9 ms·

I remember seeing this on TV and not understanding why microsoft was threatened with a fine if they ship IE by default on their products. Actually I still don'

by humpt 12y ago

I remember seeing this on TV and not understanding why microsoft was threatened with a fine if they ship IE by default on their products. Actually I still don't. Nobody ever stopped me from downloading another browser on windows, anyone who wants to do it will do it. So people did have a choice, they just didn't know they had it, and it's their problem, not microsoft's! Could someone explain this to me?

Cthulhu_ 12y ago
Because Opera, and before that the company behind Real Player, are anal like that and the EU went and agreed with them for some silly reason. They never did go after Apple, or Google / Android, or whatever for doing the exact same thing (pre-installing a media player / browser). I guess you could argue that Microsoft was singled out because their browser was an inherent component of their OS, but at the same time you could go after Apple and Android as well for their webview that is required to be used in all applications that need one.
- icebraining 12y ago
  They don't go after Apple, because bundling by itself is not prohibited, only if you have an overwhelming control of the market, which Windows had but iOS doesn't. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the EU started pressuring Google on the Android front in the near future - they're already talking about splitting up the company. (Again, not advocating, just explaining)
  - icantthinkofone 12y ago
    The EU has no control over splitting up Google or the ability to make that happen. As far as Android goes, Google has no monopoly on the phone business.
    - cLeEOGPw 12y ago
      He meant there are talks in google to split the company in order to avoid application of monopoly laws.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        No, I meant what I said. Specifically, I was referring to this[1], where the EP says regulators should consider splitting up search engines from other commercial services. That doesn't mean I believe they well split them up - nor does the resolution say that, it's just a recommendation - but it does mean they're increasing the pressure on Google, and so potentially on Android as well. [1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20141125IPR80501/html/MEPs-zero-in-on-internet-search-companies-and-clouds http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/2014...
        icantthinkofone 12y ago
        That link says nothing about anything you just said and doesn't mention Google directly either other than the general reference of "search engines".
        icebraining 12y ago
        Unbundling the search engine from all other commercial services essentially means splitting the company in two, even if they can still be called both "Google". Maybe I'm reading to much into it, but everyone else (Reuters. Telegraph, FT and a lot of others) seem to agree. In any case, all I'm saying I'd that it represents increased pressure, nothing more. As for not mentioning Google directly, that's not really a great puzzle. Google is the only search engine with any relevance in a regulatory sense, and MEPs have mentioned it before. Of course, they must remain impartial, but it's not DDG they're worried about :)
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >They never did go after Apple, or Google / Android, or whatever for doing the exact same thing Duh. Because neither one had a monopoly.
outside1234 12y ago
You needed to be around in the 1990s to understand this. :) Its sort of like Google search now where when you search for "ann arbor map" you get a giant beautiful link to another Google property and a few riffraff links to other competitors that basically nobody ever clicks on because it would take effort. This is exactly where Microsoft was in the 90s / early 2000s with browsers. They had a dominant desktop share and they directly embedded IE and although there were alternatives, clicking takes effort and nobody did that. They just used IE. The EU forced them to provide an explicit, easy option to reduce that advantage. Given Google's dominant share in search, it would not be surprising to me to see the EU force them to change this for the same competition reasons. Also, it was a great way for the EU to shake Microsoft down for billions of dollars and ensure there was no one company more powerful than the EU, but I'll leave that to the conspiracy theorists.
- walkon 12y ago
  I was there in the 90s. Only having access to Windows when the Internet became common, guess how I went about learning there were other browsers out there and downloading Netscape? How much more difficult would that have been if IE wasn't included by default with Windows?
  - laumars 12y ago
    Not that much harder since software demo disks often came bundled with consumer magazines. In fact back in the 90s, my Linux box would only receive updates via magazine cover disks.
    - walkon 12y ago
