MS should just bundle Opera by default. Nobody would want to use that browser to begin with so they will stick with IE 10

That's a very good question, and a very difficult one to answer.

First of all, a major difference is that the iPhone has never had the market share that Windows has. Windows is above 90%, and at the time of the original I.E. bundling I think was close to 95%. iOS peaked at about 25% , and Android is climbing, getting above 70% recently. So maybe they will run into trouble at some stage if their market share continues to climb.

tl;dr duopolies are treated more gently than monopolies.

Secondly, I feel that, at least subconsciously, people hold more complex devices to a higher standard. No-one expects to be able to choose custom firmware for their microwave, yet people are indignant when Sony stops them doing it for their PS3. Microsoft promotes the PC as the device that can do anything, so people expect it to be able to run multiple browsers. Phones however, are making massive progress in terms of features, most people still think of phones having 0 browsers, with 1 being amazing. Again, this may change with time and Android may find itself in trouble.

tl;dr Less choice is more acceptable on phones than PCs.

Thirdly, I think MS make an unconvincing victim (and I make no claims that this is a morally defensible point, I am simply giving my reasons as to why I think it happens.) Who were MS hindering with I.E. bundling? Apple and Google, who are perfectly capable of getting their browser in people's hands, and Mozilla and Opera Soft. 2 victims that you can feel sorry for, 2 that you can't.

Looking back at the market share graph, Google is potentially impacting MS and Apple, but again, no-one will feel sorry for them.

Bada? They don't even compete for the same market.

Rim/Symbian? Those two are in freefall and the blame can be assigned to no-one but themselves.

Google quite simply isn't harming anyone that people care about.

finally, you can get Android phones with Bing preloaded (not Apple, but honestly, 25% market share is too low to even consider Apple for anti competitive behaviour) http://www.businessinsider.com/here-comes-another-android-phone-with-bing-pre-installed-and-this-ones-only-50-2010-11

tl;dr in a legal battle in Australia/Europe, always be David, NEVER Goliath.

After writing all that, I did some Googling. Interestingly enough, American antitrust law will only rear it's head if multiple companies are acting together, or if one company has above 60% - 80% market share. Apple can do whatever they hell they like. Android is probably above 60% in the USA, I assume their market share is higher outside the US, which is quite pro Apple relative to the rest of the world.

I don't appreciate your condescending tone the the bolded statement above, but I'll reply anyway.

You are wrong in your assessment, there is no law that companies must offer services from their competitors, or any law against including a default web browser. Also, there is and was never any evedence that Microsoft including IE as the default browser in Windows (same as Apple including Safari as default) was harming competition in any way. In fact, to the contrary, competition was so vibrant then, that IE was quickly losing market share at the time without the browser ballot in place, and the browser ballot had no impact on market share so was not necessary to begin with. Also, the lack of a browser ballot in W7 SP1 also had no impact on browser market share as IE's popularity continued to plummet. The investigation was crap to begin with, Microsoft voluntarily offered this as settlement because they were already aware of the bullying tactics of the EU.

The original fine in 2004 was related to Windows Media Player and related technologies, as well as closed technology related Windows Client/Server interoperability (not allowing competing server systems to integrate properly with Active Directory/Server 2003/Windows XP).

In 2009, the EU started a new investigation into Microsoft's imagined anti-competitive practice of including their browser as the default (just like every other OS does). This was total nonsense since IE was already in rapid decline (which would not be the case if there were true monopolistic behavior), but MS offered to include a browser ballot as part of a settlement (which also included MS not bundling IE with Windows) rather than fight another investigation, resulting in the EU closing the investigation.

MS had a tech glitch or oversight with W7 SP1 that 'broke' the browser ballot for some EU users (violation of voluntary action in the settlement, note that there is no LAW directly requiring the browser ballot). In spite of the fact that there was absolutely no measurable difference in browser market share related to the missing browser ballot, the fact that MS was still shipping Windows 7 E without IE bundled by default, and that IE's market share is at record lows, now below 30% (meaning no harm was actually done to competition), the EU decided to fine MS as if they had actually harmed competition in some way.

Fines like this should be based on laws and hard evidence. Since there is no law stating that a company must offer competing services, nor any evidence that MS including IE as default had in any way harmed competition, the fine should be small or non-existent. In reality, a 'monopoly' investigation should not be opened against a product or service in rapid decline.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57573159-75/microsoft-the-eu-fine-and-a-browser-ballot-no-one-missed/

"In 2004 the EU fined Microsoft about $800 million for an actual violation of its competition laws. Yet, without a finding that Microsoft actually violated EU antitrust laws in the browser market, the Commission has now fined Microsoft almost as much for its inadvertent and quickly remedied noncompliance with a voluntary commitment."

"In 2009, the Commission settled charges that Microsoft had monopolized the EU browser market -- even as Internet Explorer's market share was plummeting -- by accepting Microsoft's commitment to show a browser ballot in the Windows setup process."

http://windowsitpro.com/article/paul-thurrotts-wininfo/eu-fines-microsoft-732-million-breaking-terms-antitrust-deal-145345

"The European Union fined Microsoft $732 million for breaking the terms of its 2009 antitrust settlement last year by silently removing the Browser Ballot Choice interface from Windows 7. Microsoft, which says it did so inadvertently, is the first company that’s ever broken a voluntary agreement with EU regulators and the fine was aimed in part in sending a message to other would-be scofflaws."

Microsoft offered the browser ballot voluntarily as part of the settlement, that is what I mean by a voluntary commitment. There is no law in place that an entity must offer services from its competitors. The fact that a fine over a technical glitch or inadvertant mistake is so massive is ridiculous.

