EU hits Microsoft with $357 million fine
By Evan Blass 
posted July 12th 2006 12:40PM
posted July 12th 2006 12:40PM
Even though we've resigned ourselves to the fact that Windows Vista isn't coming out until it's good and ready, EU regulators aren't as forgiving as us when it comes to Microsoft playing the delay game, and have hit the software giant with a $357 million fine based on that 2004 anti-competition ruling. What's more, EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes has decided to slap the company with a three million euro-per-day fine starting on July 31st if the document disclosure stipulation of the original decision -- which requires Microsoft to 
I won't comment on favor or against microsotft as this is a so heated issue... i just want to clarify the idea on this comments and article are COMPLETLY WRONG... they don't want the source code for windows... no one is asking for that... and is not about how hard or easy is to make windows apps... it isn't even about internet explorer. Is about non standard server protocols and documentation of those so other software can interact with windows. It is also confusing for me because all the generalized missinformation. But well, it is a blog so you can write what you want
I won't enter on especifics and i won't tell anything about the documentation being right or wrong because i don't know.
Seems like so many people are saying you can't get the other browsers without going online to download them with IE.
Here in NYC, AOL has been distributing their installation discs in many places.. supermarkets, computer stores, etc. If EU wants MS to stop bundling IE and WMP in its OSes, they should start making installation discs for ALL internet browsers in the world like AOL does here, distribute it in all sorts of stores, to make sure people can get it whenever they want. And provide links to places where users can download popular media players like WMP, VLC, WinAMP, iTunes, etc.
If EU is willing to do that, then companies like MS and Apple can stop integrating their own browsers and media players into their OSes. But I think they should be included in the installation kit.
Microsoft should be fined for releasing Vista and calling it a new operating system when it is really just XP SP 3.
Isn't evident from some of the foolish comments. Are you trying to excuse these stupid comments or something? ANYWAY we are digressing from the real topic which is the enormous fine and additional fine, nearly 1 BILLION DOLLARS.
Who's excusing what?
ARE ASKED YOU WETHER YOU, BOB, WERE TRYING TO EXCUSE THOSE FOOLISH COMMENTS BY QUIBBLING OVER SPECIFICS WHEN YOU QUITE CLEARLY GET THE POINT, how old are you?
Damn the EU. I totally agree MS should just quit selling windows anywhere in the EU. Their rules are worthless and non-sensical. Why not go against Ford for not allowing you to order your car with a honda air conditioner unit? Why not sue Toyota for selling their car with a built in radio? This gives unfair competition to pioneer and alpine because they dont have a chance to sell their product since most people just keep their factory radio. its FUCKING STUPID if you ask me. Microsoft is making a full featured product and they are being punished for it. Think about it, do you REALLY want a copy of windows that has no media player, no internet browser, no calculator, no email program(do i really need to continue this list?) Is there a clear definition somewhere that says what you can and can not include with a 'operating system'? How about cd burner support? oops, we better axe that too or else roxio and nero will start complaining. The fact that Windows is open enough to even allow 3rd party programs to work with the OS is more generous then i would be. If i was running Microsoft, i wouldnt allow any non-microsoft product to run on my OS. if you want to make a spreadsheet to compete with my spreadsheet, make your own damn operating system to run it on and quit leeching my development time! Microsoft is far more generous then necessary. People are F*CKING STUPID.
I asked a simple question about why race was being brought up. You responded by making a condescending remark about 95% of the readers here. I called you on it. You then claim I am somehow was excusing anti-EU/French comments being made. I then asked you to clarify. Now respond by accusing me of quibbling about specifics and then ask my age...which seems rather trivial and specific.
It really is useless trying to prove wether the fine is fair or not. Especially based on misinformation. The law is above microsoft, and if MS wants to sell products within the EU, they have to abide by EU's laws. Simple as that. If not, Microsoft can go ahead and lose a lot more $$ in the long run, than the imposed fine. I'm sure they have smart people over there that will make the "right" decision. And do stop posting offensive comments against other nationalities, and nitpicking little details like "race" vs "nationality". You know what the guy is talking about, why don't you stay on the damn subject.