      Are you saying Microsoft should have intentionally excluded a means to browse http content and instead directed customers to be on the lookout for consumer magazines with a demo disk containing a browser? Where and how do they draw the line to being a useful distribution and alienating their users? For example, certain ICMP utilities were included by default with Windows.
icebraining 12y ago
The idea - and I'm just explaining it, not advocating nor criticizing - is that when you have a overwhelming control in one market (in this case, Windows), you can't use that to push your way to the top of another market, since it's stifling the competition and reducing consumer welfare.
- finid 12y ago
  > when you have a overwhelming control in one market, you can't use that to push your way to the top of another market, ... stifling the competition Microsoft not only used its OS monopoly to stifle competition, in many cases, it used it to kill many competing products and services. Steve Balmer once boasted that he'll stop at nothing to kill Netscape. If you were around during the Clinton years when the US filed an anti-trust case against MS, you'd have been surprised at the tactics that Bill Gates and Co used to kill competition. Those guys were despicable.
wahsd 12y ago
It's because not everyone ... actually the vast majority of users ... is aware of other browsers and even if they would be, they may have then only known about Firefox even though there are many many more browsers. Think of it this way, it's akin to a car manufacturer selling cars with labels that state that anything other than XYZ branded gasoline will cause damage and void the warranty. Sure, maybe it won't cause damage and sure it may not stand up in court that it voids the warranty, but most people aren't in the position to know that, nor should they need to be in the position to know. We ... the community of technology savy ... are very frequently remiss to ignore that not everyone can be, nor should have to be well informed about technology. Think of if Martha Stewart claimed that her recipe will only turn out if you use Greenest Pastures Milk when you are trying to hobble together a cake to impress your family. Are you informed enough about the intricacies of milk that you would know that you can use other milk brands? Sure, you may scoff and say that you know enough about milk to know that it's not true, but do you know that some brands don't have additives or certain types of fat that may collapse your batter?
- josefresco 12y ago
  Your car analogy is poor. Better would be to consider a scenario where Ford owned 95% of the car market, and offered for free, Ford branded stereos in each model whereas previously there was no stereo and you had to buy one separate. Other stereo manufacturers, who sell stereos got mad, and basically convinced the government that Ford has a monopoly and should be forced to offer consumers a choice in stereo. Microsoft never warned people that using another browser would "cause damage" or void warranty. They simply gave away something for free, that was previously a paid product. Their dominant market position gave them leverage to essentially wipe out the competition. This, depending on your market philosophy was either the right move to protect consumers, or an example of special interests influencing government to effect markets (IMHO it was probably both).
- LLWM 12y ago
  No, it's not like that. Microsoft didn't tell people installing other browsers would break their computer, people were just not aware of the option.
paulojreis 12y ago
Well... you know what a browser is (and you also know that there are alternatives). Most people don't. Most people don't open the browser, they "go to the Internet"; the browser is the "Internet". If a dominant player bundles their browser (as a component) in their OS, people become less and less aware of the browser as a possible and separate "product", and will of course use the dominant one as default - this is (and effectively was!) bad for competition and evolution(any web developer can tell you the pain this caused and still causes today).
- pinumbernumber 12y ago
  But the same is true for the calculator app, or the file manager. Granted, the web is used for a lot more than those... but I don't see why the browser is singled out as something needing special legal treatment.
  - pixl97 12y ago
    > but I don't see why the browser is singled out as something needing special legal treatment Does your calculator interact with anything else but your computer? Same with file manager (SMB excluded)? Now lets look at the browser, it interacts with different servers, via the HTTP protocol, and the documents they serve via many different technologies such as HTML, Javascript, Java, XML, Flash, along with others. 'Back in the day' Microsoft did a very strong push to tie IE in with Windows, then push developers to use ActiveX on websites so they would only work with Microsoft products. There was no HTML5 multi-platform interoperability, if you wanted to visit a huge number of sites (many government ones too), you used Windows on X86, and you used IE. Even worse, after the early versions of IE, they dug its hooks deep in to the operating system so it became WindowsIE, you didn't have one without the other.
