-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft Prepares For a Huge EU Fine (maximum 10% of last year's revenues)
- Thread starter guit3457
- Start date
Fox News had a field day with "Socialist" Europe or something?
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
"Blame those evil Europeans for this travesty against an innocent corporate behemoth"
Fucking nonsense.
Fucking nonsense.
Jesus, EU has such a hard on for fucking over Microsoft. It's getting pretty ridiculous at this point. As people have said, they could get Apple and Google for the same bullshit within their respective markets, but Microsoft is always singled out. Google abuses its search engine to get Chrome users, and I'm never prompted to use anything but Safari when using iOS and OSX. I personally don't agree with the reasoning behind the fines, especially considering Internet Explorer being paired with Windows has done little to stop the former from continuing its downward slide.
Given that this is a topic about how MS is getting fined... AGAIN... for not doing what they were supposed to do after the first fine...
It doesn't seem like these companies will 'learn' anything.
They value their 'strategic advantages' more than they care about been fined.
Sadly, as a market, we may be incentivizing this sort of behaviour.
Oh well. Make the fines big enough to really make them shit their pants.
If the US Govt. had gone through with the breaking up of MS back in the 90s, we may possibly be seeing more pause from corporations of today from that sort of behaviour; using their size and weight to muscle out the competition.
Or you know instead of charging ahead you could get down from your high horse and actually read why MSFT is being fined and all.
That would be better for everyone involved, including the cleaning lady that had its time full with horse shit already.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
What about the tablet market?
I read the OP before making my post.
slaughterking
Member
Probably my favorite thing anyone said in this thread.
Warm Machine
Member
MS should lawyer up and fight this bs. In this era the PC is nothing more than computing form factor. Phones and tablets, for the vast majority of daily uses have the same capabilities and more. Email, photos, media, writing, surfing, social, etc.
The EU is acting like time has stood still over the last 10 years. If you flatten modern internet capable devices (Last 3 years to present) into marketshare the PC is probably 1/2 of the market at best.
I just wrote this post on my phone, in Safari. No PC required. A few years back that wouldn't have been possible.
The EU is acting like time has stood still over the last 10 years. If you flatten modern internet capable devices (Last 3 years to present) into marketshare the PC is probably 1/2 of the market at best.
I just wrote this post on my phone, in Safari. No PC required. A few years back that wouldn't have been possible.
Now read the thread and you'll see and understand why MSFT is being singled out.
Because they upped the speed limit doesn't mean you have a basis for not paying the fine you got for going overboard while going back from work.
-Amon-
Member
I pray to god once a week for your hope to become reality.
What about it, it would appear to be an even race at the moment.
Don't know how reliable that particular source is, but I picked it from many graphs from varying sources that painted the same picture.
HocusPocus
Member
LoL I mean I understand a penality but that's ridiculous.
grimshawish
Banned
One thing courts hate more than anything is breaking their decisions. Quite stupid of MS.
Frankly they should be pushing their software on other peoples OS's these days. It is rather astounding how much they've not adapted.
Whatever. They still have a desktop monopoly so its right that is clamped down on. Meanwhile there just isn't thay same situation elsewhere.
Just do as your told.
Frankly they should be pushing their software on other peoples OS's these days. It is rather astounding how much they've not adapted.
Whatever. They still have a desktop monopoly so its right that is clamped down on. Meanwhile there just isn't thay same situation elsewhere.
Just do as your told.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
That depends, which ones were being provided by a company previously found guilty of abusing it's monopoly and in direct contravention of the settlement terms that resulted from that verdict?
TheFightingFish
Member
It's honest not near as bad as the "license prices" fine that the article mentions, this current fine seems to be for a clear violation of the previous agreement which seems reasonable. In the "license prices" fine Microsoft was supposed to provide license rates at fair prices to competitors. However the EU ruling did not specify what a fair price was. So Microsoft continually over the period of a year or so lowered and lowered and lowered their rates. The EU would never say what the rates actually should be, they just kept saying that they were not low enough. Then when they finally agreed on the rates they fined Microsoft back payments for all the time that they were reducing rates, but the rates were still too high, even though they never told Microsoft at any point what the rates should be.
Honestly one of the most embarrassing shake downs for cash that I've ever seen.
From wiki:
Honestly one of the most embarrassing shake downs for cash that I've ever seen.
From wiki:
Does that matter? Does one only get in trouble in Europe if they screwed up in the past?
