Microsoft fined $731m by European Commission over web browser choice • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft fined $731m by European Commission over web browser choice

#91

Post by gjulianm » Wed, Mar 06, 2013, 1:16 PM UTC

martinced wrote: post #83

brg1007 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This fine is plain stupid. Why EU doesn't fine Google for the same thing on Android. Android is in a monopoly position in EU and I do not saw any broswer choice screen when I first start my Android phone.

You're seriously confused as to what a monopoly is and what a monopoly implies. There's nothing wrong with having a monopoly. What is, however, illegal is to abuse your monopoly to keep and extend your monopoly to other domains. Btw Google / Android isn't near anywhere a monopoly in the smartphone / tablet market. What would be illegal would be, for example, Google using its search engine to eliminate any mention of…

Google / Android + Chrome is not a monopoly in the same sense that Windows + Internet Explorer isn't neither. Maybe in other ways MS has abused its position, but not in IE. At least in my opinion.

Why? Because IE was a default browser, all the OS have a default browser. Microsoft didn't prohibited anybody from installing another browser.

If we consider that a monopoly and something punishable, then Android + Chrome is another monopoly. In EU, Android has over 61% market share [1]. And every Android comes with its default browser. And as your parent said, I don't see any ballot screen telling me to choose an alternative browser, but Google doesn't keep you from installing other browsers. Is the exact same situation.

[1] http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-raises-market-share-to-5...

Re: Microsoft fined $731m by European Commission over web browser choice

#92

Post by bnegreve » Wed, Mar 06, 2013, 1:20 PM UTC

mda wrote: post #88

bnegreve wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with this kind of reaction: 1. I don't think it's useless, when companies raise their price they loose customers so Microsoft will probably be more careful next time. 2. If it is useless in practice, we should change the law but surely not let them do what they want, just because it's useless.

So they fined a company which controls almost entire European Government infrastructure. Company screws up, gets fined, things will continue business as usual, Microsoft still can do whatever they want, at least in the medium term. What EU could do is to actively try to reduce their dependency to a single firm, they can check the future deals, look for alternatives. Then they can have an upper hand and then no compan…

> What EU could do is to actively try to reduce their dependency to a single firm

Yeah well, fighting IE's monopole is trying to reduce dependecy to Microsoft.

Re: Microsoft fined $731m by European Commission over web browser choice

#93

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 06, 2013, 1:21 PM UTC

martinced wrote: post #83

brg1007 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This fine is plain stupid. Why EU doesn't fine Google for the same thing on Android. Android is in a monopoly position in EU and I do not saw any broswer choice screen when I first start my Android phone.

You're seriously confused as to what a monopoly is and what a monopoly implies. There's nothing wrong with having a monopoly. What is, however, illegal is to abuse your monopoly to keep and extend your monopoly to other domains. Btw Google / Android isn't near anywhere a monopoly in the smartphone / tablet market. What would be illegal would be, for example, Google using its search engine to eliminate any mention of…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft fined $731m by European Commission over web browser choice

#94

Post by vidarh » Wed, Mar 06, 2013, 1:24 PM UTC

powertower wrote: post #80

MichaelApproved wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misunderstanding. The problem is that Microsoft is using its OS monopoly to try and create another one. These special anticompetetive triggers only come into effect when the company has a monopoly. To be more clear, there is noting illegal about HAVING a monopoly. It's what you do WITH a monopoly that matters. If you don't have a monopoly, you're much less restricted with what you can do. To correct you analog…

Since when couldn't you just open IE and download your browser of choice? The browser ballot is BS imposed by bureaucrats.

Since human nature meant a substantial percentage of users are uninformed about what is available to them, and this is part of what made Microsoft monopoly abuse possible.

