary to the author's contention, however, by the time the actual cases and remedies became decided, technology had moved on and the market had changed, making the arguments of those cases moot. IE fans argue that Netscape slit it's own throat while Netscape fans argue that IE's bundling cost them their business. They are both right, with Microsoft being the original aggressor and Netscape's response being suicidal.
The bundling is less of an issue than the integration: you can't currently remove IE from the OS (nor WMP for that matter) without crippling the OS. This is wrong for several reasons. #1 is security - the way the browser is integrated makes it a primary attack vector for malware, and Microsoft has a far from stellar track record here. #2 is consumer choice. Consumers (or OEM's) should be the one's making the choice of bundled applications (including web browser, media player, etc.) - not the OS maker. Any other method and you have the fox guarding the chicken coop and a lack of a true market. The current Microsoft mindset is: "We'll tell you what you need." That mindset is wrong and needs to change.
Posted by blarman | February 10, 2009 6:27 PM
I think there is an aspect of this that everyone is missing:
If Windows does not come bundled with a browser, then how are people supposed to download an alternative browser?
Compared to Linux, which has a package manager for downloading all software, the ONLY method of downloading new software for Windows is via downloading it from some Internet site.
One idea mentioned here was allowing the user to choose the browser at install.
A large number of users (I mean average Joe users) know nothing other than Internet Explorer. Asking them the first time they turn on their computer to choose a browser would likely confuse them.
While I agree that Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows is an unfair competitive advantage, the simple fact is that there is no way for end users to download alternative software (including a browser) without already having an available Internet browser.
Same thing for OS X. Only way is to download new software from the Internet. Safari allows users to get on the Internet initially to download whatever alternative software their hearts desire.
Thus, IE (and Safari for that matter in OS X) really is a necessary component of Windows.
Posted by bw | February 10, 2009 8:28 PM
@bw:
No, this aspect is not missed. And you have a valid point. But it's not about which browser people choose. It about Microsoft enforcing its own encumbered or hidden "standards" on the rest of the world to ensure that competition is subdued or eliminated.
Your point about Linux having a package manager is not valid. First, Linux has no package manager. ut several distributions, RedHat, Suse, and Ubuntu (among many others) have package managers. And second, it's not fair. Linux package managers have the full force of a hundred-billion-dollar company behind it, while Windows is only hacked together by... oops, do I have that backwards? Then how on earth does Windows get out the door without a decent package manager? It's because it leads directly to your next well-reasoned point:
Re: "While I agree that Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows is an unfair competitive advantage, the simple fact is that there is no way for end users to download alternative software (including a browser) without already having an available Internet browser."
So true. So true. Isn't a monopoly wonderful? It lets you kill off your competition and buy up politicians to help make further competition illegal!
Posted by Philosopher | February 10, 2009 10:31 PM
This article is attacking the EC and Mozilla for imposing an unjust and/or ineffective remedy, before any proposed remedy has been announced or even decided.
> My point: The marketplace has accomplished what
> trustbusters couldn't: Revive browser
> competition.
No, "the marketplace" did not. Mozilla's gang of volunteers plus a small skeleton crew kept browser competition alive after the last significant commercial competitor, Netscape, abandoned the space. Mozilla was (and is) a non-profit organization driven by a desire for an open, competitive Internet, not a for-profit corporation attracted by the opportunities of "the market".
It worked, but no thanks to "the marketplace".
That's what Mitchell's getting at. Mozilla's success doesn't show that normal commercial competition is alive, because Mozilla is weird.
Posted by Robert O'Callahan | February 11, 2009 5:16 AM
There is nothing except the competition bureaus that can undo/offset years of abuse of the market by M$. That is what competition law is all about.
Unfortunately, as we saw in US DOJ v M$, it is often too little, and too late.
M$ embedded IE for anti-competitive reasons. It did damage competition. If the EU could calculate that damage and send it to M$, how many billions would it be?
Posted by Robert Pogson | February 12, 2009 2:47 PM
nice post, thanks for sharing!
Posted by Web Development Manila | February 15, 2009 7:09 AM