    - grobinson 12y ago
      I don't quite see what interaction over the Internet has to do with the issue. Microsoft Office is regularly bundled with new Windows computers as a trial, or basic license. Could that not be seen as anti competitive? I could argue that the TCP/IP stack is "bundled" with the operating system, and it's something that's very difficult to change (if not impossible without recompiling the kernel). Network engineers have probably had to put up with different TCP/IP stacks using different congestion control algorithms, impacting fairness of bandwidth usage on their networks. So by the same pretense, shouldn't TCP/IP stacks require the same choice that Microsoft were required to offer with browsers?
kalleboo 12y ago
I thought the original reason wasn't that Microsoft was shipping IE with Windows per say, but that they were telling OEMs that they weren't allowed to pre-install Netscape if they wanted to keep their sweet Windows OEM license deals. Am I thinking of the wrong case?
- mgkimsal 12y ago
  That was my recollection of the crux of it as well. Oh, you want to bundle Netscape with your Windows PC? Each copy of Windows will run you $80. If you decide to not bundle Netscape, it'll only be $30. I'm also reminded of Linux/desktop bundling. IIRC, MS tried (and I think succeeded) in their licensing terms require Windows licensing based on PCs shipped, not Windows PCs shipped, so even selling a Linux-only desktop still required an MS-tax, meaning it was more expensive to sell a Linux desktop than a Windows desktop (at least for some of the big players like Dell, HP, etc).
- chrisan 12y ago
  That would make more sense if this was the root of the problem. Otherwise Apple and Google would be in the same boat offering users a choice to install a browser other than the default for OSX, iOS, and Android
  - kalleboo 12y ago
    It still wouldn't be the same case as neither Apple nor Google have anything near antitrust levels of monopoly
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
digitalzombie 12y ago
Microsoft own 90% of the PC market in the 90s. Netscape was the sizzle and you pay money to get a browser to surf internet. Microsoft decided to package IE for free on Window. Internet was wild west and mysterious. There's hardly any books on it and information wasn't traveling as fast for the masses to know much about internet. But they do know there's this IE thingy that will give them internet. IE destroyed netscape, very few people had a clue there was an alternative browser... Hence this was deem as a monopoly. Hell when I was a kid I didn't really know much other than netscape and all of a sudden IE. It didn't occur to me that there are choices but the fact that IE was a part of window and it just works out of the box. I moved to mozilla when IE was slowing down. But the point was it was so integrated with window that it was apart of it, it felt natural as if the internet was apart of microsoft. And in fact microsoft acted as a gate keeper of the internet for years that was their business goal. Their OS control stuff on the PC and that's how they made money. Which is why they lost to Google when they double down on their model. The way they acted and their many moves to monopolize it, one of which was IE.
rskar 12y ago
The simplest explanation: Implementation costs, as in what it takes to design internet based systems in order to connect with and make sales to consumers and businesses. The grand dream has long been to have a set of standards which web browser designers and network infrastructure designers must design to. In reality, standards development and compliance has a lag time to it that brings frustration to those who need web sites for their business models. So, in all practicality, they will design and test for perhaps one, two, or three platforms - as popularity may guide - and make use of non-standard methods where standards-based methods are lacking. Add to this what others have observed, that the typical user knows little to nothing about what a web browser is, or even cares to know. Companies that manage to achieve popularity for their internet technologies - such as a web browser, among other things - tend to have stronger voices and more powerful influences on standards committees. That gives them a competitive edge in that they can push for a standard where their products are already or nearly compliant with, thereby forcing others to expend energy (cash + time) into whatever reverse engineering projects needed to comply. Alternatively, the stronger voices can also induce more heel-dragging. In the meantime, companies that have the popular technologies - such as Microsoft, especially in the 1990's - can more easily make sales to the businesses requiring web sites, for either internet or intranet needs. And consumers find their internet surfing experience generally satisfying with the home computer as they got it (again, especially in the 1990's, that was MS Windows + Internet Explorer). Microsoft was uniquely positioned for dominance. They made the most popular desktop OS, and equipped it with a ubiquitous web browser (for both Windows and Mac OS back then). They then also had the server technology, software development tools, and a "portal" to funnel consumers to advertisers and shopping sites. Basically, they were leveraging their software technology and market position to get into the same business that Netscape had just started. They succeeded tremendously, and basically squeezed out much of the competition, including Netscape.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