I'm sorry. I asked you a question I did not make a assertion (about whether you were trying to defend those silly remarks). In addiion to my "condescending" remark I suggested that these comments were instead xenophobic. Surely you must see how far you have digressed from the actual topic in hand. I ask you about your age because your stubborn and persistent behaviour (every new question you ask is not on the totality of my original post but something specific from the most recent thing I have said) is consistent with someone of an age I would not expect to be having a discussion on engadget. ALRIGHT
"Damn the EU. I totally agree MS should just quit selling windows anywhere in the EU. Their rules are worthless and non-sensical."
OMG We have the same rules in the U.S.
It's illegal to use a monopoly in one area to establish one in another. MS was convicted of this in the US.
No one is says MS can't make a "full featured product," whatever that means. They just can't use thier monopoly over the desktop to prevent PC manufacturers from installing a rival media player.
And yes Toyota would be sued if they prevented dealers from being able to install 3rd party radios in new cars.
falcom:
Actually I would *love* to have an OS that has no browser, email program, calculator, etc. After all, those are APPLICATIONS. The goal of the OS is to abstract the hardware so the applications can use it. (And I guess thanks to MS, the OS is now expected to provide a GUI for the end user.)
Perhaps if MS made an OS that did what an OS is supposed to do and nothing else they could concentrate on making it more reliable. Instead they keep encroaching on application space and calling it "full featured". I'm still surprised that MS has not rolled antivirus in (thus killing Symantec) and calling it "integral part of the OS that we can't remove".
I find it odd that the deadline was July 18th yet they were fined before hand. WTF? Anyone ever get pulled over for speeding befoire you actualy did so? Probably not.
Oh well, gotta prop up the incompetent whiners somehow and I guess several hundred million goes a long ways towards that. Almost a billion now when you add in the last fine. Where does that money go? Can anyone tell me where the last $600mil fine went? My guess: hookers and blow for the pencil pushers and their cronies.
As long as the EU continues to prop up Airbus with their flat-out subsidies they can kiss my red white and blue ass. Fucking hypocrites.
For a company, and an operating system, that everyone loves to bash and troll upon, they certainly are lacking sufficient creativeity to 'create' their own stuff. The EU is a bunch of whiney countries looking for free money--because no one loves them. Boo-hoo.
Personally, I'd stop selling products, and support, in Europe and let them eat their Linux and Apple cakes. No need for source-code if you can't install software on missing operating system, no?
IK:
They fined them before the deadline because the EU has the pre-cogs from Minority Report working for them.
I'd tell you what country they're in but that would make me a racist!
Very cute Tracy, the EU is based in Belgium. The ruling dates back to 2004. That is when they were fined $630 million. They then chose to defy it and are being fined a further $357 million for the period December 2005 - June 2006, when according to the comission they FINALLY began to comply with the ruling. Now they are being told they have until July to release the information, and if they don't they will get fined $4m a day. This takes the fine into 10 FIGURES. If Microsoft don't stop f*cking around the total fine will be as long as my phone number.
"Personally, I'd stop selling products, and support, in Europe and let them eat their Linux and Apple cakes. No need for source-code if you can't install software on missing operating system, no?"
This whole thing with dropping out of europe seems to be brought up everytime a ruling goes against a big company. They wont drop out of Europe, it's not like it's some tiny market that wont affect them by doing so.
Microsoft would lose more money by dropping their products from Europe than they would if they just paid their rightly given fine.
The term to 'toe the line' comes from the British Houses of Parliament, where MPs and Lords are required to keep their toes behind a line dividing them from the opposition. The dividing space is the equivalent of two sword-lengths apart; the rule was imposed to keep order in the house.
The term 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' also traces its meaning from here; conservatives sit in the right wing of the Commons, and liberals on the left.
History is fun.
On the issue of MS; I think the ruling is fair, we're much more touchy about competition here than you tend to be in the US.
I think Apple should definately get some EU love next, for iTunes. It comes pre-installed, uses a proprietary codec in the online store, and is required if you want to use an iPod. Shady.
So many people in the comments here have got the wrong end of the stick because of the bad reportage in the original article. This isn't about a media player, or how easy it is to write programs for Windows - It's about documenting the protocols used in interoperating WITH Windows. eg. You've a Windows Server in the office and you want to access it's shares via your Mac/Linux box/Playstation/mobile phone/Network device/PDA and share files - How do you do that? Microsoft provide no documentation on how to do that outside of being able to use a Windows Client by using their API. The API is published. The protocols behind the API are not.
