Microsoft, the ever-present target of scorn from the little guy, has once again been hit with
antitrust charges in the EU, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal today. This time it's charges related to the company's refusal to disclose "interoperability information" for a variety of products, including Office, which is keeping competitors from marketing compatible software (we've heard complaints of this type from Open Office users for some time). Additionally -- just as we
reported in December -- Norwegian web browser outfit Opera is stepping up to the plate, alleging that Redmond's inclusion of Internet Explorer with its ubiquitous operating system leaves little room for rival companies to enter the game. Considering how Microsoft's
last antitrust case went in the EU, this may bode poorly for the giant, though a ruling in favor of reforms could benefit the end user. Stay tuned to this space for more information as we get it.
posted Jan 14th 2008 12:26PM
Opera's case is bogus. I mean, really, how would the 0.03% of web users who use Opera get to Opera's website if IE wasn't included with Windows? Screw the EU.
The EU rules the world. Better get used to it!
I was just thinking that... The first thing I do when I install Windows is use IE to download firefox, after that IE only gets used for windows updates...
If I dont have IE on the computer I will need to keep a copy of firefox on a flash drive. This seems kinda lame, all operating systems include a default internet browser, why go only after MS? seems that Apple and every distro of linux should be named as well...
Well, if IE and Opera were included, users would have a choice.
You are exactly saying that their case is bogus because of the things they are being sued over.
Yes screw the EU! Why for gods sake? It's not the EU who is suing. Opera filed some complaints.
@Paul;
Opera is included in OSX :-)
I wonder why i always keep thinking that, probably because the first thing i install on a mac is an Adoce CSx suite. They include Opera, OSX doesn't. My bad!
I wonder why i always keep thinking that, probably because the first thing i install on a mac is an Adoce CSx suite. They include Opera, OSX doesn't. My bad!
"This seems kinda lame, all operating systems include a default internet browser, why go only after MS? seems that Apple and every distro of linux should be named as well..."
Linux distros don't need a browser installed and it could be one of many selected by the distributor (OEM). You can't say the same for Windows. You can use package installer utilities (of which I can name at least 2) to download and install a browser without needing a browser installed.
Your Linux attack has no grounds. There's plenty of competition.
What MS needs is a selection process on installation where you can pick a browser, media player, etc. or open up the restrictive OEM license and allow OEMs to install Firefox, Safari, or whatever they want.
Going the other way, I wonder why Opera is only included on the Wii??? I mean, they should include some other browser there, as we all should be give our right to choose?
The majority of the corporations the EU goes after are American. I reckon we should fight back or do the same to any European countries trying to expand into or do business with us.
why does everyone attack Microsoft so much? just because they're successful?
"Linux distros don't need a browser installed and it could be one of many selected by the distributor (OEM). You can't say the same for Windows (*). You can use package installer utilities (of which I can name at least 2) to download and install a browser without needing a browser installed."
every (used) linux distro has a pre-installed web browser. *and yes, i can say the same for Windows. They just choose their own browser. duh. but there's nothing to stop you from installing something else.
>The majority of the corporations the EU goes after are American.
Sure hope you can prove it, friend.
Truly a glorious day! At least in Europe they have a real justice system unlike that circus in America! Go EU Go EU Go EU; cure the planet! ;-)
It's not a problem. If you take IE out of Windows you can just go online and download it....
Just because something is a de facto standard doesn't make it an open standard. I can't believe this bullshit. They developed their own standard, instituted it, why should they give up the game now, especially when they're replacing it with a new, open standard.
As for bundling IE, at this point it's a fundamental part of any OS to include a web browser. If people want a free browser, they will get it. Opera's case boils down to, "people don't care enough to get our product". Hell, even Linux builds normally include Firefox or at least Links. Maybe Opera should lead the charge against Links-bundling too.
Thank you! It's M$'s choice to include IE. Why wouldn't they do so? You don't see anyone angry about how the Iphone uses opera, or how the EEEpc uses ____(firefox?). I'm sicking of seeing useless lawsuits against large companies. If anything the EU makes me fucking sick.
The difference being, the Distributor can choose to install Firefox, Lynx, Konquerer, or any of the browsers available to Linux. With windows, you can't.
@Andir, IE to MS is like nautilus to gnome. It would be very difficult to strip IE from windows. If you're using explorer to browse the desktop or folders, and just entered a web URL in the address bar (in place of, say, c:\blah\blah), explorer becomes IE. Everything in windows uses explorer, from the control panel to the printers and network folders, etc.
Taking out nautilus from gnome and replacing with konquerer? I don't think so. You will loose lots of inherent benefits of using gnome with nautilus.
Swapping out one product with another in this case isn't as simple as deciding what text editors/mp3 players/calculator to use. It's more than that when the product ties in with the OS and provides a "seamless" and consistent UI to the user.