LOL
Sho_Nuff82
Member
What about it, it would appear to be an even race at the moment.
Don't know how reliable that particular source is, but I picked it from many graphs from varying sources that painted the same picture.
If that was accurate, Apple was at 72% marketshare as recently as 2011. At what point does market dominance become market monopoly? One could argue that apple and Google combined have made all other phone and tablet OS' non-competitive with their business models. I'm pretty sure every Android device ships with Google browser/maps and a YouTube app.
As someone said above, this kind of ruling is stuck in a 2003 mindset where phones and tablets aren't all-purpose computing devices that compete with and often replace dedicated desktops. And Apple/Google are allowed to run wild while MS is fined and sanctioned into irrelevance in the PC space.
Apple and Google should be separated so we can put a stop to this devastating monopoly.
It's amazing how completely unable people in this thread are of distinguishing between entirely, well, distinct situations. Could it be that laws related to leveraging monopolies only apply in case a company actually has a monopoly? Nah, it has to be the evil EU trying to remedy financial problems with the mighty US dollar.
lastflowers
Banned
I love how there are so many people here that think it was intentional.
I really doubt that it was intentional.
I really doubt that it was intentional.
Quicksilver4648
Member
Look, I am against real monopolies as much as the next guy (looking at you cable companies in the US) but I fail to see how Microsoft did anything that is anti-consumer. They develop and sell the Windows OS and it perfect sense to me that they only pre-install Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. I fail to why NOT including a competitors software in your product is considered anti-consumer. Microsoft has done nothing to prohibit the end user from installing any 3rd party software they want. Does OSX come preinstalled with Firefox? Do Android phones come preinstalled with other web browsers?
I'll try to rephrase one of my previous posts. Microsoft isn't being fined for having a dominant position in the market. It is getting fined because it has continuously abused of that position with monopolistic strategies and refused to comply to a mutually agreed settlement with the European Commission.
TheNatural
My Member!
This is the issue and has always been the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
This is why it's dangerous. By only offering a default option for the consumer, many consumers still use whatever is just there by default. Times have changed, but it still happens.
Once they get a foothold, they introduce some arbitrary non standard to break competitors compatability, which then can't be replicated because Microsoft owns the rights to the technology.
We see this up to this day. Microsoft continuously tries to close down environments where competitors have an edge. Windows 8 was proof this kind of thinking still exists with them, nothing's changed. Same with 360's successor and it's DRM and anti-resell measures. DirectX has a monopoly on being *the* PC gaming API, and now no one considers serious gaming on a non Windows PC.
Things like that are why a little thing like choosing a browser or media player at startup are important. Microsoft never lets it "just be." They make sure they crush competitors and leave consumers with no alternative, and then charge ridiculous prices for it.
Firstly, MS has had ~90% marketshare for pretty much the past two decades. Apple enjoys that kind of market share for a few years at best. Secondly, just because the industry mindset has changed, you can't go around breaking your previous contracts. EU was well within their rights to fine MS for a percentage of their income for failing to comply for over a year.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
It's not about monopoly at all, it's about a dominant position. Depends on the market what dominant is (there was one case I recall where a market share of 40% was held to be dominant, I think because the rest of the market was very fragmented - I think that was the one about bananas).
And it's also about abuse of that position. Fair competition isn't abuse. Price cartels, restrictive distribution agreements, predatory pricing are abuse. As is deliberately conspiring to unfairly close off the market to competition, which is roughly what happened here.
The analogy with phones isn't an accurate one, as phones are usually proprietary products. PCs aren't.
Which wasn't even the first time they did something like that.
For example pre-release Windows 3.1 had a check in it (they called it AARD), which made it not work under anything but MS-DOS, which was purely artificial, because when someone from Digital Research figured it out and built a small TSR to fix that check, it worked totally fine without any problems whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS
They did something like that again for Windows 95 (and this time it wasn't just pre-release code only) and were sued for that as well. Microsoft was and is extremly shady. I mean look at the DOCX/XLSX crap that they introduced to a) force customers to upgrade to later office versions b) break compatibility with other office software, which were able to read DOC/XLS files pretty well - which took ages to reverse engineer.
uncledonnie
Banned
Uh huh.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/microsoft-most-ethical-company_n_837003.html
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/window-on-windows/microsoft-is-one-of-the-worlds-most-ethical-companies/5870
http://www.ethisphere.com/wme/
Stop pretending this is the same company it was 15 years ago.
