EU to Force Microsoft to Bundle Competing Browsers on Windows and Windows Mobile

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.dailytech.com/EU+to+Require+Microsoft+to+Offer+Competitors+Browsers+With+WIndows/article14392.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.dailytech.com/EU+to+Requ...rticle14392.htm</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"The EU will require Microsoft to package third party browser software with Windows. Furthermore, it will require Microsoft to provide further support efforts to make third party browsers' interface with Windows components like Windows Explorer as efficient as Internet Explorer's. The ruling is set to apply to both desktop Windows OS's and to Windows Mobile for cell phones."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com//ppct/auto/1235583247.usr1.gif" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>Ah, the EU bureaucrats. With the world economy in tatters, they're still running after Microsoft, salivating for more money. Don't they have better things to do? Or maybe fleecing a big American company is part of their plan for the economic recovery of Europe - I wouldn't put it past them. We all know that Microsoft had some heavy-handed, monopolistic tactics back in the '90s - it's a matter of public record. But in the technology world, that's an eternity ago - politics, and even the law, can't keep up with the ferocious pace of technology and they look like idiots when they try. <MORE /></p><p>Internet Explorer may still have the biggest market share, but it's nowhere near where it was years ago, and as consumers we've never had more choices for browsers: Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari, and even IE-engine-based browsers such as Maxthon are all valid alternatives to Internet Explorer. Myself, I use Firefox. If I was setting up a new computer and it came with several browsers as the EU is demanding, I don't see how that's any different than the rest of the crapware I hate seeing from big PC companies. I'm the buyer; let me download and install whatever browser I wish. Do we really need socialism on our computers?</p><p>What really stuns me though is the EU's audacity to apply this to Windows Mobile. There's simply no way you can consider Windows Mobile a monopoly in the mobile world - I'd have to hand that one to Symbian, and even more specifically to Nokia. Why isn't the EU going after Symbian or Nokia? Could it be because Symbian is a European company? Nah, that couldn't <em>possibly </em>be the reason they're being left alone. The browser on Windows Mobile, up until recently, was so bad it's laughable to even consider it somehow "dominant". If this ruling from the EU is applied, it will only make Windows Mobile phones more expensive, have less ROM space for our applications, and possibly make the upgrade story even worse if companies have to license other browsers to include in upgrades.</p><p>All in all, this is a ridiculous decision by the EU and it may have far-reaching negative impact on the computers and phones we use.</p>

[Stinger]

Whilst I agree with you that extending any ruling to Windows Mobile is utterly preposterous, I think your comparison of Nokia's dominance of smartphones to Microsoft's dominance of desktop PCs is equally silly.

Nokia has roughly a 50% share of the smartphone market. Microsoft has an 85%+ share of the desktop OS market. There's also no evidence that Nokia has leveraged its dominance to give itself an unfair advantage over its competitors (that's pretty hard to do when your OS is going open source).

This ruling, as stupid as it is, has nothing to do with Microsoft being an American company.

[efjay]

Sounds like another stupid EU directive. With WM what browsers are supposed to be bundled that are free and not beta? Opera is not a free product, Iris Browser and mobile Firefox are still beta and not compatible with all devices, Skyfire requires data to go through their servers, so how does it make sense to force MS to bundle a browser that consumers will either have to buy or that dont work properly or that could potentially expose their private data? And all this on a device that is limited in the amount of memory dedicated to the OS and preinstalled software. ]

And why does this not apply to Nokia who has the largest market share for mobile phones? Or even the iphone which has sold a few million in Europe?

[efjay]

This ruling, as stupid as it is, has nothing to do with Microsoft being an American company.

That may be true but that hasnt stopped the EU morons from seemingly applying the same rules to WM devices which have no way near the market share as the desktop OS.

[Bob Anderson]

Maybe Microsoft should quit selling Windows in the EU?

Wow wouldn't it be kind of fun for them to say, "we are going to pull out of the EU market." Think of the ruckus that would spawn! It would be liberating for a change. The politicians running for cover alone would be worth it.

As for the "bundling" issue with Windows Mobile - my God - is Europe just about the lawyers? The competition is so fierce in the mobile space that it isn't even fair to make that assertion. I want Apple to be forced to open their platform to include WM PIE!!!!! I want every phone to have every mobile browser on it. This is what lawyers/bureaucrats do when they don't want to work on the world's real financial problems.

