Antitrust probe looms over Windows RT 'browser ban'
US politicians are reportedly poring over complaints by Mozilla that Microsoft will block access to rival browsers in Windows 8 on ARM, aka Windows RT. The powerful Senate Judiciary Committee plans to “take a look” at the allegations made by the Firefox maker last week, which were backed up by Google. Whispers of a probe …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Surely they need to have a monopoly?
In order for this to stick, surely they'd need to be using a position of power in one market to leverage themselves into another market.
Why can Microsoft not create a tablet device as they see fit without others having access to it? They don't have a monopoly in the tablet market...
Re: Surely they need to have a monopoly?
I might be misinterpreting things, but according to what I've read Microsoft made a deal after similar past accusations that it will always allow third-party developers to access all of its APIs. There seems to be some room for interpretation whether that deal only applied to the x86 platform, or Microsoft's APIs in general - so the main issue here is that Microsoft is not living up to its promises, not that it has a monopoly.
Re: Surely they need to have a monopoly?
As far as I know, Mozilla hasn't complained about access to XBox so it can't be an 'all APIs' deal.
Re: Xbox
As far as I know the APIs for Xbox are available. Anyone who wants to program for it can get the dev studio. They even offer free trials and resources for this. If one MS game had APIs that a EA or Ubisoft game could not use, then EA or Ubisoft would cry foul. "Our games are being made worse by MS locking us out of APIs!"
I think that's the difference. If they want to lock out functionality, they the market says they must play fair. Either everyone releasing an app for the OS has the same tools, or everyone has the same restrictions.
"Windows"
Microsoft could have avoided all this if tablet OS was named something other than "Windows".
But that would not do for Redmond, would it?
Re: "Windows"
Yes, that's why the Xbox 360 is actually called "Windows PlayTime Box Thingy 360"
Oh no, wait...
Re: "Windows"
Mark my words, The metro UI will soon be known as "Window Pains" (Panes - de dum cha)
Google pitched in
"Google pitched in, saying that Microsoft should follow the example it set with the open Chrome OS."
Re: Google pitched in
I fear the sarcasm contained in that statement may be above the level of some commentards.
Re: Google pitched in
No the sarcasm level was just right:
On a chromeOS device you can run another OS and so another browser.
Isn't MS trying to stop any other operating system being run on ARM devices released with MS on them?
Re: Google pitched in
Please ask Apple to allow the iPad/iPhone to run another OS then just so you can have an alternative browser
Re: Google pitched in
Also, do Google not open up their code and APIs? They would love someone else to use the code in a better way or invent something great. Why? Because they either buy the company after, or imitate it. I think it's fair for them to imitate if it's their hardware, OS and they put their own work into their own products. It's not like you can own the idea to have 4 wheels on a car. :P
Re: Google pitched in
On a chromeOS device you can run another OS and so another browser.
Yes, and only 20 complex steps required to do so including rooting the device. What a practical to install a new browser. /s
You'll probably be able to hack and thus circumvent Windows RT quicker than that.
Re: Google pitched in
"Also, do Google not open up their code and APIs? They would love someone else to use the code in a better way or invent something great. Why? Because they either buy the company after, or imitate it."
I think it's because Google's business model is about tracking your information and selling marketing services on top of it, actually. They don't worry about selling their software, they're about selling the number of people using it. I actually prefer to pay for something upfront where possible.
Re: Google pitched in h4rm0ny
I guess. Also, you cannot install whatever OS you want on your washing machine. Well, unless you really like to tinker with Linux.
As others have said, it seems to have to do a bit with markets. That and selling apps. If your selling third party apps, those companies will want certain things. Some of these things are legally required.
Please delete this if this is 1 of 100 comments pointing this out
The point AIUI is that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist so different rules apply to them.
Now, you could presumably argue that Microsoft no longer have an effective monopoly of 'things wot one sits at and uses browsers on', which I think is unarguable. But, what is the procedure for saying 'OK, I'm not a monopolist any more, can I start doing the dickish things other people not convicted of being monopolies are getting away with?'?.