The EU just followed what the US courts said during Clinton. Clinton turned MS into a whipping boy. In retrospect, the courts were wrong. Netscape's profit model made no sense. People didn't want to pay for commodity software like a web browser. MS had every right to release a free one bundled with their platform. The web isn't some optional thing. A browser is part of every OS now. On top of it, the deal MS signed didn't let it control OEMs so that laptop that's full of shitware that slows Windows down and gives it a huge attack surface is not something MS could fight until recently with Win8. The government empowered OEMs. The Netscape/MS fight wasn't worth it. The government should never have stepped in. In the end the best product wins. I, and everyone I know, got Chrome via downloading it. Not via some fancy choice menu. I think the truth here is that Netscape had a lot of friends in the government and Clinton's DOJ wanted to make some career defining kills. Bill Gates was an obvious target. It was wrong for Clinton to attack MS. It didn't stop IE6's dominance, it didn't revive Netscape, and it didn't fix anything. If anything, it made everything worse. Tech is generally a meritocracy. People can just migrate to whatever software they life. MS wasn't stopping Firefox or Netscape from being installed. Lets give our companies room to compete. Lets not applaud heavy handed legislation from either the US or the EU. I mean, google fucking maps can't even be seen in Spain due to corruption. Governments are just as corrupt as business. Except government is an unstoppable monopoly with guns.
- Eric_WVGG 12y ago
  Agree that in hindsight web browsers was a dumb thing to take down MS over. It was difficult at the time to make the claim that a browser-less computer would someday be effectively useless, but that point came. The lawsuit should have been over their Office suite. (And no, in the end, the best product did not win.)
- finid 12y ago
  @drzaiusapelord, I honestly don't know where to start with you, but I'll try. > Clinton turned MS into a whipping boy. No, he didn't. Bill Gates and Co got away with what amounted to a misdemeanor, when they could easily have been nailed with multiple felonies. Bill Gates once bragged openly that MS got away with a slap on the wrist. He knew what he was talking about. > the deal MS signed didn't let it control OEMs What are you talking about? MS controlled everybody, including Intel. One of the revelations of the anti-trust trial was that at one time, Intel wanted to give the ISP business a shot. Gates objected because that was competition he didn't want to face. Recall that Steve McNeally of then Sun Microsystems once had this idea of the network as the computer, what we now call Cloud computing. MS drew a hammer at it because of the obvious threat to its cash cow - Windows and Office. MS had (still has) a noose around the necks of OEMs. Those guys have to pay MS for every PC they ship, even once that don't ship with Windows. Do you know what effect that had on their desire to ship any other OS on their PCs? > The Netscape/MS fight wasn't worth it. The government should never have stepped in. BS! If the govt had not stepped in to curtail the activities of an evil empire, technological progress, especially in the software arena, would have been set back a lot more than it has. And it took a democratic administration to do it. No republican administration was going to do it, because, after all, they are always good for business. > Tech is generally a meritocracy. People can just migrate to whatever software they life. That and the test of the last paragraph of your comment is proof that you're a paid shrill. Yes, tech can be a meritocracy, if the playing field is level. Unfortunately, it often is not, because tech companies can get into deals that are anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Recall that a few years ago Intel was fined heavily because it had made deals with companies that discouraged them from using AMD's processors. Do you know how damaging deals like that had on AMD and on consumer choices? Well-informed people can migrate to any other software they like. Unfortunately, the vast majority of users at that time were not well-informed. Remember that we are talking of a time before commercial Internet/Web. Even today, there are people who still think that their OS is Internet Explorer and that Yahoo is a browser.
latkin 12y ago
This is a pretty great account of the whole msft antitrust debacle. Lots of interesting details and insights into motivations on both sides. Long read, but worth it. http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/microsoft_pr.html http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/microsoft_pr.htm...