Admittedly, sometimes my "chaotic" side takes over and says, just throw the entire world into turmoil to teach a lesson. That's what the Middle East countries did during the Oil Embargo of 1974 and they got their point across quite nicely - with no serious long-term implications.

[Perttir]

This (default browser) is already a reality - Bying HTC Touch devices one gets Opera as a default browser. So, OEM (HTC) has done the selection Opera over IE and not MS ! So, where do we need EU ?

[ignar]

What's next? Mandatory Pocket IE on Apple iPhone? :eek:

[The Yaz]

I'm grateful that the EU always comes out with rulings that are so unreasonable. I'd hate to see them suggest someting more reasonable that MS would agree to (i.e. How about selling multiple versions of the same phone but preloaded with different internet browsers?).:confused:

Imagine having to not only choose a phone but at the time of purchase "pick" the browser you want included (yuch). Oh and by the way, if you select any product other than PIE you'll forfeit any OS upgrades for that phone since I doubt any company is going to take the time to build multiple OS copies for each phone...

By the way, aren't some of the hardware manufacturers already providing phones in the marketplace without PIE? I recall Sony Ericson and HTC have both done it so...

Either way, MS will need a few more lawyers and we'll need to pay more for each copy of Windows 7 when it finally comes out.

Just what we need in a bad economy, higher costs for our toys :rolleyes:

Steve

[Rocco Augusto]

You would think with the global economic crisis going on at the moment the EU would have better things to do then pick on Microsoft for offering a browser with their operating system. You don't hear them going after Apple forcing them to package a different browser with OS X besides Safari.

What irks me the most about this situation is that a group of politicians, who most likely aren't very computer literate, have the nerve and the power to sit around and dictate how I could and could not use my computer if I lived in Europe. As a user, if I want to use a different browser then I just download one. I don't need a law passed to give me that option to do so.

And yes, while I understand that there are plenty of users out there that are not as skilled or as proficient with a computer as all of us are, do you really think it is a good idea to confuse those users by giving them a "ballot" screen with a slew of options to choose from?

Isn't there more important things to do in Europe then picking on Microsoft?

[Stinger]

That may be true but that hasnt stopped the EU morons from seemingly applying the same rules to WM devices which have no way near the market share as the desktop OS.

Don't mistake incompetence for malice. :)

[j2inet]

This ruling is kinda weird in that ultimatly the OEM decides what goes on a Windows Mobile image. Even if Mucrosoft includes another browser in the Adaptation Kit for Windows Mobile the OEM can opt whether or not to include it. Likewise if Microsoft doesn't include it in the kit the OEM can still opt whether or not to include a third party browser.

I don't like the idea of the rulling, but with the line between netbooks and phones becoming thinner this will undoubtedly ensure that Windows Mobile based netbooks are covered by the ruling.

[wetsleet]

what is the problem here? The reason MS bundles IE in Windows is because wihout it would be very difficult to download Firefox! :)

[Jason Dunn]

what is the problem here? The reason MS bundles IE in Windows is because wihout it would be very difficult to download Firefox! :)

Haha - right, exactly! :D

[JKingGrim]

what is the problem here? The reason MS bundles IE in Windows is because wihout it would be very difficult to download Firefox! :):) exactly what I was going to say. What if windows came with no browser? Now I have to drive to best buy to purchase a browser on a disc? Then everyone would curse and say windows sucks because you cant even browse the web out of the box when you can with a mac (because as others have pointed out, no one attacks mac for bundling safari; in fact, the situation is worse with the iphone where steve jobs wont let and software that poses competition to the built in apps or cell carrier services get to the app store). Why shouldnt microsoft be allowed to choose what programs they want built in? They want the OS to deliver a good experience out of the box. They are not preventing you from downloading other browser. If a user is not computer savvy and is not aware that there are alternatives, then that is the consumers fault or the software vendor's problem for not adequately advertising their product. Must microsoft now provide free advertising for competing products?

If anyone should be sued its apple and att in the US, as well as other carriers who try to prevent you from doing anything with your handset that doesn't make them money. What exactly is Microsoft doing that is so evil? They make some of the most open desktop and mobile platforms available (as open as it gets if you are closed source and commercial software).

[Jason Dunn]

I should also point out that the EU is seemingly ignoring the fact that Windows 7 is going to come without an email program, a contacts program, a calendar program, a newsgroup reader, a instant messaging client, a video editing program, and a photo management program.