Re: Please delete this if this is 1 of 100 comments pointing this out
They certainly do have an operating system monopoly which they can use to push their other software on people.
I'd even argue they should for what sort of damage they may causing to the anti virus market by dumping their free protection on people and therefore making it harder for others to enter the market.
Re: "Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
Actually, they aren't. They should have been, but they weren't. And that matters a whole lot in this case.
What actually happened was they entered into a consent decree before they were convicted. And it was one of those "non-admission of guilt" pleas. What they were subsequently convicted of was violating the consent decree. But the consent decree is now long, long expired. And the subsequent violation dies with it. So any current accusations of improperly leveraging a monopoly are a whole new legal game.
Same old, same old
Prediction: Microsoft will fight to the bitter end on this. As with the netbook market, they'd rather see ARM die as a platform than concede any ground to their competitors on a key desktop component like the web browser. It is the ARM manufacturers, and government, that need to step up here. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Re: Same old, same old
>Microsoft ... would..rather see ARM die as a platform than concede any ground to their competitors
EH? virtually every tablet on the market uses ARM architecture processors, including the 'new' ipad, so your anti-microsoft rant doesnt make any sense.
Re: Same old, same old
Why does microsoft care about IE?
A long time ago, and far far away, IE6-only web apps prevented migration to other platforms, but now IE is near compliant, and multi-browser libaries are pretty common, it just doesn't have the same lock in factor.
What keeps devlopers on MS platforms now are the awesome dev tools, and the user base. Cooperate IT love it because the network administration tools are built around use cases they actually need, and useful, rather than the roll your own linux approach, or big fat nothing in the case of tablet platforms.
Users stay because it came on the PC, and because it's the platform developers write for.
Where exactly does IE fit into this as an asset? Surely they just need to write 'a browser' to tick of that feature, and then hope someone writes a better one?
MS do not make the best antivirus software in the world, but there are so many 3rd party offerings it doesn't matter. Same with image edit
Standby for chair now entering Low Fester Orbit!
Microsoft cannot into process improvement, it seems. Or they have a high legal counsel churn.
Firefox != Netscape
Firefox shares almost no code with Netscape Navigator (as implied in the article).
Firefox (originally Phoenix, then Firebird) started out as a highly optimized rewrite of the then bloated and slow Netscape Navigator Suite.
Netscape's browser eventually formed the basis of Mozilla’s Firefox
That was the plan, but the open source types found the code so poor (inefficient and unmanageable) that they decided to rewrite it from scratch.
Re: Netscape's browser eventually formed the basis of Mozilla’s Firefox
Yet it did form the basis of Mozilla spinoffs such as SeaMonkey. A project which IMO proofs that a bad start doesn't have to result in a bad product (I actually use & enjoy SeaMonkey on a daily basis).
Get out of monopoly free card
Of course Microsoft had their lawyers review this decision and find that they are within their legal rights to do this.
If you read the Findings of Fact from Microsoft's monopoly case you'll see that it just mentions "Intel-compatible PC".
ARM is a whole new world to be explo(red|ited).
"Windows 8 on ARM, aka WinRT"
Did I miss WinRT only being an ARM thing? I thought that was the tech underlying Windows 8's Metro universe, regardless of the proc architecture?
Re: "Windows 8 on ARM, aka WinRT"
In Microsoft's infinite wisdom, Windows RT is now the official name for Window 8 on ARM. WinRT is the new API for writing "Metro" apps on Windows 8 (x86) and Windows RT. Nothing confusing here :)
Re: "Windows 8 on ARM, aka WinRT"
WinRT is the name of the new Windows API. currently limted to Metro style apps. Windows RT is the name of the ARM tablet OS that runs Metro style apps. Not a very imaginative choice of branding.
"Windows RT" makes me feel nostalgic!
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/winrg
Re: "Windows RT" makes me feel nostalgic!
You have just won an Internet, good sir.
Kindle?