Any idea that there is any monopolization now is obsurd. There clearly was no monopoly as browser choice was not locked down in '09 when the settlement was made, and since plenty of competing browsers were thriving at the time while IE was in rapid decline.

There is some case to be made for some level of fine, but making a fine over a tech glitch or mistake nearly as large as the original fine (when IE has already lost any semblance of monopoly status, or even prominence) is insane in my opinion.

Why be condescending? I'd like to see somebody present the 'law' that was supposedly broken by including IE as the default browser, especially since IE was and continues to be in decline... huge decline in the EU market. How can a law against monopolization be applied to a product that is being beaten by its competition? That makes no sense.

I think the EU was stupid to fine MS. Too much for something that is private business and none of anyone else's business in any way.

MS doing what it wants with its software should be its business. If it really bothered people they would stop using it.

@ timmah.

You are correct that MS is under no obligation to offer their competitors products. If they don't bundle the computer with WMP, they are under no compulsion to offer itunes bundled. However, you kind of need a web browser - even if only to download a different web browser.

What they can't do (In the EU) is use their monopoly in the OS business to give their products an unfair advantage. Wrangling over the definition of 'monopoly' and 'unfair' is why we have lawyers and juries.

I am aware of the facts, you don't need to bother simply repeating them.

I love your use of the term 'voluntary'.

There was an investigation, which (MS knew) was likely to end in a court case, and likely to end in MS losing that court case.
In order to prevent them from losing the court case, which would involve very serious penalties, MS said "We will start offering a browser selection screen if you drop the investigation"
This was effectively a plea bargain, except MS didn't have to explicitly plead guilty.
MS then failed to keep the terms of their bargain, and were fined for it.

MS took voluntary action, in order to avoid being charged with the crimes they committed.

The simple facts are
* By bundling I.E. with Windows, and not bundling other browsers, MS broke EU law. You may say they did nothing illegal, but that is because you know USA law, not EU law. They broke the law.

* MS voluntarily made a promise to the EU that they would start obeying the law in order to secure a voluntary promise from the EU not to investigate the fact that they previously broke the law.

* MS broke that promise, leaving the EU free to break theirs.

I can understand you thinking that the fine was too high, but you seem to be saying that MS did nothing illegal? This is quite simply untrue, I don't understand why you can't grasp this.

What difference does it make? MS has too much money anyways. I think its better than large companies like MS, Samsung and especially Apple are fined big amounts.

The bolded statement is where I disagree. If MS were making it difficult or impossible to download and install competing browsers, this would be an issue, but that is simply not the case. The fact that their market share was in decline is strong evidence that the practice in question was not harming competition unfairly through their prominent position. In addition, a user can easily do a search for other browsers, then very easily download and install another browser right from IE, how is this harming competition. The law in question essentially states that a company cannot use a prominent position to unfairly limit or harm its competition. The fact that bundling IE clearly does not limit or harm the competition (since consumers can easily download a competing browser and use their own choice without limit) means the law was not broken IMO.

The law is certainly not clear about this specific behavior, so defining what constitutes anti-competitive practice is somewhat subjective. Sombody who believes in open markets with little government interference (only for blatently wrong or illegal behavior) will side with MS on this one because the market can, and did work in this case irrespective of the unnecessary EU decision. Somebody who belives Government is the answer to everything will want the nanny-state to babysit the poor, pathetic, uninformed, helpless citezenry who clearly is incapable of downloading and installing the browser of their choice (or deciding what size soda they want). The reason we disagree on this is not because one of us does not understand the law, but because we have a very different political philosophy, resulting in a differing interpretation of what constitutes harmful anti-competitive behavior.

Seeing that MS did break their agreement, but that it was most likely inadvertent and was quickly remedied once discovered, I'd say the fine is much too large.

At the first part of it. You are right that it is not 100% chance that it is illegal, otherwise the EU would have fined them instead of saying that they would start an investigaton. But the only reason MS made that voluntary agreement was because they thought that the investigation would probably go against them.

At the open markets point, I am neither big government or small government. For every decison, I find as much information about the effects, or potential effects of the decision and ask myself which world I would rather live in. You judge the government's actions, I judge the results. The results of the browser ballet were a reduction in MS's monopoly, and increased competiton, as any good Capitalist knows leads to improved results for consumers.

As for the fine being too large, that depends if we're looking at the justice system as a way to get justice/revenge for past crimes, or to prevent future crimes. A smaller fine would do for the former, but not for the latter. You obviously see the justice system as a way that criminals get what they deserve? I think that's the wrong focus, a justice system based around stopping reoffending is going to lead to a better world to live in.

I agree that the offer was made because MS thought the decision would go against them. In my opinion this is because MS new that, even if they were actually not breaking any law, the EU is so stacked against them that there was no point defending against the charges.

I think only judging the results is very dangerous, as the 'ends justify the means' argument is the one used by pretty much every dictator and tyrannical government in world history. I'm not saying the EU is that by any stretch, but this mindset is a dangerous and slippery slope that can be misused when (not if) the wrong people come to power. I disagree that the browser ballot had any affect on MS losing market share, the trend line did not change when the ballot went into place, nor did IE's decline slow at all when the browser ballot was not working with SP1, so there was no effect on market share trend lines based on the browser ballot, meaning the ballot was not necessary to ensure fair competition. The market actually did this regardless of any outside meddling. In fact, the largest factor in IE's accelerated decline based on trend lines was the introduction and growing popularity of Google's Chrome browser.

I believe the justice system is for both justice and for deterrance of future crimes. Where I disagree is that, even after reading about the law in question, I don't see any case that an actual crime was committed to begin with in this case.