LOTS of room for competitors to innovate there, for OEMs to bundle other solutions, etc. What does the EU expect? Microsoft to ship an OS without *any* browser? Are we going to go back to those days of buying the latest version of NetScape for $30 at a retail store? :rolleyes:

[benjimen]

...just plain stupid... The ruling isn't exactly relevant. General knowledge of available browser options is widely comprehended by the average user of 2009, which definitely wasn't the case 9 years ago when these court cases seemed to begin.

Which browsers are deemed to be worth requiring? Chrome? Opera? Safari? Firefox? Who decides... the government? Geez...

For either Windows or Windows Mobile, a requirement that links pointing to alternate browser downloads be made prominently available during the setup process would seem much more appropriate...

[moaske]

Well...it's not like a little more socialism in the economy will hurt the world... The US continental model hasn't done the world that much good lately...
Aside that; i don't like the government interfering too much with us civilians as well, so neither i like the idea by ruling. However; i didn't exactly pick up that many reasonable arguments against (apart from EU-bashing that is...).
And too counter the 1974 oil-crisis remark; that is exactly what the EU is trying to prevent for the future: a dominance like that that can cripple the whole world if it sees fit to do so...

Still.... to extend this to WM is preposterous as said before... ;)

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Haha - right, exactly! :D

Feh, you guys are wussies. L2FTP. :P

[Jason Dunn]

Well...it's not like a little more socialism in the economy will hurt the world... The US continental model hasn't done the world that much good lately...

But this isn't an economic policy, it's a technological policy - clearly made by people who are utterly clueless about technology.

[ptyork]

Well...it's not like a little more socialism in the economy will hurt the world... The US continental model hasn't done the world that much good lately...

Dude, you dropped out of high school and hit your head on the way down. ;) First, what the heck does Socialism have to do with this? With Socialism, government selects or creates and then runs single providers of goods and services (state-run monopolies) with the thought that this does away with the inefficiencies of competition. This has to do with trying to prevent the formation of a monopoly to encourage greater competition. Despite the idiotic and out-of-touch nature of their arguments, it is certainly anti-Socialistic.

The continental model was the name given to Napoleon's policy of economic warfare through embargo. There are arguably aspects of this in place today (in the US and elsewhere), but it has NOTHING to do with this issue, Socialism, or the current recession. Incidentally, ask the USSR how well a little Socialism did for their economy. You think this recession is bad, try living in rural Ukraine in the failing years of the Soviet Union.

I don't normally attack like this (especially since I basically agree with the rest of your post), but if you're going to make misguided political statements you should be expecting rebukes. ;)

[marlof]

First, what the heck does Socialism have to do with this?

I don't know. But to be fair: it's not Moaske that brought this into the argument. From the original post:

Do we really need socialism on our computers?

[moaske]

Thanks Marlof....that's exactly what i was responding to...
Maybe i should have added on the bottom of my post: "start flaming".... ;)

True, socialism didn't do the USSR much good, but then again we aren't talking about a little socialism here anymore... It's a comparison that just misses the target completely.

Leaving the market completely free and to itself ain't the way to go either... It makes companies too powerfull, and when a company grows too big it will stop competition merely by it's dominance alone, and eventually the day will come that they will misuse their position... (like the OPEC did).
Jason argued that this a technological issue... I think it ain't... This has to do with the EU's frantic efforts to reduce monopolies on a otherwise free market, and so just to initiate more competition. They do it to all our mobile operators as well; the EU sets maximum tarifs for data and speech and roaming... Until now that ruling generated only more players on the market; that's good ain't it?
It will never become socialism like the USSR, because the world has seen that system fail utterly... The only thing that makes it tech is this: socialism like the USSR model stops innovation, and that can never happen for a healthy competitive market... i agree!

I still think the Mobile part is a silly rule (aspecially because it's insane to reduce marketshare that's non-existent), but don't you guys on the other side of the Atlantic think that it's just US companies that get picked on by the EU....examples over here are numerous!

[Rahza]

I just don't understand what the EU's problem is! :eek:

For example, you don't tell a car company to remove the steering wheel from their cars, just because it isn't fair for companies that make steering wheels solely?

This whole affair is just laughable. If this continues we will have to buy stuff in seperate parts and solder them together ourselfs. Nice future prospect. But atleast all companies have "fair competition". :o Yeah right.