Has Mozilla also logged complaints about Amazon and Kindle?
Re: Kindle?
From my perspective, the difference is that Amazon (and Apple, and Microsoft/Xbox360) are selling a bundle consisting of hardware and OS (firmware, really), whereas Microsoft (WinRT/Windows 8 on ARM) are selling a piece of software for other manufacturers to install on their hardware. And they are requiring that it be "impossible" to install alternative OS or components, or that the add-in software be at a disadvantage to their bundled applications. I consider both to be offensive, the second a bit more so than the first. Either way, it's clear that you don't "own" the machinery in the same sense as if you buy a Dell or HP desktop or build your own. The same is true, sort of, for much Android stuff, but I haven't heard that the providers lean especially on those who root their device and install alternative firmware.
Re: Kindle?
Amazon is exempt from any antitrust litigation since they sell the much needed law textbooks at much lower prices than the competition.
Books are the second largest expense for a law degree, at around $20,000 - nice to get 30% off that.
Hmmmm
Good old Microsoft. Not like them at all is it? I'll bet their own browser is buggy and crashy anyway.
Chair alert...
MS will have to hope the EU don't get involved.
It was them that put most pressure on them with fines and a demand for a choice of browser to be built in that led to the current system.
If the EU decide that others must have full access plus the same rights and first run of the OS as for windows now then they could again be facing a big fine and a possible ban on the software in the EU for non compliance.
That would surely put back any realease till early next year. If I was the Bullmister I would be getting the script kiddies at al working day and night sorting this out just in case a different version to what they want to roll out is needed....
@Big_ted
What the EU did was overrated and quite frankly; the effect wasn't quite what they intended.
I mean; the choice of browser... First the ruling came long after the facts and the only thing MS actually did was add some dumb ass program (IMO) which pointed people to other possible options. But their explorer was still there, quite dominantly even. In fact; XP still came with MSIE pre-installed because: "how else would you be able to install updates on a pristine installation?".
I know for a fact that many end users considered that "choice of browsers program" annoying and intrusive instead of something which defended their rights.
"Hello? Yes, I installed Explorer 8 myself yet this stupid program keeps popping up asking me what browser I want. What should I do? I don't want another browser".
"I reinstalled XP and now I have some program which keeps asking me to select a browser. How can I tell it I don't want any change? I don't want firefox, I don't want chrome but I also don't want explorer 8. I don't want new stuff, how to turn this crap off?".
And we had dozens of support calls like that. And most people /did/ realize that this program was something which was demanded by the EU and they weren't happy about it. Some even felt being treated like idiots who couldn't make up their own minds.
Google have a cheek
Not that I would know why you would want to install anothe browser, but surely Google are doing exactly the same thing with ChromeOS. The browser is so intertwined with the OS including name. I don't think they should be shouting too loud.
The big difference is that you have chromeOS as just one of several OS'son a machine and so have choice.
With Windows for Arm MS are blocking any other OS being allowed unless the hardware is locked so you are still restricted.
As to why you would want another browser for years IEhas been behind others with new things for instance tabs took ages to get on IE whilst Opera and Firefox had them.
> The big difference is that you have chromeOS as just one of several OS'son a machine and so have choice.
What about the Chromebooks?
I can't see a problem with this. I thought the basis of the original antitrust probes and decisions was that Microsoft had a monopoly position in the desktop PC world, and that was why they were forced to open up to the other browsers. MS has anything but a monopoly in tablets.
And the argument about ChromeOS being OK blocking browsers is a strawman. If you can block browsers because someone can just install another OS on their machine, then the original MS antitrust legislation should be voided as well - there are dozens of Linux/Unix variants that can be installed on any desktop PC alongside or instead of Windows.
Antitrust
Guys,
It is perfectly legal to have a closed ecosystem for products. ChromeOS, iOS or whatever have this with complete impunity because the purveyors of these OSs are not monopolies in the market.
