MS didnt start off as a monolopy. They had a aggressive business plan that others couldnt match. Take the some of the dumbass business decisions that apple made years age, and the slow rise of Linux, I say MS counldn't avoid being a monolopy.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft hit by record EU fine
- Thread starter iGav
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
mj_1903 said:
the US and Microsoft are best friends...Microsoft could probably bank roll the US. (considering Bush has turned a budget surplus into an all time deficit.)
I can almost understand people having an opinion like this, but it misses two very fundamental parts of what happened during and as a result of the browser war.slowtreme said:
Big Problem #1: IE is undeniablly the dominant browser on the web at this point. It does not behave properly on many standards, and includes many non-standard things that, although they can be done by standard methods, are proprietary to IE. People use these proprietary extensions, and code to IE's quirks, making sites that only work or work better in IE. This makes it hard for other companies to compete with IE, whether their product is free or better.
And what has Microsoft done in response to this situation? You now have exactly two choices of ways to get an upgrade of IE, either on Windows or the Mac: You can buy a new copy of Windows, want it or not, since it comes with the next version of the browser, or you can pay MSN $10 a month for their software package, which includes IE6 for Mac or IEsorta7 for Windows. $10 a month. That is bad for consumers.
Big Problem #2: Netscape 4 was indeed a pretty crappy browser. Not much crappier than the concurrent version of IE for Windows, if you ask me, but that's not why MS won the browser war. They built IE into the OS for free, made it a bit of effort to remove as the default (web browser as a file browser?!), ran MS services through proprietary extensions to it (WindowsUpdate), and coerced companies into installing it. Since everybody uses MS's OS, and 90% of people don't have the technical skill or time to mess around with installing an alternate, IE use expanded as people upgraded. And no major competitors stepped up, because who in their right mind competes with a preinstalled piece of free MS software? It would've been nearly impossible for MS to loose that war, regardless of quality, and only now do we pay the price.
SiliconAddict said:
I would like to add a bit to this rant.
Anyone who has used Windows Server 2003 will know that there are a lot of things that are supposedly "unremovable" in XP that don't even come with Server 2003.
WMP and stuff like netmeeting can easliy be removed. And MSN Messanger isn't even included with the default install.
Everyone knows Microsoft is trying to maintain their monopoly how ever they can. The only products of Microsoft's that make any profit is their OS and Office. Everything else they do is maintain their monopoly in these areas and shut out all competition.
If Microsoft didn't put their greed above their own customers, they would be a much better company for us all.
A fart in the wind...
I realize that any voice of dissent amid the reflexive anti-M$ vitriol here is likely to be a complete waste of breath. But:
Has it occurred to anyone here that as far as the EU legal "hook" is concerned, the ONLY difference between a M$ and an Apple is... MARKET SHARE?
That's right, our beloved Steve Jobs is just as much of a "monopolist" as Evil Bill. An OS w/ a bundled media player? The NERVE! C'mon people, if Apple had Microsoft's market share today they would be in EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION - namely, the brunt of both popular ire and bureaucratic lust for "revenue enhancement".
Microsoft went wrong by being TOO SUCCESSFUL - no more and no less. And now they're being penalized for that. While I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft's products, I can't stomach the idea of governmental greed sabotaging the very engine of the free enterprise system... and I would encourage the knee-jerk M$ bashers to suspend emotion for a minute and look at the legal issues from the standpoint of dispassionate consumer self-interest.
Then again, I vote Libertarian. So what the hell do I know.
I realize that any voice of dissent amid the reflexive anti-M$ vitriol here is likely to be a complete waste of breath. But:
Has it occurred to anyone here that as far as the EU legal "hook" is concerned, the ONLY difference between a M$ and an Apple is... MARKET SHARE?
That's right, our beloved Steve Jobs is just as much of a "monopolist" as Evil Bill. An OS w/ a bundled media player? The NERVE! C'mon people, if Apple had Microsoft's market share today they would be in EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION - namely, the brunt of both popular ire and bureaucratic lust for "revenue enhancement".
Microsoft went wrong by being TOO SUCCESSFUL - no more and no less. And now they're being penalized for that. While I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft's products, I can't stomach the idea of governmental greed sabotaging the very engine of the free enterprise system... and I would encourage the knee-jerk M$ bashers to suspend emotion for a minute and look at the legal issues from the standpoint of dispassionate consumer self-interest.