[griph]

I hope that you guys aren't inferring that everyone in the EU are "Morons", "Incompetent" etc. ;-) I am sure you wouldn't want us European Union citizens to be saying the same about the US!

[Gti]

http://www.repubblica.it/2008/10/sezioni/economia/antitrust/multa-pasta/este_26105845_58520.jpg

This is a today news: the Anti Trust Italian autority want make under penalty of Eur 12.500.000 some maccheroni (pasta!) big industries. They are charged of an oligopolistic agreement to take expensive the maccheroni price. 12.5 Millions, only in Italy, just for pasta... They are the rules of a real free market.
Kind regards from Europe, Jason! :)

Link (google "translated"):
http://translate.google.it/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.repubblica.it%2F2008%2F10%2Fsezioni%2Feconomia%2Fantitrust%2Fmulta-pasta%2Fmulta-pasta.html&sl=it&tl=en&hl=it&ie=UTF-8

[Bob Christensen]

Don't mistake incompetence for malice. :)

No mistake... there is plenty of incompetence AND malice.

[doogald]

I just don't understand what the EU's problem is! :eek:

For example, you don't tell a car company to remove the steering wheel from their cars, just because it isn't fair for companies that make steering wheels solely?

This whole affair is just laughable. If this continues we will have to buy stuff in seperate parts and solder them together ourselfs. Nice future prospect. But atleast all companies have "fair competition". :o Yeah right.

I can't believe that I seriously need to remind people of this, but, here we go.

Ok, let's say that there is a company that, in Europe, sells about 95% of the controls that are used for automobiles. That company's (let's call it "Macrofirm") controls come with a joystick that the driver uses to control steering.

Along comes a company (let's call it "Grosspoint") starts selling this cool steering wheel that plugs into a Macrofirm control and allows you to steer the car with it instead of the joystick, if you wish. There are a lot of people who really like this idea; many people start buying Grosspoint steering wheels.

Suddenly, Macrofirm comes out with a new version of the controls, but they also allow you to add a steering wheel that they manufacture to replace the joystick. However, they add the steering wheel for no additional cost to their controls.

Since they have 95% of the market for auto controls, almost every control that is purchased is from Macrofirm. Their customers are very, very unlikely to pay extra for a Grosspoint steering wheel. Grosspoint complains to the authorities, saying that Macrofirm is using their control of the marketplace to kick Grosspoint out. Macrofirm is already operating under an agreement (agreement = they agree) to not use their market position to add features to their controls that other companies make, as they have done this very thing before. But rather than admit that they broke their agreement, they resist any sanction, they insist that they cannot sell a version of their controls without a steering wheel, despite the fact that plenty of experts show that it's quite possible to sell these controls without a Macrofirm steering wheel. Well, they lose their case, lose their appeals, and then, when their penalty is given to them - they must release to potential makers of other controls that could plug into the system exactly how pieces of it interact, so that they can create other pieces, to replace brakes, say, or gear shifters, and they must allow their customers to offer other steering wheels from other companies rather than just their own, as well as selling a version of the controls without the steering wheel - well, Macrofirm drags their heels on this as well.

(You can also replace Macrofirm and Grosspoint with BU&U and NDJ for another US example of this.)

That's what the EU's problem is. When you break regulations, break consent agreements, receive punishment for it, but delay taking the punishment, these are the consequences that you face.

And, yes, the Windows Mobile thing is dumb. But it's not like Microsoft has not earned these sanctions. They tried awfully hard to avoid punishment, stupidly, and they continue to pay the price.

[Jason Dunn]

I hope that you guys aren't inferring that everyone in the EU are "Morons", "Incompetent" etc. ;-)

I don't think anyone is saying that - I definitely wasn't. I think the universal rule is that politicians, no matter where they are in the world, share the same pool of brain cells for the most part. :D

[Christopher]

Oh... these are posts, now by JD, that really make me sad. And then the discussion contributions.

Hey, if you young people really think you are so smart... why don't you study economics or politics. The unfortunate thing is that you would probably see things a bit different afterwords.

I assume staying away from a this site is the best thing to do. You really make me sad.