1) The EU all along have told Microsoft that they do not want source code as documentation - they want full and accurate documentation. Despite this, earlier this year they gave just source code.
Source code is bad news because any developer viewing the source code is then tainted with Microsoft intellectual property and can not then go on to write open source code without being accused of leeching MS's code. Plus source code can be notoriously bad to interpret particularly if some of it dates back to the 1980s. The EU knew this beforehand which is why they explicitly ruled out source code.
2) You don't have to have 100% of a market to have a monopoly. Microsoft are a monopoly.
3) The EU have explicitly said Microsoft are free to licence the source code to anyone they want under their own terms. If Microsoft only wants to licence the source code for a billion dollars, that's up to them.
4) Apple aren't a monopoly. You don't have to use iTunes with your iPod. You don't have to buy from the iTunes store.
5) The whole Europeans are onion eating, commie slackers / America No.1 thing is plain stupid. The petitioners against Microsoft in this case with the EU are IBM, Real, Nokia, Oracle, Redhat and others. Spot the American companies going after Microsoft ?
From these posts you can see how so many people don't have a clue about marketing tactics and cannot distinguish a good company from a *really bad* company that will do *anything* to take their (the customer's) money. No matter how much and how often the EU will sue M$ they don't quit their illegal tactics.
My advice to all of you naive M$ supporters:
Go buy a couple of really good marketing books, educate yourself and THEN post your opinion about marketing tactics. Until then, your opinion is worth zero (0).
Also: Kids, please do not post on these subjects. It's for grown ups.
Bravo Shaun, very good post!
OT
Tracy L, an answer to your 1): No, 'France' isn't a race but 'French' is or atleast heavily implicated. And from Merriam-Webster
*race
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
...and ppl were just blaming French as they are such and such .
"2) You CAN remove IE from Windows regardless of MS's whining that it is "integral". Part of an older court case involved an expert demonstrating how to do it."
The case wasn't about whether IE could be removed. It was about whether it could be removed without breaking other functionality in Windows as well as the thousands of ISV applications that used IE's technologies. The answer was/is no.
The demonstration by the plaintiffs (aka competitors) in the case consisted of 67 CDs of various XP Embedded images that the plaintiffs actually thought would be feasible for Microsoft to distribute to OEMs and end-users. As expected, the judge thought the plaintiffs were nuts, and also didn't like that they didn't provide Microsoft with a copy of their evidence (a computer and 67 Windows Embedded images) in the allowed time for Microsoft to plan their rebuttal.
When Microsoft became a minopoly the United States made a antitrust case against them. The reason why the United States droped the case is because every service on Windows was a monopoly. In the end Microsoft would have to make a operating system with no services. The united States concluded that also Windows would have to work on less hardware to end it's monopoly on hardware as well.
Even the cursor would have to removed because it is a minopoly service. They wanted the OS in two parts, one part just the OS and the other part the services. The services would be installed the way you chose windows updates, pick and choose style. Someone in the government found this im asuming "silly" and dropped the case.
They had to attack all services to be fair. Also to call Windows a monopoly is techanlly false. As long as Linux is free and provides similar services Windows cannot be a monopoly. The reason Microsoft doesnt want to give the API protocols is not only because it is their trade secret and that makes their OS succseeful it will also make the OS insecure. (it's good to know who has access to the API protocols).
Lets look at the fines. Fines are created as a penalty so people will not repeat the same action. Fines are fixed in most cases to prevent abusing the power of fining someone or a company. If you look at the average person (me) I cannot afford a $357 million dollar fine. And i'm aslo asuming many people cannot afford this fine as well, making it an unfair fine for public businesses reguardless of income. A company can be a monopoly and make very little income or profit.
It's also good to know that the antitrust law was mainly created for the companies in the energy industry. It was made to prevent tactics in the antitrust law. The goal of the law was to prevent there being one source of energy in the market(oil electricity companies). Because if the lone business failed it would be a major impact on the world economy. The antitrust law was not built to control software and the way the software business operates.
"Monopoly
A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition - which often results in high prices and inferior products.
For a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm." - Dictionary.com
Note it says all or NEARLY ALL of a given type of product. You do not need to have the entirety of a certain market to be a monopoly.
