By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - So, yesterday I saw screens of Microsoft's browser ballot...

lvader on 25 February 2010
scottie said:

 

Bundling IE with windows prevented Netscape from competing with IE and restricted the competition provided by FF,Opera,Chrome etc. So it clearly is against EU law.

Internet browsers are an integral part of the OS, even back then when this all started it wasn't too hard to understand this. You could take any part of the OS and claim anti competavtive behavior. Infact by provideing a browser they are making it easy for people to find and use competators products. It's just legalised robbery, wind fall tax, call it what you want.



Around the Network
AussieGecko on 25 February 2010

I love people having a go at MS. For what exactly? I dont know.

Look Microsoft Windows is a windows application. You dont see the apple iphone getting sued for including itunes do you? no, because it helps people.

Windows is turning into a full package again. Media Player, HELPS the consumer, Internet Explorer HELPS the consumer. Look MS even has certain decent codecs these days straight away, they had a big part in divx and while we are at it directx. Should MS not include those for stupid anti-trust laws as well? GOD NO, it helps people. Im sick of people suing microsoft because they can make a quick buck.

to patjuan32: Google aint completely innocent. If MS does something bad, its purpose, if all holy google does it it is WHHOOOPSIE my bad. They have that many testers, for something like that to go unnoticed is bollocks



 

Bet with Conegamer and Doobie_wop 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

AussieGecko on 25 February 2010

And as somebody said previously about APPLE with SAFARI, its the same thing

So what you're telling me is that MS has to put this selection on their OS' which includes SAFARI, but apple doesnt have to, or any other OS for that matter? EU is ridiculous and looks to be definitely anti MS for the past couple of years.



 

Bet with Conegamer and Doobie_wop 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

AussieGecko on 25 February 2010
nordlead said:
 

actually, based on what the European Union decided the solution was

1) force Microsoft to advertise for the competitor (what they are doing now) which is despicable of the EU to force in a "free" market.

2) force Microsoft to remove IE (and therefore all) browsers from Windows which is stupid and doesn't benefit other browsers at all or consumers.

There really was 0 reason for them to do this. I agree that the European Union likes to extort money from companies. However, I won't say just US companies as we only really hear about the tech company cases on this website.


number one definitely i 100 percent agree, it is crap. It is basically EU trying to get in the news almost... is it going to be everywhere or just Europe...

 

On a seperate matter I used Netscape when I was younger and my god it was horrible, i had to load the whole page before it properly loaded. Where as IE did it little by little i preferred that. Netscape also kept stuffing up lol.

I can see where this is going the same thing is gonna be a choice for media players. Can you imagine if a footy team advertisement had to advertise other sporting clubs as well in the same ad... Just stupid stupid... sorry for the 4 posts but different things popped into my head and i didnt want a long post lol



 

Bet with Conegamer and Doobie_wop 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

scottie on 25 February 2010

Aussie gecko - look at my post a few up. MS is using their monopoly of the OS market to give themselves an advantage in the web browser market.

Apple does not have a monopoly in the OS market, which is why Safari bundles are acceptable under EU law
Apple does not have a monopoly in the smartphone (or the broader phone) market, which is why Itunes bundles are acceptable under Eu law

"Internet browsers are an integral part of the OS, even back then when this all started it wasn't too hard to understand this. You could take any part of the OS and claim anti competavtive behavior. Infact by provideing a browser they are making it easy for people to find and use competators products. It's just legalised robbery, wind fall tax, call it what you want."
Internet browsers are in no sense an 'integral part of the OS' an integral part of the OS has to be integral to running an operating system (restating much) An operating system does not require a web browser, users do. An integral part of an OS is a user interface for example. You are making the mistake made by many other people in this thread in thinking that there is any period of time in which computers sold in the EU will have no browser. This is erroneous. As for your laughable assertion that this is robbery, robbery involves the transfer of goods or money from one party to another. Your claim falls down when you remember that MS was not fined for their illegal actions. What exactly was MS robbed of?



Around the Network
AussieGecko on 25 February 2010

Scottie: your saying because MS is successful in what they do they have to advertise... I understand what you're saying but i think its crud from the EU to do that.

Ok i said nothing about robbery you're going to have to quote me for that one unfortunately..