Then again, I vote Libertarian. So what the hell do I know.
eric_n_dfw said:
I understand what you say, but I've never personally met anyone who wanted to do nothing more than "surf the web" (though I'm sure they are out there) and that's about all you will do effectively with the base machine. Hell, even my parents (techno-phobes of the worst kind) now do much more than that on their computers (digital photography, video, music, etc.). Unsuspecting customers with little knowledge may buy the base system, and many of them will quickly outgrow it as they become aware of all they could be doing with the computer.
erockerboy said:
If you'd read much of the thread, you would have seen that many posters had already acknowledged this, and that there are many on this thread putting the Microsoft case.
However:
1. Apple does not mix up Application & OS code in the way that Microsoft does
2. Apple is not a monopoly whereas Microsoft is. It is not a critisism to describe Microsoft as a monopoly, just a statement of fact. As a monopoly they are bound by certain strictures that do not currently apply to Apple.
Ok don't get mad at me for this, but could the EU or US Gov come after Apple because of QuickTime? or how is WMP attached differently to Windows?
Edit: Hey I am no longer a newbie
Edit: Hey I am no longer a newbie
ShadowHunter said:
You can't really compair the "intergration" of IE, & WMP to that of safari, quicktime and itunes for many extreme reasons. On a mac you dont need to use safari to browse your hard disc like you need Internet Explorer to correctly view a disc on Windows. iTunes can be deleted whenever you want. While iTunes requires quicktime for some of its features such as AAC support, if you deleted quicktime itunes wouldn't shut down. Quicktime is not like windows media player because it can easily be deleted from the system without any major effects. While it does help render some of the elements in OSX, if you were to delete it Quartz, Quartz Extreme, and Open GL take over with the rendering. Thats the main difference; if you delete WMP from windows... things go bonkers... if you delete quicktime from OSX... something moves in to take over its job
Don't belive me? Check out the attachment I got from apple.com
- please excuse any spelling or grammer mistakes: its spring break, I just woke up, and never have been a very gifted writer Attachments
adamfilip said:
Not to pick exclusively on you adamfilip - but 600 million is 600 million. Just take a few zeros out, and It's a little harder to swallow. If I had 5,000 bucks and was fined $60 - I'd feel it (maybe not much - but I have other bills to pay). And so I dare say I'd feel a loss of $600 million. I'm NOT sticking up for MS, just trying not to look through such rose colored glass.
And you are exactly right. If Apple was a monopoly, they would have to deal with restrictions just like MS has too. The major difference is that MS is a monopoly and Apple isn't. That is an important difference. For one thing, a monopoly isn't supposed to happen in a free market economy. In the US at least, it's still allowed to happen, BUT when a company becomes a monopoly, certain things are expected of them. The most important thing is that they not leverage that monopoly to go after other markets. That is exactly what MS did though with the browser and media player. The combination of their OS monopoly and the bundling of browser and media player software is illegal.
Also, MS did not go wrong by being too successful. They went wrong by violating the law. They are a repeat offender, and much of their "success" can be directly correllated to old court cases. Consider Windows, and its relationships to Mac OS and OS/2. MS basically got away with that due to shrewd contract negotiation. With Office on the other hand, they've been fined before. I think it was Corel that once brought a suit against MS for requiring OEMs to ship Office with Windows. Sound familiar? There's that bundling thing again. The courts found MS guilty that time too, and issued a fine. MS paid it and then didn't change their ways one bit. Today, Office is one of the few profitable products MS has, even though it seems to be pretty universally hated. How do you suppose that happend? Looks like we have the slap-on-the-wrist fine and continued illegal competition to thank.
The government is not going after MS because they are too successful. They've violated the law, multiple times. Whether or not MS deserves its success is hard to say because its history is so tainted with court cases that haven't really made a difference. Violating the law is violating the law. You're right; it wouldn't surprise me if this is all an attempt to add some change to the EU's bank. That doesn't change that fact that MS violated the law.