[Jason Dunn]

That company's (let's call it "Macrofirm") controls come with a joystick that the driver uses to control steering...Along comes a company (let's call it "Grosspoint") starts selling this cool steering wheel that plugs into a Macrofirm control and allows you to steer the car with it instead of the joystick, if you wish. There are a lot of people who really like this idea; many people start buying Grosspoint steering wheels. Suddenly, Macrofirm comes out with a new version of the controls, but they also allow you to add a steering wheel that they manufacture to replace the joystick. However, they add the steering wheel for no additional cost to their controls. Since they have 95% of the market for auto controls, almost every control that is purchased is from Macrofirm.

So by your logic, Macrofirm isn't allowed to improve their cars in any that competes with products that anyone else has made. They couldn't add CD players if a third party was making CD players for their cars. They couldn't offer better tires on their cars if someone else was offering better after-market tires. They couldn't add heated seats if someone else was offering it. Year after year the Macrofirm car would stay the same, never improving, for fear of someone getting angry with them and launching a lawsuit. How does that help me as a consumer? Lawsuits should never be launched to stifle competition.

Companies, of all types, will try to continue to improve their products. I want that. I like that. If companies such as Grosspoint want to get my money, they need to innovate and offer something better than what I'm getting for free. If they can't, they deserve to perish as a business. As long as Macrofirm isn't trying to stop Grosspoint's product from working in my car (which would be unfair, and if that happened, that should get slapped), why would I care about one company competing with another company? If it benefits me as a consumer, giving me a better product, more choices, etc., I'm all for it.

The numbers that the EU are demanding for payment are simply ridiculous, as are proposed "solutions".

[Jason Dunn]

Oh... these are posts, now by JD, that really make me sad. And then the discussion contributions. Hey, if you young people really think you are so smart... why don't you study economics or politics. The unfortunate thing is that you would probably see things a bit different afterwords.

I wonder, how many times did you re-write that paragraph to make it as condescending as possible? :confused:

I freely admit that there is much that I do not know - in fact, I don't know most things there are to know in this world - but taking a condescending tone makes you look like an arrogant person. If we're so wrong, and don't "get it", why don't you try to explain it to us rather than talk down to us?

I assume staying away from a this site is the best thing to do. You really make me sad.

Based on the other posts you've made here (http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/search.php?do=finduser&u=31087), all having the same type of condescending tone, I'm not entirely sure why you're still here and still posting.

If you want to contribute your thoughts and opinions to this topic, please do - that's what community discussion forums are for. Everyone is welcome to sharei their opinion as long as it's in a reasonable and respectful manner.

But if you're going to strut around like an posturing intellectual peacock, shaking your feathered head at the "ignorance of the masses", you're welcome to flap your wings and go someplace else.

[doogald]

So by your logic, Macrofirm isn't allowed to improve their cars in any that competes with products that anyone else has made. They couldn't add CD players if a third party was making CD players for their cars. They couldn't offer better tires on their cars if someone else was offering better after-market tires. They couldn't add heated seats if someone else was offering it. Year after year the Macrofirm car would stay the same, never improving, for fear of someone getting angry with them and launching a lawsuit. How does that help me as a consumer? Lawsuits should never be launched to stifle competition.

In the case of Microsoft, they entered in a consent decree (again, consent = they agreed to do this) not to. They broke the consent decree. They argued that they did not, but they lost their argument in court. And, in the US, on appeal. I suspect that they appealed the EU rulings as well. They lost. When you sign a contract that says that you are going to do something, and then you break that contract, there are consequences.

The reason for the consent decree was not to stifle competition and feature addition - it was to create some. If you, as a company thinking about adding an app that adds a particular feature to Windows, and hoped to market it, but feared that Microsoft might just add that feature to a future release, you might think twice about even bothering to do so. If you, as a tire manufacturer, suddenly found that pneumatic tires were better than solid ones, perhaps you might decide not to bother, knowing that Macrofirm would just add them to a future set of controls.

Companies, of all types, will try to continue to improve their products. I want that. I like that. If companies such as Grosspoint want to get my money, they need to innovate and offer something better than what I'm getting for free.

Again, I hate to waste time arguing things that have been argued ad nauseam, but when a company with a super-dominant position in a particular market ties their dominant product to another product, effectively changing the value of an internet browser, say, from whatever it was ($20 a user, $40, whatever it was) to zero solely because of their monopoly, this is illegal activity. Microsoft financed the development of their browser from profits gained from their monopolistic position in Windows and Office. It's what Microsoft has been found to have done; and this was - I hate to be repetitive - after they had agreed in prior court cases not to do these things. Remember, there was no IE for free before Netscape's browser was around. It's certainly not like Netscape tried to enter the market with a browser that they charged for that already had a free Microsoft browser - there simply was no IE. And (if I am not mistaken) Microsoft actually did initially charge for the browser when it came out with Win95 - you needed to buy the Plus package to get it.