I understand that Browsers are not essential for OS use but the internet has become so mainstream that it is necessary to have a browser, especially when usually you have to go to the internet to get it. What I am saying is that MS should not have to advertise for other companies.
Google's OS when it comes out should also be given the same choice or its EU just making a choice against MS, which is more against the law then what even google is doing.



 

Bet with Conegamer and Doobie_wop 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

patjuan32 on 25 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
patjuan32 said:
Kasz216 said:
patjuan32 said:
Kasz216 said:
patjuan32 said:
Kasz216 said:
patjuan32 said:
Kasz216 said:
Soleron said:
famousringo said:
I'm glad that they're keeping an eye on Google. I think it's really important that the antitrust hounds keep an eye on Google.

This. I don't think this is intentional wrongdoing (unlike the cases of Intel and Microsoft) but it's good to see they will follow up complaints even about large corporations.

Hah, i'd think google did more wrong then Microsoft did by adding a web browser to windows. There recent apple spat sure shows they're not above it.

Google did more wrong the Microsoft! No just no. You need a couple of links to back up your claims. If you do not have them then your talking out of you butt and it smells.

Microsoft gave away it's internet browser free with windows. Googe intentionally downranked competitors... One of these helps the customer and is reasonable... the other hurts the customer and serves no benefit. What are links needed for? This is the basis of the two claims. One bitches that internet explorer comes with windows... which is a better alternative then say, having to pick a disc and install the browser, which may or may not still be your browser when you can just use IE to download whatever browser you wan... vs intentionally downranking your competitors so they can't beat you. What about that "smells'. IE bundled into windows has benefit to the consumer. What google is doing has none.

That's not a benefit. It eliminates a person's right to choose. It also eliminates the competition and gives Microsoft the control of the browser market and control of the technology. They intentionally gimped Java because they wanted to develop an alternative. Microsoft has committed a number of other  infractions that have hurt the public and their competitors.

 

It eliminates peoples right to choose? How do you figure? People can download ANY internet exploerer they want to. Infact they can do so BECAUSE microsoft put IE on the computers. People before the lawsuit could use any browser they wanted... and microsoft in no way made it harder for other internet browsers to be recognized, only made it easier for people to get their internet browser. Unlike google who is hindering other people.

It did eliminate choice. The two web browsers on the market at the time were Netscape and Internet Explorer. Both browsers surfed the same web and displayed the same content and for the average consumer they did the exact same things. Why would someone go and download a competing browser? They already had the tool needed to surf the web. Thus choice was eliminated.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word choice. People could still download Netscape if they wanted too... infact, Netscape was actually the browser I used for that matter. People still had the choice. Microsoft just gave them a good reason NOT to make that choice. An incentive in "we've already done the work for you". Had Netscape been good enough, and given people good enough reason to use it... people would.

Yes, I understand the word choice. What you do not understand is that both browsers provided the consumer with the same experience. Therefore once Internet Explorer was provided with Windows there was no need for the comsumer to seek out another product that offered the same experience. Let's not forget that the Internet was young at the time and mainstream consumers were not Internet savy and used what ever was provided to them, Windows Media player, Internet Explorer, and other bundled software like Microsoft Works.

Since we can not agree lets to agree to disagree.

Sure... if what we're going to disagree with is your understanding the definition of the word choice. If i offer you a sandwhich myself or the ability to make your own sandwhich, i'm not "robbing" you of the ability to make your own sanwhich. I'm offering you a more convient option. It's called offering more value.

No it's not about the definition of choice. This is what I can not get you to see. But that is you. This is why ther is no point in discussing this further. You a veiw point that you will die to defend and nothing I say will change that viewpoint. QED.



If Nintendo is successful at the moment, it’s because they are good, and I cannot blame them for that. What we should do is try to be just as good.----Laurent Benadiba

 

Kasz216 on 25 February 2010
scottie said:
Kasz216 said:
scottie said:
Kasz - that's all well and good, but hardly relevant under EU or American law*. Using the fact that you have a monopoly in one area to bring about a monopoly in another area is legally defined as anti-competitive behaviour. Or are you trying to argue that it is illegal but moral?

* Good luck taking a large company to court in the US of A though

(a)I actually don't think it was illegal under europeon law either, but just done for political reasons agaisnt microsoft.

(b)A internet browser in a computer is no different than a radio in a car.

Also to make actions illegal based soley on the size of their company and buisness and not based on the merits of the actions themselves is asinine.