Andir, the Linux distributors being able to pick and choose a browser doesn't change anything for the end user. The distrib bundles a browser, and from there you grab whatever browser you want. In this case, the only legal distributor of Windows is Microsoft, and they chose what browser to bundle.
The idea that people should be given some sort of dropdown on install to choose their browser is ridiculous. Companies aren't allowed to bundle software without adding alternates? What if I want my browser as an option? The choice of what to add doesn't belong to the company, so who does it belong to? Or do you suggest having it give the option of pulling the browser off the internet with a non-browser utility, in which case you're stuck without a program to render HTML if you don't have a network connection on install.
This is just as stupid as the Google lawsuit that the Vista search utility was anticompetitive. In this day and age, a browser is a fundamental part of a computer system and having something other than a default browser available would make the OS in a disadvantageous position compared to the alternatives. Mac OS would get to "just work" but Windows would have to jump through hoops just so you could watch pointless crap on Youtube.
That's fine then, open up the API that allows IE to interact with the desktop so that Firefox or Safari or whatever can be used to browse the local drive, install printers, etc. These lawsuits would be nullified if Microsoft was held accountable for releasing their standard interface specs. Being a market share leader with some odd 95% of the PCs in the world, I think it should be required to release specifications on the operation of the software.
Auto manufacturers list fuel types, voltages, compression ratios, tire pressure, bolt patterns...even the plastics have specifications. Why should it be any different for Microsoft?
Windows Explorer is Windows. Everything about Windows is done thru the Explorer Technologies. Microsoft can't remove it or give standards so Firefox or Opera can replace it as Explorer is Windows. Even the START button & taskbar is Explorer.exe... HELLO PEOPLE. If Opera wants to be Explorer.exe they can create their own OS.
Second: Why is it that Firefox can surge in popularity but Opera is still nothing? I just shows they are sore losers.
Third: Opera also claims this is about Internet Standards. What they don't mention its about THEIR standards over IE. Yes, one of the creators of Opera helped found CSS but appearently the Marketleader is abusing its position if their browser doesn't follow Opera's standards. IE8 will, but one of the reasons IE4 won over netscape back in the day was because it was more 'forgiving' and showed pages with errors in better rendering, something that continues to this day. So yes poorly made sites look better in IE than Opera, but Safari for example also does good in this regard so its up to Opera to innovate and understand that old websites, and bad websites will always exist.
I don't know if your still reading this, but...
Firefox only has 10% at most of the market share, yet Microsoft is enhancing it's built in browser to incorporate some of the big features of Firefox. Why? They don't make money off it (as some of you claim, MS is only in it for the $$) and there's really no need to enhance it... except to push back and try to keep people from moving to this alternative. Since they are the market leader, and the Mozilla foundation is actually making money, Mozilla follows a good handful of the non-MS standards, and they are not paying license fees, Microsoft can't have this! They want web pages dedicated to their platform and their proprietary APIs (ActiveX, ASP.NET, etc.) If they keep browser control they can guarantee that everyone has a browser that supports their standards (Silverlight, etc.) because they will force update your PC to take it and push out as much competition as they can without having to release the specs on their interfaces. If it was just a part of the operating system used for file browsing, etc. Why add these extra features into IE now? It's typical MS bully tactics. Give the user something that sorta works like it should to maintain proprietary standards usage. After IE updates, you will see: "I mean, if IE works good enough, why download Firefox?" And Microsoft maintains market share, thus forcing their standards out to the world.
the EU out of money already? Man they spend it fast.
I was thinking the same thing...
Right. Because the money goes to the EU...smart guy!
First off, the bottom line is if it's MS's product, they should be able to include what they want. They don't prohibit you from installing competitor's software in any manner. They just include a software package that they wrote.
But, Linux can lead by example a bit here. An install might have Firefox selected as the default, but with most installers you can choose which browser to install. It would be nice to see MS offer more choice in this matter, but unlikely.
On top of that, if you want IE7 you have to download it... Werent all versions of IE before 7 integrated into the shell like KC said above? I like the opera mobile and mini versions and the desktop version isnt all that bad, but come on, gimme a friggin break...
How do you download Opera if you don't have a web browser?
maybe they should have a physical distribution system of their own instead of piggybacking on Microsoft and IE to get it to them. BTW, im a apple believer, but these cases really are just ways to suck more money. im with MSFT on this one.
the only 2 things I do not like about IE is active X and the fact that the OS is the browser. there is no real physical separation.
yep kinda stupid this lawsuit...
they got a point in:
"This time it's charges related to the company's refusal to disclose "interoperability information" for a variety of products, including Office, which is keeping competitors from marketing compatible software (we've heard complaints of this type from Open Office users for some time)."
but about IE coming included in OS is not tought by normal ppl...lol
I'm not sure how things work in Europe, but here in the States OEM's are already shipping PC's with alternative browsers included. It's not like Microsoft is stopping OEM's from shipping Opera on their new PCs, they (the OEM's) just get more money from the Mozilla/Google combo.