Microsoft cannot pull out of the EU, it is too big a market. I think the fine may be a little extreme and should be smaller, but Microsoft should pay, they defied an EU ruling.
Apple's products are not integrated deeply into OSX, you can get rid of them easily. iTunes is tied to the iPod, not to OS X.
"Wow, what whiners the EU are. 'Wah, we want an OS without that evil media player that ruins peoples' lives! And we want to know how you programmed your O/S so we can get a cheap knockoff in a few years.'"
Windows already IS a cheap knockoff. I think computers everywhere would break down and weep if Windows itself got knocked off. :D
"...Apple is looking pretty closed and proprietary to me!"
Yes, I totally agree, but the main differences are that Apple makes their software to such a standard that in many cases, you wouldn't want or need to use anything else; and with the probable exception of QuickTime and its embedded frameworks within Mac OS X, most stuff they bundle with the OS can be removed without detrimental effect. The reason they bundle it, just like Linux developers and Microsoft, is so users don't have to go out and download and install apps themselves in order to start doing stuff.
"The fact that Windows is open enough to even allow 3rd party programs to work with the OS is more generous then i would be. If i was running Microsoft, i wouldnt allow any non-microsoft product to run on my OS. if you want to make a spreadsheet to compete with my spreadsheet, make your own damn operating system to run it on and quit leeching my development time! Microsoft is far more generous then necessary."
YOU, falcom, need to shut the hell up, and then start your own software company built on the principles you stated in your post. See how long that business survives. Even Apple, which probaby has a higher ratio of "stuff we cover with our own software" to "stuff we don't" than Microsoft, still relies HEAVILY on the third-party OS X developer community to complete their ecosystem.
Microsoft cannot pull out of the EU, it is too big a market. I think the fine may be a little extreme and should be smaller, but Microsoft should pay, they defied an EU ruling.by JW
So you would agree with paying a $357 million dollar fine? If you had a Monopoly in the market but only made $325 thousand a year?.....This would make you in debt. If they are to be fair they must fine everyone the same ammount for this offence. By defying the EU is a message telling them they can't get away with doing this to other businesses.
It's also giving a message to the EU that they cant fine them so easily. In my opinion the EU is behaving how you would expect the mafia to behave.
"The fact that Windows is open enough to even allow 3rd party programs to work with the OS is more generous then i would be. If i was running Microsoft, i wouldnt allow any non-microsoft product to run on my OS. if you want to make a spreadsheet to compete with my spreadsheet, make your own damn operating system to run it on and quit leeching my development time! Microsoft is far more generous then necessary." by falcom
YOU, falcom, need to shut the hell up, and then start your own software company built on the principles you stated in your post. See how long that business survives. Even Apple, which probaby has a higher ratio of "stuff we cover with our own software" to "stuff we don't" than Microsoft, still relies HEAVILY on the third-party OS X developer community to complete their ecosystem.by Shunnabunich
You must understand that falcom was stating that he should have the freedome to do whatever he wants with his software. He was refering to freedome issues not a OS he is going to make, or how successful that type of OS would do. Focus on what hes talking about, freedome.
I don't think I understand your question... I said I think the fine should be smaller, because $1bn US is a lot of money, even for a company like Microsoft, they can take the hit, but its not like its unnoticed. I think it should all be relative, Microsoft makes X amount of dollars per year in this market, so the fine should be X amount of dollars perhaps? If that makes sense...
"So you would agree with paying a $357 million dollar fine? If you had a Monopoly in the market but only made $325 thousand a year?"
Umm.. it really WOULD be nice if people actually took upon themselves to do some research. Good heavens, you might actually learn something.
The EU can fine maximum of 5% of the companys daily turnover (meaning revenue in the UK) for non-compliance, which means that in microsoft's case EU can't fine more than $5.5 million per day. That still leaves them with 95% of their daily revenues, which really shows how small a fine this is for them.
On further note, the European Committee for Interoperable Systems, that is behind this whole case, is an industry group including the following members: Adobe Systems, IBM, Nokia, Oracle, RealNetworks, Red Hat, and Sun Microsystems. Can you spot any american companies?
The amount of totally retarded comments by ignorant rednecks is just unbelievable. No, the EU is not xenophobic and they DO NOT want M$ to reveal their whole source code.