Also, MS did not go wrong by being too successful. They went wrong by violating the law. They are a repeat offender, and much of their "success" can be directly correllated to old court cases. Consider Windows, and its relationships to Mac OS and OS/2. MS basically got away with that due to shrewd contract negotiation. With Office on the other hand, they've been fined before. I think it was Corel that once brought a suit against MS for requiring OEMs to ship Office with Windows. Sound familiar? There's that bundling thing again. The courts found MS guilty that time too, and issued a fine. MS paid it and then didn't change their ways one bit. Today, Office is one of the few profitable products MS has, even though it seems to be pretty universally hated. How do you suppose that happend? Looks like we have the slap-on-the-wrist fine and continued illegal competition to thank.
The government is not going after MS because they are too successful. They've violated the law, multiple times. Whether or not MS deserves its success is hard to say because its history is so tainted with court cases that haven't really made a difference. Violating the law is violating the law. You're right; it wouldn't surprise me if this is all an attempt to add some change to the EU's bank. That doesn't change that fact that MS violated the law.
erockerboy said:
T
thejazzman10
Guest
It's not double jeopardy in the first place because of exactly what I said - "in the US" -- the EU is clearly not the US.Foocha said:
It doesn't MATTER if MS lost vs DOJ. Double Jeopardy is Double Jeopardy -- I sue you for breaking my arm and get $1 million. Then I sue you again for the exact same event and net another cool million. Rinse repeat. That's double jeopardy.
The EU is not the same as the US but the charges are basically the same -- the companies that brought the charges, IIRC, are US based companies. They went to the EU because the US already ruled on the MS monopoly.
Further, Monopolies are NOT illegal. Chances are your power provider is a monopoly, where is the competition for them? What about cable -- if you can't have a satillite and want more than broadcast how many cable providers do you have? Both of these are known 'regulated monopolies' -- there are other monopolies that are unregulated. What makes a monopoly illegal is strong-arming out competition. Which, yes, Microsoft does. But they've already been fined for this in US courts, where I might add MS is headquartered. Leveraging charges for it in the EU is outright silly just because they were found guilty already. I don't love MS but I don't hate them either. They're a company and shouldn't be subject to this legal sillyness any more than Apple.
I remember pre-Windows, who was the big bad monopoly? IBM. Big Blue. That's who 1984's famous little commercial was aimed at, not MS. Did a court case bring them out of that? Not particularly, just the rise of MS, Apple, and their kin made IBM refocus themselves and reorient what they did. And they did it successfully, and are still a good company. Look at Ford, they were a veritable monopoly for years; gave you the stunning choice of colors of black, black, and black, then competition took care of that. Too many people just want big-mommy courtsystem to go beat up MS for doing the following:
1.) Integrating good ideas (EVERYONE does it; its the whole point of competition)
2.) Making what it needs cheap (x86 hardware is cheap due to multitude of manufacturers)
3.) Marketing
4.) Easy
Does OS X beat it on, oh I'd say #4? Probably -- lots of people think OS X is easier than XP. But an Apple computer is expensive; their commercials are more about image (which is admitably very important) than why you would want one, and so forth.
If everyone wants to rant about Office and XP, make something better. And better doesn't mean 'easier' or any other single line item.
VHS beat Beta, remember? Why? Because the consumer is stupid? No. Because VHS could hold a lot more time on it. And remember, it has to be better, not as good. People won't change if they won't gain from the change -- and they have to see that gain as worth it.
"But won't I have to rebuy all my software?" "I already know Windows, I don't want to learn something new" "But Dell's are half that price" -- sound familiar?
Relying on the common-man to change for the sake of something being 'better' in some way they can't immediatly see is asking for trouble.
I might be wrong; but I bet the reason CDs overtook Cassettes is not the quality or anything like that -- its the fact that you can jump to any song you want at any time. People like that; they see the benifit.
Stolid
Stolid said:
I don't think that you understand that these are different legal jurisdictions and that different laws were broken. It doesn't matter if the substance of the law was the same. A law in the EU is not the same law as one in the US, precisely because they are different jurisdictions.
If a company caused you some harm but someone else with the same harm in a different state sued them first, would you think it fair that you couldn't sue the company because they had already been sued for the same thing that they did to you?
Also, it doesn't matter if the companies are US-based. They are doing business in the EU and are bound by and protected by the laws of the EU.