The numbers that the EU are demanding for payment are simply ridiculous, as are proposed "solutions".

Again, Microsoft had to know that they were risking this when they started fighting the illegal tying ruling. They apparently decided it was worth the risk (and, based on the fact that they did gain dominant market share in browsers, were not required to split up the company, a la AT&T, and their fines were not painfully exorbitant, I think that it was probably worth the cost that they've paid.)

Also, this (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=58236) is a pretty interesting analysis of the positive effect on the marketplace of the IBM 1956 mainframe consent decree.

But, separating one's opinion of the veracity of the EU's antitrust claims against Microsoft, the fact remains that Microsoft was found to be in violation of the sanctions imposed against them, and when you wonder why the EU is acting as they are - this is the reason.

[virain]

Dude, you dropped out of high school and hit your head on the way down. ;) First, what the heck does Socialism have to do with this? With Socialism, government selects or creates and then runs single providers of goods and services (state-run monopolies) with the thought that this does away with the inefficiencies of competition.

That is not excactly right. Socialism is a political structure not economical. That means Socialism would not neccessary prevent buisness from competition and build governent run monopoly. But it will redistribute wealth created by buisnesses so, in ideal situation, everyone has the same as everyone else as far as goods, services, money, etc.. And here are few history examples: USSR after 1917 bolshevick coup, Lenin implement NEP ( new economic policy) allowing small businesses to be created and compete. USSR, late 60's yearly 70's encourage government owned enterprises to compete between themselves and ther rest of the world, as a result those were the most prosperouse years for Soviet Union, but then Breznev administration decided its too much hustle, and institute hard headed, not flexible at all 5 years planning, that can't be broken or changed and that has led to demice of USSR. And most recent example todays China. And nomather how West ideologists trying to avoid naming it as Socialism Europe is in some kind of transitional state from Capitalism to Socialism. Even Lenin said that this transition is possible in a peaceful manner. If you grow up in Ukrain during Soviet times you should know those things, unless you were too young to remember :)
Now back to MS vs. EU. It is nothing more than what we call extortion and protectionism on a part of EU. They would love to put Opera on every PC and who knows, maybe Symbian OS on a Descktop too.

[ptyork]

That is not excactly right. Socialism is a political structure not economical. That means Socialism would not neccessary prevent buisness from competition and build governent run monopoly. But it will redistribute wealth created by buisnesses so, in ideal situation, everyone has the same as everyone else as far as goods, services, money, etc.. And here are few history examples: USSR after 1917 bolshevick coup, Lenin implement NEP ( new economic policy) allowing small businesses to be created and compete. USSR, late 60's yearly 70's encourage government owned enterprises to compete between themselves and ther rest of the world, as a result those were the most prosperouse years for Soviet Union, but then Breznev administration decided its too much hustle, and institute hard headed, not flexible at all 5 years planning, that can't be broken or changed and that has led to demice of USSR. And most recent example todays China. And nomather how West ideologists trying to avoid naming it as Socialism Europe is in some kind of transitional state from Capitalism to Socialism. Even Lenin said that this transition is possible in a peaceful manner. If you grow up in Ukrain during Soviet times you should know those things, unless you were too young to remember :)

Sounds like you're from the Motherland so I won't argue much, but at least in the West, Socialism is generally used to refer to the socioeconomic theories/policies that call for state-run, planned economies (means of production/distribution/trade). Communism is more often used to denote the sociopolitical structure that grew up around the attempt to enforce a Marxist utopia. I know they are two very distinct concepts and that the label Communism got completely intertwined with USSR/Chinese political policies, but I think most here would consider Socialism (like Capitalism) to be primarily economic in nature. The NEP was counter to rigid Socialist (though not necessarily Marxist) doctrine in the same way that government guarantees and government ownership of businesses and banks is counter to Capitalist doctrine. Just because Lenin implements the NEP doesn't make it a Socialist ideal in the same way that Bush/Obama buying banks doesn't make this a Capitalist ideal.