As for OOXML, listen, ECIS, you either get a completely open XML file format or we're going to go back to the proprietary binary formats. Your call. Microsoft is adding support for ODF in Office so you can always save your files as ODF if you cant figure out how to write an OOXML file.
Are you trying to say OOXML is completely open? Are you forgetting about the closed binary verification codes that check to see if the document was edited by hand that somehow Microsoft "forgot" to include in the standard?
What a joke,and I wouldn't laugh, Number one opera's argument is bogus thanks to Firefox,numeber two this starts to setup a precedent and now makes Apple and Google easier targets which is one of the E.U.s objectives
The E.U. isn't just trying to protect Europeans, it's protecting European companies that haven't been able to compete as effectively.
"...that haven't been able to compete as effectively" ... because a company with market share isn't letting them by restricting access to the core OS.
eh? Norway isn't even in the EU.
can't believe i'm saying this, but MS isn't wrong here.. i mean .. why would you promote any other program than yours.. hell i'd even find it fair if MS just let people use their own software and nothing (thought that would be the end of Windows, but it's the idea that counts)
greeetzz
It's not that they can't run their programs. It's because Windows doesn't let them run their programs as fast or "feature rich" as Microsoft's offerings by hiding APIs and not releasing documentation for the OS. Thus, Microsoft is creating an unfair market by abusing it's market share.
yeah but still, i give MS still the rights coz its their OS and not anyone elses (even though they have copied many features) but as i said "i'd even find it fair if MS just let people use their own software and nothing"...
greeetzz
Ok... please explain something to me. Microsoft sells Office as an enterprise application development platform. They have SDKs explaining how to connect to Office and interoperate with it. There's a large and thriving community of developers who do this. Access (which is part of Office) is still the most widely used database package on the planet, not only to hold data, but to construct application front ends.
As well, Microsoft has a specification for a document format that allows document level interoperation with most of the Office products.
So... where's the problem?
Office isn't even bundled with Windows - so that argument goes out the window.
Hey, the rule here is "when you can't innovate, litigate." And that is what Opera is doing and the "wha wha wha there's no interop docs for Office" crowd is doing.
Opera cannot whine when Firefox is doing so well. The key here is Firefox is free. Opera wants to make money. They need to tale a clue pill and realize that the web browser has become a commodity.
What's next? MS getting sued because they included a TCP stack and the Trumpet Winsock guys are out of business? This sort of thing has been happening in the PC space since time began.
Operas failing is their inability to understand that their own business model is dead.
In regards to the MS Office part, Microsoft shouldnt have to do shit... If I make a new wrist watch, and it catches on and becomes the best selling watch in history, why should I have to tell people how I make it because they want to make parts or add-ons... Why not build your own watch and compete like Apple does...
And just like Jeff said, they have SDK's... If I tell people how to make my successful watch step by step, then it leaves me open to copying me and making knock-offs.
They are, in my opinion, only protecting a product they sacrificed lots of time and money on...
You'd have a hard time convincing me that your watch was needed in order to use another manufacturers face. A watch is pretty generic and "open source" in the sense that everyone knows how a watch works and you won't be adding anything to the watch that has to interface in any way to make it better.
If you want to use a car analogy, it would be like Ford making a car that somehow obscures the seat bolt pattern so other manufacturers couldn't make a replacement seat for it. Of course, we all know that you can go measure the holes and make a pattern, but with software that's difficult by design to reverse engineer, you run into these problems.
Also, this ford would have to be owned by 95% of the world, and Ford would have to sue anyone that tried to make a car with a steering wheel, brakes, or an engine because they hold the patents.
Sorry my analogy wasn't up to your strict standards... Obviously it was enough to convey my point and thats all that I wanted... I'd also like to apologize for not being cool enough to "vote" myself up...
umm when you install Windows you're installing all the software you paid for. eurotrash
"This time it's charges related to the company's refusal to disclose "interoperability information" for a variety of products, including Office, which is keeping competitors from marketing compatible software (we've heard complaints of this type from Open Office users for some time)."
With the "interoperability information" being the focus of the "probes", and not the defacto inclusion of IE (or even Office - as some posters think), people should understand that Vista's incompatibility issues are the source of the problems. I agree with Andir3.0 100% on his posts, and even his comparisons.
Software developers don't want to remake Office, or even have their software included with Windows - they want to create a unique, competitive piece of software BUT are unable to due so because they aren't given the appropriate information about the operating systems for it to run as smoothly as Microsoft's own versions.