by humpt 12y ago

Cthulhu_ 12y ago

Because Opera, and before that the company behind Real Player, are anal like that and the EU went and agreed with them for some silly reason. They never did go after Apple, or Google / Android, or whatever for doing the exact same thing (pre-installing a media player / browser). I guess you could argue that Microsoft was singled out because their browser was an inherent component of their OS, but at the same time you could go after Apple and Android as well for their webview that is required to be used in all applications that need one.

icebraining 12y ago
They don't go after Apple, because bundling by itself is not prohibited, only if you have an overwhelming control of the market, which Windows had but iOS doesn't. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the EU started pressuring Google on the Android front in the near future - they're already talking about splitting up the company. (Again, not advocating, just explaining)
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  The EU has no control over splitting up Google or the ability to make that happen. As far as Android goes, Google has no monopoly on the phone business.
  - cLeEOGPw 12y ago
    He meant there are talks in google to split the company in order to avoid application of monopoly laws.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      No, I meant what I said. Specifically, I was referring to this[1], where the EP says regulators should consider splitting up search engines from other commercial services. That doesn't mean I believe they well split them up - nor does the resolution say that, it's just a recommendation - but it does mean they're increasing the pressure on Google, and so potentially on Android as well. [1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20141125IPR80501/html/MEPs-zero-in-on-internet-search-companies-and-clouds http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/2014...
      - icantthinkofone 12y ago
        That link says nothing about anything you just said and doesn't mention Google directly either other than the general reference of "search engines".
        icebraining 12y ago
        Unbundling the search engine from all other commercial services essentially means splitting the company in two, even if they can still be called both "Google". Maybe I'm reading to much into it, but everyone else (Reuters. Telegraph, FT and a lot of others) seem to agree. In any case, all I'm saying I'd that it represents increased pressure, nothing more. As for not mentioning Google directly, that's not really a great puzzle. Google is the only search engine with any relevance in a regulatory sense, and MEPs have mentioned it before. Of course, they must remain impartial, but it's not DDG they're worried about :)
crdoconnor 12y ago
>They never did go after Apple, or Google / Android, or whatever for doing the exact same thing Duh. Because neither one had a monopoly.

outside1234 12y ago

You needed to be around in the 1990s to understand this. :) Its sort of like Google search now where when you search for "ann arbor map" you get a giant beautiful link to another Google property and a few riffraff links to other competitors that basically nobody ever clicks on because it would take effort. This is exactly where Microsoft was in the 90s / early 2000s with browsers. They had a dominant desktop share and they directly embedded IE and although there were alternatives, clicking takes effort and nobody did that. They just used IE. The EU forced them to provide an explicit, easy option to reduce that advantage. Given Google's dominant share in search, it would not be surprising to me to see the EU force them to change this for the same competition reasons. Also, it was a great way for the EU to shake Microsoft down for billions of dollars and ensure there was no one company more powerful than the EU, but I'll leave that to the conspiracy theorists.

walkon 12y ago
I was there in the 90s. Only having access to Windows when the Internet became common, guess how I went about learning there were other browsers out there and downloading Netscape? How much more difficult would that have been if IE wasn't included by default with Windows?
- laumars 12y ago
  Not that much harder since software demo disks often came bundled with consumer magazines. In fact back in the 90s, my Linux box would only receive updates via magazine cover disks.
  - walkon 12y ago
    Are you saying Microsoft should have intentionally excluded a means to browse http content and instead directed customers to be on the lookout for consumer magazines with a demo disk containing a browser? Where and how do they draw the line to being a useful distribution and alienating their users? For example, certain ICMP utilities were included by default with Windows.