Incidentally, if all you have on the line is pride (i.e., not individual wealth and prosperity), "competing" among businesses will never work, at least not for long. China today has thousands of individual millionaires whose wealth is NOT being redistributed--their "Communism" has almost no Socialism left in it (only rigid bureaucracy). THIS is why they are succeeding through competition.

I don't think anyone is denying that Europe and the US are both transitioning towards Socialism [shudder!]--I was just pointing out that this particular ruling was not necessarily in keeping with a Socialist doctrine.

No, I grew up in suburban Georgia (bordering South Carolina, not South Ossetia). I just visited Ukraine for a few weeks shortly after the fall of the USSR. Stayed in Kiev, which wasn't too bad, but also spent some time in more rural areas which were just sadly depressed. Note, I also visited Czech Republic two years ago and was amazed how quickly their economic "blossoming" disappeared once you left Prague (my point being that recovering from USSR-style Communism is a long, tough process).

Hopefully a "little" Socialism is all we'll see in my lifetime.

[JKingGrim]

Ok, let's say that there is a company that, in Europe, sells about 95% of the controls that are used for automobiles. That company's (let's call it "Macrofirm") controls come with a joystick that the driver uses to control steering. Along comes a company (let's call it "Grosspoint") starts selling this cool steering wheel that plugs into a Macrofirm control and allows you to steer the car with it instead of the joystick, if you wish. There are a lot of people who really like this idea; many people start buying Grosspoint steering wheels.

***long quote trimmed by mod JD***

I think your analogy is flawed. Before Macrofirm started bundling the streering wheel, there was still a way to control the car, the joystick. With Microsoft, without bundling IE there would be no way to browse the web. A more fitting analogy would be that Macrofirm sells cars with no steering mechanism. Not a big deal at the time because for the most part everybody only needed to drive straight back and forth. Along comes Grosspoint who comes out with a steering wheel. Not to be out done, Macrofirm begins selling their own steering wheel. They soon decide to start bundling the steering wheel with the car at no extra cost. I see that this will obviously kill the market for Grosspoint steering wheel (or effectively reduce the value of a steering wheel to $0) but what is the alternative? By now, roads are everywhere and they are curvy. Everybody needs a steering wheel. Should Macrofirm have to force customers to go to a third party to buy a steering wheel after buying the car? Then their product would be useless without purchasing additional products. It would be crippled. Say some other company with significantly less market share (lets call them "pear") began selling cars. Are they allowed to bundle a steering wheel? If so, how is Macrofirm's crippled product supposed to compete? And another thing, is reducing the value of a steering wheel (or back to the real topic) an internet browser to $0 necessarily a bad thing? It may kill Grosspoint's (or Netscape's) market but is it really bad for the consumer? Do you think an internet browser is something you should pay for? Microsoft bundling high end CAD software or even bundling MS office with windows is one thing, but an internet browser in this day and age is an essential component to an OS.

[moaske]

..... Do you think an internet browser is something you should pay for? Microsoft bundling high end CAD software or even bundling MS office with windows is one thing, but an internet browser in this day and age is an essential component to an OS.
I think you just hit the nail on the head here...and you just made the whole discussion superfluous ;) hahaha!

[doogald]

And another thing, is reducing the value of a steering wheel (or back to the real topic) an internet browser to $0 necessarily a bad thing? It may kill Grosspoint's (or Netscape's) market but is it really bad for the consumer? Do you think an internet browser is something you should pay for? Microsoft bundling high end CAD software or even bundling MS office with windows is one thing, but an internet browser in this day and age is an essential component to an OS.

Ok, fine, your analogy is better (though not perfect - Windows browsers that allowed you to download software existed well before IE shipped with 95 - I used AOL and Compuserve, others perhaps used Netscape Navigator or Spyglass or even Lynx), but the key fact remains - Microsoft entered into a consent agreement. They consented (i.e., again, agreed in writing) not to add any additional Microsoft products as free features to future Windows OSes. (Note that they were not prevented from adding new, free features; they just could not take a Microsoft product and then decide to bundle it as a feature into the OS later. They could certainly add and bundle Outlook Express; they could not bundle Word, which was sold as a separate product from the OS.) IE began life as a separate product that Microsoft then bundled, not a feature. Microsoft argued in court otherwise; they lost.

Apple, on the other hand, never entered into such a consent agreement not to add products as features in their OS. In fact, they recently had an antitrust complaint dismissed.