Just like Andir3.0 said in his comparison about Ford vehicles. Software developers in this situation aren't creating another Ford (the OS in this comparison), they want to create a "seat" (software) to use in it. Without the information about how to use the OS's features to design this software, you're left with intentionally inhibited and limited (intentionally done of MS's part) software - giving an unfair advantage in their favor.
In spirit of the original Henry Ford, I feel this inhibitor on competitors (in turn, inhibiting competition itself) only benefits a monopoly - and not the consumer, where competition creates lower prices, faster rates of improvement, and higher quality.
You better hurry and vote yourself up like the above poster claims I was doing... ;)
Is the EU a shareholder in SAP and Bertelsmann? Else why are Microsoft and Apple always targeted for excellence? I'm no Microsoft fan, but I know the market in general would be benefited if European companies tried to compete on their own merits, instead of calling on city hall friends.
That's the point. They can't compete. The idea of the suit is that Microsoft is holding back information to be able to make a competitive product. Office has "backdoor" access to Windows that no other software has and it's stifling competition by not allowing other companies to make a visually and functionally competitive product.
Good point. Fortunately we have city hall to force Microsoft to help its competitors beat them. Microsoft created an industry, and they should help others to take away share of the market they created. Then everyone can feel good about themselves.
Your point is mute... Microsoft creates Visual Studio which lets people create great software for Windows. It has SDK's for Office, Windows Media, IE etc...
In addition you have MSDN which gives developers tons of support thru community and help documents as well as access to software.
Microsoft has done nothing but help people create innovative software for Windows. As for Office they have the right to propietary formats and Office is not pushed on anyone. I don't see what the complaint is... What 'feature' of Windows if OpenOffice for example not able to use?
I respect the EU in alot of things, but in this area they are a COMPLETE JOKE.
The SDKs do not give you the same access to APIs that internal software has. The Office and other Microsoft teams have better documented and deeper rooting calls that they can use to increase the performance of the application more-so than someone developing in Visual Studio. Every so often people run across these APIs and put them up on the web as "undocumented" and Microsoft either ignores that they exist on MSDN or they strongly suggest they are not used. You have the access they WANT to give you, nothing more.
If Microsoft was the only industry leader who needed to be humbled by European industry's lawyers, then I might believe it was a real case. But the pattern is disturbing.
Both of my comments are sarcastic. I think if someone wants to compete with Microsoft, they should create something new and compelling. Making a product that is only slightly better than the existing product, and asking your friend, the cop, to force customers to have access is not adding value to the market.
I think Opera is actually more suing for the lack of true
compatibility with the internet more so than the piggy-backing, If i
remember from the last engadget entry like this they were refering to
the lack of correctness against the web standards and that because of
this people are designing websites for internet explorer which
inherently don't work 100% properly on Opera and Firefox the majority of the time.
Granted I'm an Opera user 80% and IE user 20% and a webdeveloper and
I have been through the issues of compatibility with browsers. If you make a website you should do atleast a 4 browser check using several browsers out of what's available I tend to use: IE, FF, Opera, Safari and Konquerer.
If MS really wanted to stick it up them they could simply threaten to
stop selling they're products entirely in the EU that might scare them
a bit.
Hey if they are gonna make a fit about windows including IE, can I sue Dell and every other company that sell computers with unneeded and extra things installed on it?
But seriously who cares, if someone wants a different browser they will download it like I and many other people do .
A lot of people here should take an Economy 101 class and pay special attention to the chapter about private monopolies and how they are ALWAYS bad for the consumer and should ALWAYS be broken up. Microsoft's OS monopoly has held the entire industry back for over a decade now and the EU is doing consumers worldwide a huge favour by trying to do something about it. What Americans should worry about is why their own government has failed to tackle the problem.
Aye i dont get why people are so alarmed with this. What ever the reason is it will help us consumers...thought i think Microsoft will win this one.
Same with Apple you are always locked. Nokia that owns cell phone markets(40% share and its even most profitable) its much more open and it isnt using its position wrong.
All I have to say is this is bogus bullsh*t. I am no fan of IE, but most of the people out there use IE, they are used to seeing that little blue E and get confused if you try to show them something else. So if you think by including Opera or Firefox as default is really going to make a difference, you are mistaken. If you are truly that much better, people will tell their friends and it will spread like wildfire. But truly no browser is really that much *better* than the next. I am tired of these browser wars, where each browser is only slightly better than the other. As a web developer, trying to design websites where each browser renders things differently, is completely stupid! Stop trying to reinvent the wheel, how long have we been accessing the web the same way?!? Why not try to be revolutionary like Adobe and their AIR application? I mean really, with browsers we are so constricted to the limitations of each, why not think out side of the browser?!?