It is (as stated by a fellow German above) the simple ask for the interfacing code in sever software. This IS important because there are a lot of OS floating around in the server market and without the interfacing knowledge, the other manufacturers are doomed. M$ is trying to take advantage of their power and abuse it.
You see, the EU is FOR competition, not against it.
Get your facts straight before you post. Else it's just ridiculous.
I agree with many of you Snapple, Steve and Jessie to name but a few. Microsoft developed this source code. It's theirs that’s right they own it they should not have to “give” it to anyone. It works well or millions upon millions of computers or people would not be using it. Are there alternatives hell yes there is.
I also wish Microsoft just closed shop down in the EU and see what would happen then, sorry no computers with the Microsoft operating system in the EU. I would love to see them squirm.
If you can’t invent it yourself sue a company for the formula it’s the EU way. I can just imagine some great commercials Microsoft could do.
Yet again the EU shows just how constructive it can be. I'm so glad as a UK citizen that I have this group of power hungry UNELECTED muppets having a major influence on the way Europe and it's member countries are run.
I TOTALLY AGREE with what has already been said. MS should flip the EU commision the bird and pull their products out of Europe as a whole!
What next? The EU commission suing Pfizer because it needs to know how to get a boner?
I'm surprised that there are some people who are still desperately clinging to the argument that Microsoft is not a monopoly. It is. Get a clue. And if you think this isn't a bad thing look at what happened with Internet Explorer: when Microsoft first decided they wanted to break into the browser market, they put a lot of money and resources into making something that could stand up against Netscape Navigator. Due to the unique advantage offered by their method of distribution (i.e. bundling it in with Windows) Microsoft could guarantee that, to the vast majority of consumers, this was their only point of access to the internet. This total integration was further enforced by Microsoft strong-arming computer manufacturers into not bundling any alternatives.
Years passed and slowly the resources and money pumped into the team behind IE dwindled, until there was only 4 people working on it (and their job mainly consisted of plugging holes - and if anyone who reads this is half the gadget geek I expect them to be then they should remember how few and far between these security updates were issued) there was no need for any more effort to be wasted on IE, to the vast majority of PC users Internet Explorer didn't even have a name: it was THE internet.
More years passed and viruses and malware reigned supreme and, while we invested in firewalls and virus checkers, Internet Explorer stagnated and aged badly.
But, in a way, Netscape fought back. Out of the ashes of the company emerged Firefox that - with it's tabbed browsing, greater security, more persistant updates and fixes, skinnable appearance and customizable extensions - claimed to be able to help you "rediscover the web". Distributed freely (mainly marketed through the aid of geek-to-geek word of mouth) Firefox would eventually gain a significant portion of the browser market (rocking at something around 15%, I think). Naturally Microsoft could not allow this aberration to continue and this genuine threat to their superiority (Microsoft still has over 80% of the browser market)kicked their collective ass into gear and led to the release of IE7 that - with similar features to Firefox but with greater integration into the Windows OS - will be bundled in with Windows Vista...when that is eventually released.
You can draw your own conclusions from this (I imagine most of them to be along the lines of "U R Gay europen") but to me this highlights several key points:
1) That competition is VITAL to growth and development and for too long Microsoft managed to muscle itself into an unchalleneged position, to the detriment of us consumers.
2) That Microsoft WANTS a monopoly and is engaging in business practices designed towards that end. Therefore it is not enough for Microsoft to be merely challenged by rivals, but also by the law (that exists in Europe AND America).
3) That, with Microsoft in the position it is in now, the long-term success of competition such as Firefox is severely limited. With the release of Vista, along with the the mass market release of IE7, the majority of consumers will resest by default to the new IE. Geeks may stick to Firefox, but to the majority they will recognise many of the features they enjoyed in Firefox and stick with the bundled program. Obviously, if Microsoft keeps up with the security fixes and modern features this isn't neccesarily a bad thing but, based on past experience, this isn't going to happen.
Any monopoly (or 'aspiring' monopoly) needs to be constantly challenged. Which is why I am in favour of the fines, even though their impact seems to be fairly limited and seem to be more a symbolic gesture (kind of like "We've got our eyes on you"). Perhaps if the American government woke up and realised this we, the consumers, may see greater benefit. As it happens, with Vista upon the horizon and Microsoft aiming to replace PDF, JPEG, MP3 and make their Word format the universal standard it looks like Microsoft is unwavering in their efforts to totally dominate all aspects of our lives.