Do schools teach civics and government anymore?
this is going to be in the courts for a very long time, so i wouldn't expect much to happen soon.
I'm not saying that this is an instance of double jeopardy; I'm saying it reaks of the same substance of the idea. What the EU courts should have, IMHO, done is said "The US courts have already ruled on this" and passed the same ruling enforcement. While the laws may be different the purpose of them is the same -- and despite what you might see on TV there is the "essence of the law," which is basically to prevent loopholes from exact semantics in a law; I'm willing to bet (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the essence of the antitrust/monopoly laws in both locations is the same, and because of that the courts shouldn't disregard it.
I suppose the way to put it is this; lets just say that I'm guilty of a crime - murder lets say. I'm a resident of TownA and my victim was from VillaB.
TownA and VillaB both charge me for murder. TownA has a law that if you kill someone you have commited murder, whereas VillaB has a law that anyone who kills a member of VillaB has commited murder. So, despite the different jurisdictions and so forth, chances are one of the two locations would agree to let the ruling of the other location stand.
What I'm seeing here is that TownA (USA) has already convicted MS, and now VillaB (EU) is convicting them too. It may be legal, it may be a slap on the wrist, but the support of it disturbs me. If I do business internationally I now am open to 1 party suing me in every (or almost every) nation I do business in if I do something illegal. Should I avoid those acts anyway? Of course, but it means that an otherwise minor mistake or bad egg employee could easily blossom into quite the headache, far beyond the deserved amount.
I suppose the way to put it is this; lets just say that I'm guilty of a crime - murder lets say. I'm a resident of TownA and my victim was from VillaB.
TownA and VillaB both charge me for murder. TownA has a law that if you kill someone you have commited murder, whereas VillaB has a law that anyone who kills a member of VillaB has commited murder. So, despite the different jurisdictions and so forth, chances are one of the two locations would agree to let the ruling of the other location stand.
What I'm seeing here is that TownA (USA) has already convicted MS, and now VillaB (EU) is convicting them too. It may be legal, it may be a slap on the wrist, but the support of it disturbs me. If I do business internationally I now am open to 1 party suing me in every (or almost every) nation I do business in if I do something illegal. Should I avoid those acts anyway? Of course, but it means that an otherwise minor mistake or bad egg employee could easily blossom into quite the headache, far beyond the deserved amount.
Your situation uses the same victim and the same crime. Compare your scenario with these two scenarios.Stolid said:
A) You kill a person from Town A and a person from Town B. You can and should be tried in both jurisdictions. (Same crime, different victims)
B) You kidnap and kill the same person from Town A. You can and should be tried for both crimes. (Different crimes, same victim)
The people of the EU and the people of the US and the companies of the US are all different victims, so they all have reason to want MS penalized.
Imagine this scenario. You sell tainted beef in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Should only one of those countries get to penalize you when all three have been harmed?
Yes, if you do business in every country, you should expect to be held liable for your mistakes in every country.
Do you really believe in what you are writing, or are you just trying to increase your post count? Or are you trying to help me increase my post count?
Anything to penalize Microsoft is a good thing (even if it comes a few years too late). Those who think Microsoft got to where they're at legitimately are just deluding themselves. Someone with a better grasp of the computer/software industry history could probabaly cite examples. "Superior" and "Innovative" are not words associated with MS. "Unfair", "Insecure", "Deceptive", "Manipulative"....yeah, those I've seen associated with the Evil Empire.
No this isn't for post count, I honestly believe it and have a hard time you don't.RHutch said:Imagine this scenario. You sell tainted beef in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Should only one of those countries get to penalize you when all three have been harmed?
Yes, if you do business in every country, you should expect to be held liable for your mistakes in every country.
Do you really believe in what you are writing, or are you just trying to increase your post count? Or are you trying to help me increase my post count?
Should only one of those countries get to penalize you? No; all three should get together and settle the entirety in one sitting. This isn't a class action suit, this is antitrust. If the companies were suing Microsoft for money to them thats another story, but its not.
In fact; one of the major players in the EU case was Real.
Let's go to real.com shall we?
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
RealNetworks, Inc.
Seattle, WA
U.S.A.
... So; a US company charging crimes to a US company in the EU; you support this?
So if I sell that beef to Mex, Can, and US -- and I get some -- I can sue you 3 times?