icebraining 12y ago

The idea - and I'm just explaining it, not advocating nor criticizing - is that when you have a overwhelming control in one market (in this case, Windows), you can't use that to push your way to the top of another market, since it's stifling the competition and reducing consumer welfare.

finid 12y ago
> when you have a overwhelming control in one market, you can't use that to push your way to the top of another market, ... stifling the competition Microsoft not only used its OS monopoly to stifle competition, in many cases, it used it to kill many competing products and services. Steve Balmer once boasted that he'll stop at nothing to kill Netscape. If you were around during the Clinton years when the US filed an anti-trust case against MS, you'd have been surprised at the tactics that Bill Gates and Co used to kill competition. Those guys were despicable.

wahsd 12y ago

It's because not everyone ... actually the vast majority of users ... is aware of other browsers and even if they would be, they may have then only known about Firefox even though there are many many more browsers. Think of it this way, it's akin to a car manufacturer selling cars with labels that state that anything other than XYZ branded gasoline will cause damage and void the warranty. Sure, maybe it won't cause damage and sure it may not stand up in court that it voids the warranty, but most people aren't in the position to know that, nor should they need to be in the position to know. We ... the community of technology savy ... are very frequently remiss to ignore that not everyone can be, nor should have to be well informed about technology. Think of if Martha Stewart claimed that her recipe will only turn out if you use Greenest Pastures Milk when you are trying to hobble together a cake to impress your family. Are you informed enough about the intricacies of milk that you would know that you can use other milk brands? Sure, you may scoff and say that you know enough about milk to know that it's not true, but do you know that some brands don't have additives or certain types of fat that may collapse your batter?

josefresco 12y ago
Your car analogy is poor. Better would be to consider a scenario where Ford owned 95% of the car market, and offered for free, Ford branded stereos in each model whereas previously there was no stereo and you had to buy one separate. Other stereo manufacturers, who sell stereos got mad, and basically convinced the government that Ford has a monopoly and should be forced to offer consumers a choice in stereo. Microsoft never warned people that using another browser would "cause damage" or void warranty. They simply gave away something for free, that was previously a paid product. Their dominant market position gave them leverage to essentially wipe out the competition. This, depending on your market philosophy was either the right move to protect consumers, or an example of special interests influencing government to effect markets (IMHO it was probably both).
LLWM 12y ago
No, it's not like that. Microsoft didn't tell people installing other browsers would break their computer, people were just not aware of the option.

paulojreis 12y ago

Well... you know what a browser is (and you also know that there are alternatives). Most people don't. Most people don't open the browser, they "go to the Internet"; the browser is the "Internet". If a dominant player bundles their browser (as a component) in their OS, people become less and less aware of the browser as a possible and separate "product", and will of course use the dominant one as default - this is (and effectively was!) bad for competition and evolution(any web developer can tell you the pain this caused and still causes today).

pinumbernumber 12y ago
But the same is true for the calculator app, or the file manager. Granted, the web is used for a lot more than those... but I don't see why the browser is singled out as something needing special legal treatment.
- pixl97 12y ago
  > but I don't see why the browser is singled out as something needing special legal treatment Does your calculator interact with anything else but your computer? Same with file manager (SMB excluded)? Now lets look at the browser, it interacts with different servers, via the HTTP protocol, and the documents they serve via many different technologies such as HTML, Javascript, Java, XML, Flash, along with others. 'Back in the day' Microsoft did a very strong push to tie IE in with Windows, then push developers to use ActiveX on websites so they would only work with Microsoft products. There was no HTML5 multi-platform interoperability, if you wanted to visit a huge number of sites (many government ones too), you used Windows on X86, and you used IE. Even worse, after the early versions of IE, they dug its hooks deep in to the operating system so it became WindowsIE, you didn't have one without the other.
  - grobinson 12y ago
    I don't quite see what interaction over the Internet has to do with the issue. Microsoft Office is regularly bundled with new Windows computers as a trial, or basic license. Could that not be seen as anti competitive? I could argue that the TCP/IP stack is "bundled" with the operating system, and it's something that's very difficult to change (if not impossible without recompiling the kernel). Network engineers have probably had to put up with different TCP/IP stacks using different congestion control algorithms, impacting fairness of bandwidth usage on their networks. So by the same pretense, shouldn't TCP/IP stacks require the same choice that Microsoft were required to offer with browsers?

