Microsoft fined 561 million Euro by EU over browser choice

[klr]

Oh joy ...

Microsoft fined by European Commission over web browser

Microsoft has been fined 561 million euros ($731m; £484m) for failing to promote a range of web browsers, rather than just Internet Explorer program, to users in the European Union (EU).

t introduced a Browser Choice Screen pop-up in March 2010 as part of a settlement following an earlier EU competition investigation.

But the US company dropped the feature in a Windows 7 update in February 2011.

Microsoft said the omission was a "technical error".

But competition commissioner Joaquin Almunia said the action was unprecedented, adding he wanted to deter any company from the "temptation" of reneging on such a promise.

In theory the watchdog could have fined the firm 10% of its global annual revenue which would have totalled $7.4bn, based on its 2012 annual report.

...

more here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21684329

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Microsoft" and "choice" in the same article?

[Audley Strange]

I've never understood the problem. Perhaps because it seems like an odd complaint in the first place.

When one buys a car from a manufacturer are they obliged to offer options as to things like tyres from various rivals and GPS and a catalogue of stereos or do they tend to come with a bunch of stuff as standard?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've never understood the problem. Perhaps because it seems like an odd complaint in the first place.

When one buys a car from a manufacturer are they obliged to offer options as to things like tyres from various rivals and GPS and a catalogue of stereos or do they tend to come with a bunch of stuff as standard?

What if that manufacturer was actively working to kill off all other car companies? This is the case with Microsoft.

[klr]

I've never understood the problem. Perhaps because it seems like an odd complaint in the first place.

When one buys a car from a manufacturer are they obliged to offer options as to things like tyres from various rivals and GPS and a catalogue of stereos or do they tend to come with a bunch of stuff as standard?

What if that manufacturer was actively working to kill off all other car companies? This is the case with Microsoft.

That's just about it.

If the PC comes bundled with an operating system, and the operating system comes bundled with a browser, then the majority of users will never so much as think of looking at another browser - let alone an operating system.

As deserved as this fine is for M$, it's only the tip of the iceberg IMHO. They really ought to be keelhauled for forcing PC manufacturers left, right and centre to pre-install Windows over the years. That is probably the #1 reason why Linux has found it so difficult to really get a foothold in the desktop/laptop market.

[Audley Strange]

Right I was about to respond then you posted KLR.

Okay I am possibly being totally thick about this whole anti-trust thing, so I'm trying to understand it in other ways. When home computers blew up in the latter part of the nineties, you had the option of NT, Windows, a shell of Linux and Apple.

Windows was a bundle for mostly home users not technically minded experts (which my be why we are watching desktops become a thing of the past now we have pads and phones for net connectivity) why should it not come with all sorts of whistles and bells. While I accept they tried to increase their advantage on an already askew playing field against companies like netscape, the issue seems to me not so much that they destroyed all the competition rather that the competition was selling an a sports engine, or a kick ass stereo, when they were selling a working Trabant. Now you've got kit cars and dune buggies and hermetically sealed luxury cars you have to buy everything extra for.

Also how did they force PC manufacturers to pre-intall windows? I'm aware it's done, I'm uncertain that this was not a mutual thing rather than strong arming.

The consumer wanted a car, as cheap as possible and with moron functionality. They got exactly that. They got connected to the net. I don't see a competition that suffered.

[klr]

Right I was about to respond then you posted KLR.

Okay I am possibly being totally thick about this whole anti-trust thing, so I'm trying to understand it in other ways. When home computers blew up in the latter part of the nineties, you had the option of NT, Windows, a shell of Linux and Apple.

Windows was a bundle for mostly home users not technically minded experts (which my be why we are watching desktops become a thing of the past now we have pads and phones for net connectivity) why should it not come with all sorts of whistles and bells. While I accept they tried to increase their advantage on an already askew playing field against companies like netscape, the issue seems to me not so much that they destroyed all the competition rather that the competition was selling an a sports engine, or a kick ass stereo, when they were selling a working Trabant. Now you've got kit cars and dune buggies and hermetically sealed luxury cars you have to buy everything extra for.