The freetards of the Chruch of Stallman might have a philosophical objection, but there sure as hell isn't a legal one - in the US or anywhere else in the civilised world.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and they were convicted of antitrust breaches because they are a monopoly. One needs to BE a monopoly in order to breach the monopolies laws.
Closed system != monopoly != antitrust breach.
Remember, MS also tried to hijack Java. Why?
MS are a monoply in the delivery platform for desktops (fact) and MS foresaw (correctly) that Netscape and Java posed massive threats to this monoply, so tried to destroy/replace them. MS's Java war resulted in a big fail and payout to Sun, and MS went on to give us .NET etc. The Netscape war landed them in court, and they got off with lightly with a long term oversight by The department of Justice. In both of these cases, MS's actions were all about protection of their monopoly in the delivery platform. MS's behaviour is the natural behaviour of a monopoly, it is bad for the consumer by definition, and therefore there are laws against it.
Dweeb
ps: It is more than 10 years sinceI read the "Findings of Fact" (link in this forum), but I commend it to those here who actually want to know something, instead of just having an unsupported and logically and legally wrong opinion based on ignorance.
Re: Antitrust
@AC 14:38
Are you saying that because MS is a monopoly (which they still are on the desktop) they can't put these restrictions on their new tablet OS? Ignore me if I've misunderstood.
If it's legally OK for Apple to have a closed ecosystem, then what's the problem with MS doing exactly the same? Windows RT, despite the name, is a new OS. You won't be able to install it on your desktop or any other device, just like iOS. Apps will only be available via the Windows Marketplace.
So this is not IE vs. Netscape all over again. What MS are doing in this instance could indeed be deemed anti-competitive but if it is then why not Apple?
Re: Antitrust
A.C 15:24
Short answer, maybe.
It is a long time since I read the judgement. IIRC the monopoly was specifically in x86 desktop OS.
As another poster argued, MS can (and probably will) cogently argue that this is a whole different ballpark, and they *might* get the courts to agree. It is certainly quite possible. In which case they are free to do whatever they want, as Apple and Google do on their respective platforms.
However, Justice (or the courts) may deem that winRT on Arm is an extension of the Windows ecosystem and leverages heavily the windows OS monopoly and its delivery platform IE. MS is prohibited from making IE the ONLY browser on Windows (x86) and DoJ/courts may extend this to other versions of Windows. There are lots of tricky legalities here, so words from a real attorney are needed. Remember, WinRT on Arm did not exist in 1999, so the courts did not take account of it in the judgment and findings. Courts can and do extend the legal coverage of laws and judgements to encompass technologies not in existence at the time of judgement or enactment, if they consider that the new technology would have been included had it existed. (eg. laws that say "telegraph" might be extended to include "telephone" subsequent to the invention of the device).
As another poster commented, it's all about getting people to develop and deploy on IE which will become the only game in town for WinRT. Write once, run anywhere. get it? :)
Dweeb
Re: Antitrust
Thanks - that's really helpful info. Additionally, at least in the EU you can't use a monopoly in one market to try to create one in another market so that may be relevant here too but IA most certainly NAL.
Re: Antitrust
Apple doesn't have a monopoly anywhere. Their marketshare on desktops is tiny, as the Googletards like the point out Android has the largest marketshare and again according to the Googletards Android is going to completely own the tablet market any day now.
So Apple has no monopoly to help force themselves into a strong position in another market unlike the convicted monopolist Microsoft.
I do like how people who have far too much vested interest in hating Apple always seem to insist they're either too powerful or on the verge of destruction and bankruptcy due to sucking and or Android. Depending of course on which one is the best situation for their argument.
I'm sensing some real insecurities with those people.
Re: Antitrust
>Apple doesn't have a monopoly anywhere
have you heard of iTunes ?
Re: Antitrust
It's not the only source of music or video on Apple devices, it's music is DRM free and it takes little to no effort to get movies or music onto an ipod or ipod without iTunes.
It does, I guess have a monopoly on getting applications onto an iphone you don't want to jailbreak which might be an issue if the iphone had a monopoly and they were abusing it.
This topic is closed for new posts.