kalleboo 12y ago

I thought the original reason wasn't that Microsoft was shipping IE with Windows per say, but that they were telling OEMs that they weren't allowed to pre-install Netscape if they wanted to keep their sweet Windows OEM license deals. Am I thinking of the wrong case?

mgkimsal 12y ago
That was my recollection of the crux of it as well. Oh, you want to bundle Netscape with your Windows PC? Each copy of Windows will run you $80. If you decide to not bundle Netscape, it'll only be $30. I'm also reminded of Linux/desktop bundling. IIRC, MS tried (and I think succeeded) in their licensing terms require Windows licensing based on PCs shipped, not Windows PCs shipped, so even selling a Linux-only desktop still required an MS-tax, meaning it was more expensive to sell a Linux desktop than a Windows desktop (at least for some of the big players like Dell, HP, etc).
chrisan 12y ago
That would make more sense if this was the root of the problem. Otherwise Apple and Google would be in the same boat offering users a choice to install a browser other than the default for OSX, iOS, and Android
- kalleboo 12y ago
  It still wouldn't be the same case as neither Apple nor Google have anything near antitrust levels of monopoly
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

digitalzombie 12y ago

Microsoft own 90% of the PC market in the 90s. Netscape was the sizzle and you pay money to get a browser to surf internet. Microsoft decided to package IE for free on Window. Internet was wild west and mysterious. There's hardly any books on it and information wasn't traveling as fast for the masses to know much about internet. But they do know there's this IE thingy that will give them internet. IE destroyed netscape, very few people had a clue there was an alternative browser... Hence this was deem as a monopoly. Hell when I was a kid I didn't really know much other than netscape and all of a sudden IE. It didn't occur to me that there are choices but the fact that IE was a part of window and it just works out of the box. I moved to mozilla when IE was slowing down. But the point was it was so integrated with window that it was apart of it, it felt natural as if the internet was apart of microsoft. And in fact microsoft acted as a gate keeper of the internet for years that was their business goal. Their OS control stuff on the PC and that's how they made money. Which is why they lost to Google when they double down on their model. The way they acted and their many moves to monopolize it, one of which was IE.

rskar 12y ago

The simplest explanation: Implementation costs, as in what it takes to design internet based systems in order to connect with and make sales to consumers and businesses. The grand dream has long been to have a set of standards which web browser designers and network infrastructure designers must design to. In reality, standards development and compliance has a lag time to it that brings frustration to those who need web sites for their business models. So, in all practicality, they will design and test for perhaps one, two, or three platforms - as popularity may guide - and make use of non-standard methods where standards-based methods are lacking. Add to this what others have observed, that the typical user knows little to nothing about what a web browser is, or even cares to know. Companies that manage to achieve popularity for their internet technologies - such as a web browser, among other things - tend to have stronger voices and more powerful influences on standards committees. That gives them a competitive edge in that they can push for a standard where their products are already or nearly compliant with, thereby forcing others to expend energy (cash + time) into whatever reverse engineering projects needed to comply. Alternatively, the stronger voices can also induce more heel-dragging. In the meantime, companies that have the popular technologies - such as Microsoft, especially in the 1990's - can more easily make sales to the businesses requiring web sites, for either internet or intranet needs. And consumers find their internet surfing experience generally satisfying with the home computer as they got it (again, especially in the 1990's, that was MS Windows + Internet Explorer). Microsoft was uniquely positioned for dominance. They made the most popular desktop OS, and equipped it with a ubiquitous web browser (for both Windows and Mac OS back then). They then also had the server technology, software development tools, and a "portal" to funnel consumers to advertisers and shopping sites. Basically, they were leveraging their software technology and market position to get into the same business that Netscape had just started. They succeeded tremendously, and basically squeezed out much of the competition, including Netscape.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