Ok lets get rid of some incorrect facts here:
1)Microsoft does not have a monopoly in any markets that it competes in! for Example office has competitors eg open office therefore not a monopoly according to any dictionary, and most countries laws (EU, USA incl) therefore to microsoft a monopoly is INCORRECT!!!
2)Microsoft DOES NOT need the EU!! market (remeber the euporpean market is different to the EU market) this can be seen in all sorts of reports from microsoft and various respected research companies.
3)Its the APIs the EU want however without microsoft taking the comissions ruling to court it would have been the WHOLE SOURCE CODE!!!!
4)Microsoft did not violate ANY legislation (commit illegal practices) because under EU law the person responsible would be charged and that has not occured.
5)The EU is doing more damage to its people then good!! i mean the EU spent millions $$$$$ (and so did microsoft) on this whole media player bullS**T and it ended up costing the EU citizens a massive amount of maoney simply so the amount of copies of win XP home N and Pro N (N means version without WMP) is so small that the profits microsoft has made for it probably didnt even cover microsofts layers COFFEE EXPENSE.
6)The EU doesnt even promote FAIR TRADE IN THEIR COUNRTIES (meridian506 mentioned it above) the spend so much money on their own farms insuring that foriegn farms cant compete with the EU ones. I mean WTF?
7)The case against microsoft was weak and baseless based mainly on illogical links and due to the nature of the EU's comissions and court system regarding them there are certain "issues"!! and that same comment has been heard by many lawyers that deal with EU laws
Look the EU really needs to refresh itself as it is simply stuck in the past, the US gov. case was different and had a hell of a lot more grounding then this CASE.
Bill and Steve should tell the EU to POQ!!!
This is like telling a car company, Say Ford or Volkswagon, to make a car, but don't put your engine in it. Just sell me one without your engine, but put everything else in it.
They won't.
Try buying an iPod without iPod software in it.
The list goes on. MS provides Media Player. Big deal. People need to start focusing on real matters, not just complain about every small detail in the world when their panties get in a knot.
I should also add, you can remove IE from Windows, and you can remove WMP. HOwever, on the default installation they are included.
Why include IE on the default installation? How else can you download new browsers if you don't have one.
Why WMP? If you have no internet connection you can't get another Media Player.
I've worked with many Europeans, and have an English Manager (from england). And I can say with no doubt in my mind that the EU snobs who write the laws need to be taken outside and be beaten with a "stupid stick" to drive the stupidness from them.
The EU is like a speed trap in a sleepy southern town. Running low on cash? Hit up the out-of-state folks for some dough.
GitsLM: "Europeans love competition"
MUAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAAA, best joke of the day.
Come on, seriously...
The EU can fine maximum of 5% of the companys daily turnover (meaning revenue in the UK) for non-compliance, which means that in microsoft's case EU can't fine more than $5.5 million per day. That still leaves them with 95% of their daily revenues, which really shows how small a fine this is for them.
Wow... In America it's a little different. Over here the government can give only one fine per offence. Which was obviously made so our government cannot leach money from our businesses daily.
And like I said before every service in Windows is a service. Not only the browser but the calculator... Pretty much everything in Windows is a service. That's why the US ordered Windows to make a OS without services. They wanted the OS in two parts, one part just the OS and the other part the services. The services would be installed the way you chose windows updates, pick and choose style. Someone in the government found this im asuming "silly" and dropped the case.
By the EU only saying to remove the MP or the IE is not fair to all the other competing services on Windows. For instance the calculator is a service built into Windows and does have many competition.
Just by that calculator being built into Windows makes people not want to look for another source to buy a calculator. The same goes for the paint program. Windows movie maker is another program taking profits from similar programs.
On XP there is 11 games that compete with other similar games. And many other competeing services. The main one being DirectX 9. Without this service everyone would want to put their implementation of a similar technology on Windows. The reason why is the video game industry is a billion dollar industry, and Windows controls it with DirectX.
Also, most PC hardware was made to work on Windows, thats why the US said that they must make Windows work on less hardware.
Every service on Windows is a monopoly on the market. For the EU to be fair they need to tell Microsoft to make a Windows without any services, because all services on Windows compete with other software.