(a) "[prohibited are]...all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market..." - Article 81 EC (European Union law)

 

Bundling IE with windows prevented Netscape from competing with IE and restricted the competition provided by FF,Opera,Chrome etc. So it clearly is against EU law.

 

(b) Agreed. So if any particular car company had a monopoly in the European union, it is quite possible that they would be forbidden from manufacturing their own cd players (which few car companies do anyway) and offering them as the only preinstalled option in all their cars. I fail to see the relevance of the comparison though

 

Ahh, perhaps they are asinine, if I were to argue that I would claim that we must judge people not on their actions, but on the effects of their actions. Apple bundling Imacs with Safari doesn't cause an internet browser monopoly, MS bundling IE with windows does, so even though their action is the same, the effect is different, but as I said before, that is really an 'illegal but moral' argument.

 

 

See... i don't see that falling under A.  You may as well consider advertising falling under A if that's the case.  It's a BS interpretation.



Kasz216 on 25 February 2010
patjuan32 said:
Kasz216 said:
patjuan32 said:
Kasz216 said:
patjuan32 said:
Kasz216 said:
patjuan32 said:
Kasz216 said:
patjuan32 said:
Kasz216 said:
Soleron said:
famousringo said:
I'm glad that they're keeping an eye on Google. I think it's really important that the antitrust hounds keep an eye on Google.

This. I don't think this is intentional wrongdoing (unlike the cases of Intel and Microsoft) but it's good to see they will follow up complaints even about large corporations.

Hah, i'd think google did more wrong then Microsoft did by adding a web browser to windows. There recent apple spat sure shows they're not above it.

Google did more wrong the Microsoft! No just no. You need a couple of links to back up your claims. If you do not have them then your talking out of you butt and it smells.

Microsoft gave away it's internet browser free with windows. Googe intentionally downranked competitors... One of these helps the customer and is reasonable... the other hurts the customer and serves no benefit. What are links needed for? This is the basis of the two claims. One bitches that internet explorer comes with windows... which is a better alternative then say, having to pick a disc and install the browser, which may or may not still be your browser when you can just use IE to download whatever browser you wan... vs intentionally downranking your competitors so they can't beat you. What about that "smells'. IE bundled into windows has benefit to the consumer. What google is doing has none.

That's not a benefit. It eliminates a person's right to choose. It also eliminates the competition and gives Microsoft the control of the browser market and control of the technology. They intentionally gimped Java because they wanted to develop an alternative. Microsoft has committed a number of other  infractions that have hurt the public and their competitors.

 

It eliminates peoples right to choose? How do you figure? People can download ANY internet exploerer they want to. Infact they can do so BECAUSE microsoft put IE on the computers. People before the lawsuit could use any browser they wanted... and microsoft in no way made it harder for other internet browsers to be recognized, only made it easier for people to get their internet browser. Unlike google who is hindering other people.

It did eliminate choice. The two web browsers on the market at the time were Netscape and Internet Explorer. Both browsers surfed the same web and displayed the same content and for the average consumer they did the exact same things. Why would someone go and download a competing browser? They already had the tool needed to surf the web. Thus choice was eliminated.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word choice. People could still download Netscape if they wanted too... infact, Netscape was actually the browser I used for that matter. People still had the choice. Microsoft just gave them a good reason NOT to make that choice. An incentive in "we've already done the work for you". Had Netscape been good enough, and given people good enough reason to use it... people would.

Yes, I understand the word choice. What you do not understand is that both browsers provided the consumer with the same experience. Therefore once Internet Explorer was provided with Windows there was no need for the comsumer to seek out another product that offered the same experience. Let's not forget that the Internet was young at the time and mainstream consumers were not Internet savy and used what ever was provided to them, Windows Media player, Internet Explorer, and other bundled software like Microsoft Works.

Since we can not agree lets to agree to disagree.

Sure... if what we're going to disagree with is your understanding the definition of the word choice. If i offer you a sandwhich myself or the ability to make your own sandwhich, i'm not "robbing" you of the ability to make your own sanwhich. I'm offering you a more convient option. It's called offering more value.

No it's not about the definition of choice. This is what I can not get you to see. But that is you. This is why ther is no point in discussing this further. You a veiw point that you will die to defend and nothing I say will change that viewpoint. QED.

Choice = ability to take one action or another.  This is not compromised because Windows offers you a more convient action... period.