The EU just followed what the US courts said during Clinton. Clinton turned MS into a whipping boy. In retrospect, the courts were wrong. Netscape's profit model made no sense. People didn't want to pay for commodity software like a web browser. MS had every right to release a free one bundled with their platform. The web isn't some optional thing. A browser is part of every OS now. On top of it, the deal MS signed didn't let it control OEMs so that laptop that's full of shitware that slows Windows down and gives it a huge attack surface is not something MS could fight until recently with Win8. The government empowered OEMs. The Netscape/MS fight wasn't worth it. The government should never have stepped in. In the end the best product wins. I, and everyone I know, got Chrome via downloading it. Not via some fancy choice menu. I think the truth here is that Netscape had a lot of friends in the government and Clinton's DOJ wanted to make some career defining kills. Bill Gates was an obvious target. It was wrong for Clinton to attack MS. It didn't stop IE6's dominance, it didn't revive Netscape, and it didn't fix anything. If anything, it made everything worse. Tech is generally a meritocracy. People can just migrate to whatever software they life. MS wasn't stopping Firefox or Netscape from being installed. Lets give our companies room to compete. Lets not applaud heavy handed legislation from either the US or the EU. I mean, google fucking maps can't even be seen in Spain due to corruption. Governments are just as corrupt as business. Except government is an unstoppable monopoly with guns.

Eric_WVGG 12y ago
Agree that in hindsight web browsers was a dumb thing to take down MS over. It was difficult at the time to make the claim that a browser-less computer would someday be effectively useless, but that point came. The lawsuit should have been over their Office suite. (And no, in the end, the best product did not win.)
finid 12y ago
@drzaiusapelord, I honestly don't know where to start with you, but I'll try. > Clinton turned MS into a whipping boy. No, he didn't. Bill Gates and Co got away with what amounted to a misdemeanor, when they could easily have been nailed with multiple felonies. Bill Gates once bragged openly that MS got away with a slap on the wrist. He knew what he was talking about. > the deal MS signed didn't let it control OEMs What are you talking about? MS controlled everybody, including Intel. One of the revelations of the anti-trust trial was that at one time, Intel wanted to give the ISP business a shot. Gates objected because that was competition he didn't want to face. Recall that Steve McNeally of then Sun Microsystems once had this idea of the network as the computer, what we now call Cloud computing. MS drew a hammer at it because of the obvious threat to its cash cow - Windows and Office. MS had (still has) a noose around the necks of OEMs. Those guys have to pay MS for every PC they ship, even once that don't ship with Windows. Do you know what effect that had on their desire to ship any other OS on their PCs? > The Netscape/MS fight wasn't worth it. The government should never have stepped in. BS! If the govt had not stepped in to curtail the activities of an evil empire, technological progress, especially in the software arena, would have been set back a lot more than it has. And it took a democratic administration to do it. No republican administration was going to do it, because, after all, they are always good for business. > Tech is generally a meritocracy. People can just migrate to whatever software they life. That and the test of the last paragraph of your comment is proof that you're a paid shrill. Yes, tech can be a meritocracy, if the playing field is level. Unfortunately, it often is not, because tech companies can get into deals that are anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Recall that a few years ago Intel was fined heavily because it had made deals with companies that discouraged them from using AMD's processors. Do you know how damaging deals like that had on AMD and on consumer choices? Well-informed people can migrate to any other software they like. Unfortunately, the vast majority of users at that time were not well-informed. Remember that we are talking of a time before commercial Internet/Web. Even today, there are people who still think that their OS is Internet Explorer and that Yahoo is a browser.

latkin 12y ago

This is a pretty great account of the whole msft antitrust debacle. Lots of interesting details and insights into motivations on both sides. Long read, but worth it. http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/microsoft_pr.html http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/microsoft_pr.htm...