I think that by now the market has decided that an Internet browser is not a product that I need to pay for to install, but Microsoft, because of their monopoly position in the OS market, and because of their consent agreement, was prevented legally from making that choice for us. But, considering the quality of these apps - the fact that there are security breaches discovered in their code quite often, and very, very often for more than 10 years after this violation - perhaps it could be argued that this illegal tying did, in fact, harm some consumers, as a lack of revenue to develop products properly has caused these less than perfect apps. I'm not really making that argument, but I could definitely see it being argued by somebody who cared about it more than I do.

All of this said, after looking into this more, the EU complaint was not initiated by Netscape but by Novell (joined later by Sun). Novell's beef was that Microsoft required OEM partners to pay licenses for an MS OS for every computer that they sold, whether it had one installed or not. Sun later complained about the fact that Microsoft was illegally not publishing secret APIs for streaming technology in NT that allowed Microsoft to bundle Windows Media software and prevented competitors from offering competing products (which is why Microsoft now must offer a version of Windows in the EU with Windows Media Player removed).

And, again, I am just trying to answer the question, what in the world is the EU's problem? I'd prefer not to argue whether these court decisions (and settlements) were correct or not. The fact is, they exist, and to argue that Microsoft should be allowed to break these settlements just because you disagree with them is the same as suggesting that you can just not pay a speeding ticket that you challenge and lose in court just because you disagree with the speed limit, or whatever.

[Rahza]

And, again, I am just trying to answer the question, what in the world is the EU's problem? I'd prefer not to argue whether these court decisions (and settlements) were correct or not.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm a biomedical scientist myself, so economics and law aren't my cup of tea.

But isn't all this a bit too late? I mean Netscape has suffered the consequences already. And meanwhile IE is facing good competition and is losing marketshare. I don't want to say that Microsoft should go unpunished, they clearly violated some law as you stated. However, from how I understand this MS violated the agreement at the moment IE was included in Windows for free. Why didn't the EU act right then?

[JKingGrim]

Ok, fine, your analogy is better (though not perfect - Windows browsers that allowed you to download software existed well before IE shipped with 95 - I used AOL and Compuserve, others perhaps used Netscape Navigator or Spyglass or even Lynx), but the key fact remains - Microsoft entered into a consent agreement. They consented (i.e., again, agreed in writing) not to add any additional Microsoft products as free features to future Windows OSes. (Note that they were not prevented from adding new, free features; they just could not take a Microsoft product and then decide to bundle it as a feature into the OS later. They could certainly add and bundle Outlook Express; they could not bundle Word, which was sold as a separate product from the OS.) IE began life as a separate product that Microsoft then bundled, not a feature. Microsoft argued in court otherwise; they lost...You make some very good points. They way I see it, there are both good and bad consequences to Microsoft's actions. The good is that it helped make internet browsers become free and ubiquitous. The bad is that by stiffling competition, it made users put up with a browser that was not exactly cutting edge and was riddled with security problems. Only now are users really presented with a selection of great quality browsers. And the fact that they reneged on their written agreement.

One question I have is that is there any way for microsoft to withdraw from a consent agreement if they have good reason. For instance, say they had not bundled IE and Mac came out as a serious competitor. Peopled loved Macs because out of the box you can start surfing the web. What is microsoft to do in this situation?

Also, Im curios. If microsoft's purpose in bundling IE was to eliminate competition what would they gain from it? Sure, your browser now has a vast majority of market share, but if it is free now its not making you any more money is it? What did they gain from it?

I am no advocate of laissez faire true free market economics. When companies have no leash they abuse their position time and time again. Microsoft did once abuse their position but today I dont see MS as an evil giant anymore. Things have moved on and the EU needs to move on too. No one is complaining that they have a web browser on their computer.

[Jason Dunn]

This has been an interesting thread to read, and I appreciate the efforts of doogald to explain things that I didn't realize. Quite enlightening!

[Jason Dunn]

Also, Im curios. If microsoft's purpose in bundling IE was to eliminate competition what would they gain from it? Sure, your browser now has a vast majority of market share, but if it is free now its not making you any more money is it? What did they gain from it?

Control. By making IE the standard for Web browsing, they were able to control the way the Web looked to some degree - ActiveX control licensing, development, etc. were how they made some money (though I doubt much). The Microsoft of the '90s was all about control though, and that's why they did so many things wrong...