I remember hearing about this kind of thing years ago and presuming Microsoft was in the wrong.
What exactly did Microsoft do wrong here? It says they should have offered a choice of browsers?
Surely one company shouldn`t have to offer another companies software? How could you stand over someone elses work?
Do any Apple OS X come with another web browser other than Safari?
Are they simply milking Microsoft for money? Where were they for the home choice loans, NAMA and all those anti competitive real life things. If Windows comes with a built in media player or web browser I dont like I can and DO download another. Im actually a big linux fan.
How many people work in Brussels and in other offices around the world both employed directly, contracted and and funded by the EU? Is it really unaccountable. Do people here and does the general public know how it works? Not likely because it can take people who work there some time to learn how it all works.
Where is the EU heading? How will it impact Ireland ? The path the EU takes is going to be a huge factor in how Ireland grows in the future.
My recollection of the Microsoft issue was not so much that they included Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player with Windows, but that they integrated these products very tightly into the operating system.
The Internet Explorer became tightly coupled with the Windows Explorer, what you see when when you’re looking through your directories for a file. With Internet Explorer now being the defacto browsing mechanism, one could argue that the user experience was being fudged such that customers were by default using one product over the other.
Secondly, that same tight integration was not offered to other vendors of internet browsers. The Application Programming Interface provided to 3rd party vendors was short of rich features that were exploited by Internet Explorer in this instance. This was the real anti-trust issue. When they tried to use Operating System market dominance to cement dominance in the Internet browsing market, the EU stepped in on the grounds that there is a distinction in product between the two, and that they didn’t allow fair competition in terms of the latter.
So we got some stupid interim results in terms of a Windows edition without IE and Windows media player installed (which was just annoying for the ordinary consumer in reality), but underneath the covers the real result was that they had to create a separation such that they couldn’t bury advantageous APIs for Internet Explorer into the Operating System and not make them available to competitors.
This, of course, is still an issue with Microsoft in that you have to be a ‘trusted partner’ to get deeper into their API. This has been used for years to support co-dependent market dominance with the likes of Symantec.
These applications were so tightly coupled and integrated with the OS that if you removed them the system crashed.
They remedied the situation and included a browser choice as part of a settlement from a previous investigation.
Microsoft dropped the feature in a Windows 7 update even though they report compliance with the agreement.
This oversight/mistake/deceit cost them half a billion euro.