I can't believe this was a 'technical error'. Like the UK Apple vs Samsung ruling, I bet some MS execs though they could be dicks and outsmart the ruling. Only, like Apple, to find you don't mess with the explicit ruling of courts.
And knowing the sheer scale of the fine they would face, you would have though the ensuring the court mandated browser choice would be high on the priorities to check each time MS made a patch or change to Windows.
That is a naive interpretation of this. Monopolies by their very nature are anti-consumer. Competition is the force that drives down prices and provides more options for consumers. A monopoly doesn't. And when a company abuses its monopoly in one area to prevent competitors in another (which is basis of the anti-trust ruling against MS), it kills of competition in new areas too.
Monopolies = high prices and limited choice. The very definition of anti-consumer.
And knowing the sheer scale of the fine they would face, you would have though the ensuring the court mandated browser choice would be high on the priorities to check each time MS made a patch or change to Windows.
That is a naive interpretation of this. Monopolies by their very nature are anti-consumer. Competition is the force that drives down prices and provides more options for consumers. A monopoly doesn't. And when a company abuses its monopoly in one area to prevent competitors in another (which is basis of the anti-trust ruling against MS), it kills of competition in new areas too.
Monopolies = high prices and limited choice. The very definition of anti-consumer.
TheNatural
My Member!
I'm not pretending. The proof is still there. Just ask Notch or Gabe Newell what they think about Windows 8:
http://www.neowin.net/news/valves-gabe-newell-calls-windows-8-this-giant-sadness
Or better yet, look at the countless threads on 360's successor with DRM and anti-resell measures.
And oh, not to mention the thread we're in. Yeah I'm sure the simple act of adding options mandated by the EU just "skipped" some multi billion dollar monopolistic corporations mind.
Same Microsoft, different decade.
AwakenedCloud
Member
Incredible. All of the messed up business practices in the PC market, and this is what they go after? Fine HP and other companies who install software bundles on new machines and provide n information to the end-user on how to uninstall them. This should be criminal, especially if they default to run on startup. I can't even begin the amount of people I've had to help because bloatware like this sad pushed on them.
Go after the Laptop companies that advertise the actual hard drive size rather than what they make available. Go after CNET for defaulting users to install their download software rather than the actual software they're looking for. Go after the software that has tiny check boxes that install unwanted software. Go after the ask.com toolbar. Go after subscription software that boa down the user's computer months after it expired. Go after something that really matters.
Go after the Laptop companies that advertise the actual hard drive size rather than what they make available. Go after CNET for defaulting users to install their download software rather than the actual software they're looking for. Go after the software that has tiny check boxes that install unwanted software. Go after the ask.com toolbar. Go after subscription software that boa down the user's computer months after it expired. Go after something that really matters.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
This is why the EU is great.
No other government-esque entity has the balls to put down capitalist interests below those of the people.
Well, except Iceland - but we all know Iceland is special.
No other government-esque entity has the balls to put down capitalist interests below those of the people.
Well, except Iceland - but we all know Iceland is special.
This is a bunch of bullshit what the EU is doing to the company when they gave Google a slap on the wrist for their monopoly in search. So now if Microsoft wants to include new features and services to Windows they have to include the competition's product? Like if they want to set Sky Drive as the default online storage they would have to include drop box as an option?
What if they wanted to include One Note as the default note taking software on there do they have to suddenly include Evernote? When does it stop?
What if they wanted to include One Note as the default note taking software on there do they have to suddenly include Evernote? When does it stop?
What about it, it would appear to be an even race at the moment.
Don't know how reliable that particular source is, but I picked it from many graphs from varying sources that painted the same picture.
Was Apple fined in 2011?
Have they fined EA with Madden?
Penalty clauses are valid contractual terms under EU law? I don't know why that surprises me, but it still does. The fact that no Court has been involved in this process troubles me deeply. This sort of thing wouldn't fly in Australia, fortunately.
lastflowers
Banned
I'm sorry, but 'Notch' and Gabe Newell should not ever be brought up as proof.
This isn't a Court order.
The EU Commission works jointly with the EU Court of Justice.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
This one would be (as it would pretty well anywhere), because a penalty clause isn't a penalty clause if it is a genuine estimate of losses arising under the contract. And here that's just what it is, because the range of penalties available is laid down in law and it is precisely that penalty that Microsoft sought to avoid by settling as it did.
It would fly in Australia just as well.
Duallusion
Member
Where exactly does all that money go, in these situations?
Or unconfirmed rumors.
Similar threads
- Locked