Apparently European Union wants Microsoft to include competition's browsers in it's new OS. The reason they give is fighting monopolism on MS's side. (source in Polish: http://republika.onet.pl/37739,26,1,fabryka.html) Fighting monopolistic moves is great and all, but how does that make ANY sense? MS puts their own browser in their own OS and while it doesn't include competition's browsers, everyone can install them without problem. What excatly is EU's problem here?
People who are unfamilliar with other browsers will not even know that there are other browsers to begin with. By ordering other browsers to be included on Windows OS people with find it easier to choose whether they want to use Internet Explorer or Firefox etc. This again creates an incentive for Windows, Mozilla etc. to make a 'better' browser than the competition. Hence we, the users, will get a better product.
No offense Meee but this is a pretty old story as far as news goes (it may have been even posted on the fourm already but I am not sure about that). However, running with the assumption it hasn't been posted before here are my thoughts. I think this is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Can anyone tell me if there is any other software company in the world that doesn't get choose what goes into their software? This is simply the EU picking on Microsoft for the sake of picking on Microsoft, it's definetly not original. I especially liked how the EU wouldn't let Microsoft reschedule the hearing they requested even though Microsoft offered to rent space and everything for the alternate date. This whole story reeks to high heaven of the EU trying to show off to the rest of the world as well as protect one of their own. I honestly would be interested to know if this lawsuit would still be going through if Microsoft was based in Europe.
They are mad! People of course being lazy as they are just use the default things, WMP/IE/Movie Maker, etc. I know that's not the case for everyone, but it is for a lot of people I do agree with them having the right to put their own software, and of course you can easily get other software for free anyway. People once again just wanna take more from Microsoft. Let EU make their own OS hmph
who even makes money off of internet browsers anyways? firefox is open source, google chrome is free. IE and safari are bundled with the OS or given out free. Opera's the only one that charges money. and if the have to include a "competitor's browser" then which competitor do they include? ANY competitor they include will automatically mean an instant monopoly for whoever they choose. now it's the same problem all over again.
I like using IE I've got no reason to change to FF or the others. IE runs fast enough and I don't care about the customizing the others allow. This is just the EU wanting to look big in the world.
Get ready to change. HTML5 is gonna hit hard and soon, and IE doesn't even come close to supporting it.
I like both, I use FF as standard and IE when needed. And I like what EU are doing, finally doing something against the Maerican Monopolisation.
There is no monopoly here furrer, there hasn't been for awhile. This is just the EU taking another shot at Microsoft (reread my earlier post in this thread for support).
Why should Microsoft be forced to put a competator's browser into thier software when they can use thier own? And it's not really a monopoly since many other companies exist, they just aren't nearly as popular since other companies dont produce stuff thats as compatable with them as they are with Windows.
Not really furrer, because the double standard the EU is using with Microsoft is pretty easy to prove. Is the EU requiring apple to include browsers other than Safari? Is the EU requiring the hundreds of Linux distrobutions to include something other than Firefox?
I agree with LK, but I don't think those examples work. First off, Linux isn't held up to any government standards at all. Kinda odd. Second, Apple has a completely monopoly on OSX. Meaning they produce the hardware, peripherals, drivers, firmware. It's a completely different matter altogether.
I think the Linux and OS X are good examples of the underlying point, people are allowed to bundle whatever they want with there software as long as they don't break any copyright laws. Hell, you can look at some free software out there that include things like the Google or Yahoo toolbars and the creators are being paid to include that software. If Microsoft was preventing the installation of other browsers that would be one thing, but that's not the case here. The EU is essentially going after Microsoft because Microsoft is Microsoft, not for any standard that has been violated. Like I said in my earlier post, the EU made it plain that it is hanging Microsoft just for the sake of doing so, when they declined to change the date of the hearing for Microsoft's defense despite the fact that a lot of high ranking Microsoft and EU officials wouldn't be available for the original date and the fact that Microsoft offered to pick up the expenses for the rescheduling. If that doesn't sound like a lynch mob I am not sure what does.
Despite my rather biased opinion against Microsoft, I would have to say that the EU has gone too far. As others have pointed out, other companies also bundle software with their OSes, so there really isn't an excuse for picking on Microsoft alone here. With the rise of Linux and OS X, it is hard to declare Microsoft a monopoly anymore. @Fenix: A monopoly is when a company has nearly exclusive control over a kind of product or kind of service. Apple Inc. no more has a monopoly on OS X than the Coca-Cola company has a monopoly on Coca-Cola or Microsoft has on Windows Vista. Just because no one else can manufacture or sell their brand doesn't make it a monopoly. What Apple has done in this case is product lock-in, which is also undesirable from the consumer's standpoint but nowhere near as bad as a monopoly.