Also how did they force PC manufacturers to pre-intall windows? I'm aware it's done, I'm uncertain that this was not a mutual thing rather than strong arming.

The consumer wanted a car, as cheap as possible and with moron functionality. They got exactly that. They got connected to the net. I don't see a competition that suffered.

The gist of this - IIRC - is that unless a manufacturer agreed to install Windows on all of its PCs - it would not get such a hefty discount on Windows from MS. In a market where price mattered so much, very few could afford to cross MS. Only the very small (who didn't matter one way or another) and the very large (who could stand up to MS, at least for part of the time) would try and sell PCs that had anything other than Windows pre-installed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Kev nailed it.

[klr]

To expand on this point: From wiki - and you can certainly rely on this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_o ... ows_tax.22

The "Windows tax"

A common complaint[1] comes from those who want to purchase a computer without a copy of Windows pre-installed and without paying extra for the license either so that another operating system can be used or because a license was already acquired elsewhere, such as through the MSDN Academic Alliance program.[2] Microsoft encourages original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to supply computers with Windows pre-installed[3] by presenting their dominance in computer sales,[4] engaging in private agreements[5] and arguing that consumers benefit by not having to install an operating system.[6] Because the price of the license varies depending on discounts given to the OEM and because there is no similar computer that the OEM offers without Windows, there is no immediate way to find the size of the refund. In 2009, Microsoft stated that it has always charged OEMs about $50 for a Windows license on a $1,000 computer.[7]

While it is possible to obtain a computer with no or free operating systems,[8] virtually all large computer vendors continue to bundle Microsoft Windows with the majority of the personal computers in their ranges. The claimed increase in the price of a computer resulting from the inclusion of a Windows license has been called the "Windows tax" or "Microsoft tax" by opposing computer users.[9][10] The Findings of Fact in the United States Microsoft antitrust case of 1998 established that "One of the ways Microsoft combats piracy is by advising OEMs that they will be charged a higher price for Windows unless they drastically limit the number of PCs that they sell without an operating system pre-installed. In 1998, all major OEMs agreed to this restriction."[5] Microsoft also once assessed license fees based on the number of computers an OEM sold, regardless of whether a Windows license was included; Microsoft was forced to end this practice due to a consent decree.[9] The decree, entered into in 1994, barred Microsoft from conditioning the availability of Windows licenses or varying their prices based on whether OEMs distributed other operating systems; author Wendy Goldman Rohm said that the decree was effective in allowing Dell and HP to offer Linux computers.[11] In 2010, Microsoft stated that its agreements with OEMs to distribute Windows are nonexclusive, and OEMs are free to distribute computers with a different operating system or without any operating system.[6]

Users can avoid the "Windows tax" altogether by assembling a computer from individually purchased parts or purchasing a computer from an OEM that does not bundle Windows. Some smaller OEMs and larger retail chains such as System76 have taken specializing in Linux-based systems to their advantage from major suppliers' paucity of non-Windows offerings. Some Linux distributors also run 'partnership' programs to endorse suppliers of machines with their system pre-installed.

[mistermack]

Is it my imagination, or is there a bit of unspoken tit-for-tat fining going on?

The US fines a big european bank, and europe fines microsoft. Or is it a new way of collecting hidden tax?
Sure, microsoft tries to build a monopoly, but these huge fines are a bit convenient for the major administrations.

[Tyrannical]

They should go after Apple for the iPhone and Safari next.

[Drewish]

Microsoft has a monopoly! We need the government to come in and force them to give users other options!

They didn't, yet they still lost their top browser spot due to actual competition? That can't be right! The people NEED us to fine large companies hundreds of millions of dollars euros... It's for their own good! Now quick, what other American company can we 'protect' our people from?