Re: Microsoft fined $731m by European Commission over web browser choice

#95

Post by vidarh » Wed, Mar 06, 2013, 1:26 PM UTC

pepperp wrote: post #70

MichaelApproved wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misunderstanding. The problem is that Microsoft is using its OS monopoly to try and create another one. These special anticompetetive triggers only come into effect when the company has a monopoly. To be more clear, there is noting illegal about HAVING a monopoly. It's what you do WITH a monopoly that matters. If you don't have a monopoly, you're much less restricted with what you can do. To correct you analog…

Fair, I get you. I still wouldn't have a problem with the corrected analogy. Firstly, I consider the web browser an integral part of an OS even if you have the choice to replace it, so it's not creating a further monopoly, it's just part of the package (just like tires and the body of a car). But more importantly, problems caused by some monopolies (e.g. extortion), and monopolies themselves, have historically been t…

That it is an integral part is relatively unimportant all the time there exists an independent market for it.

Tires are an integral part of cars, yet there is a thriving market for tires. A car manufacturer that got to Microsoft level market share and tried to shut out other tire manufacturers would face the same kind of scrutiny.

Re: Microsoft fined $731m by European Commission over web browser choice

#96

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 06, 2013, 1:26 PM UTC

martinced wrote: post #83

brg1007 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This fine is plain stupid. Why EU doesn't fine Google for the same thing on Android. Android is in a monopoly position in EU and I do not saw any broswer choice screen when I first start my Android phone.

You're seriously confused as to what a monopoly is and what a monopoly implies. There's nothing wrong with having a monopoly. What is, however, illegal is to abuse your monopoly to keep and extend your monopoly to other domains. Btw Google / Android isn't near anywhere a monopoly in the smartphone / tablet market. What would be illegal would be, for example, Google using its search engine to eliminate any mention of…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft fined $731m by European Commission over web browser choice

#97

Post by brg1007 » Wed, Mar 06, 2013, 1:28 PM UTC

gjulianm wrote: post #91

martinced wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're seriously confused as to what a monopoly is and what a monopoly implies. There's nothing wrong with having a monopoly. What is, however, illegal is to abuse your monopoly to keep and extend your monopoly to other domains. Btw Google / Android isn't near anywhere a monopoly in the smartphone / tablet market. What would be illegal would be, for example, Google using its search engine to eliminate any mention of…

Google / Android + Chrome is not a monopoly in the same sense that Windows + Internet Explorer isn't neither. Maybe in other ways MS has abused its position, but not in IE. At least in my opinion. Why? Because IE was a default browser, all the OS have a default browser. Microsoft didn't prohibited anybody from installing another browser. If we consider that a monopoly and something punishable, then Android + Chrome i…

As gjulianm stated, Android is a monopoly in EU. So I do not see any valid argument that Android should be punished the same way as Microsoft is/was.

Re: Microsoft fined $731m by European Commission over web browser choice

#98

Post by vidarh » Wed, Mar 06, 2013, 1:28 PM UTC

meaty wrote: post #55

arethuza wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this has anything to do with companies that offer services around Microsoft products - this will be about the Microsoft subsidiaries and assets located within the EU - there will probably be at least one Microsoft legal entity within each country where they have a direct presence, not to mention significant assets like large data centers.

Which is still an issue for a lot of people who depend on them.

That's an issue those people would need to take up with Microsoft if Microsoft decides to risk their business over this. If they don't pay, they will have assets frozen, just as any other company or individual that refuse to pay their fines. Simple as that.

Re: Microsoft fined $731m by European Commission over web browser choice

#99

Post by vidarh » Wed, Mar 06, 2013, 1:30 PM UTC

meaty wrote: post #10

What motivation have Microsoft got to pay this?

Getting to decide by what means they pay it, rather than have EU courts order some of their assets confiscated.

Re: Microsoft fined $731m by European Commission over web browser choice

#100

Post by marknutter » Wed, Mar 06, 2013, 1:34 PM UTC

This fine would only make sense if Microsoft prevented users from installing a different browser.

Consider an analogy: let's say there's a power company who runs a monopoly on generating electricity. They also provide natural gas services to their customers. There is, however, a bunch of other smaller natural gas companies just a phone call away that people can buy natural gas from; all you have to do is call them and have a technician come and flip a switch in your home. Is it really harmful to the consumer if the power company with the dominant market position doesn't give their customers the phone numbers of the companies competing with its natural gas division? No.