Google, Too, Chooses Lobbying Over Competing
from the is-that-so-googley? dept
Microsoft's increasing regulatory headache from the European Commission concerns its Internet Explorer browser that comes standard with Windows. We've said before that this investigation is prima facie silly given the vibrant and increasing competition in the browser market, but it looks like things are just going to get worse for Microsoft. First, it was Mozilla deciding to complain that Microsoft was creating an unhealthy browser market by bundling IE with Windows. Now, Google is jumping onto the bandwagon and arguing that Microsoft's policy limits competition and harms innovation.This is primarily problematic because the browser market is anything but uncompetitive. Firefox has created what is widely considered a better product, and, wouldn't you know it, gained considerable market share around the world (as high as 30% in some regions). More recently, Google introduced its own browser, Chrome, that launched to accolades and much user adoption. By introducing regulators into the browser market, these companies will all be distracted from providing users with the best possible product.
But what's even more confounding is Google's involvement. Obviously the company desires control of most browsers so it can set the defaults in its favor, but it is increasingly obvious that Google should not be bringing regulatory attention to the Internet -- especially when it comes to antitrust questions. Although claims of Google's "monopoly" are as specious as Internet Explorer's, making noise about antitrust is likely to come back and bite Google, especially given the rising number of political enemies they have.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, browsers, bundling, eu, internet explorer, regulators
Companies: google, microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crushing the IE juggernaught
Weighing a devastating strike against MS browser market share against irking some nebulous regulatory specter, I would opt for putting MS on the chopping block. Google making a solid tactical call on this one, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crushing the IE juggernaught
Google doesn't need to litigate, once IE8 comes out of Beta, people will be flocking to other browsers in droves.
If I were Microsoft I would ask Google what they recommend. Remove the browser completely, not allowing people online at all? Bundle other, soon to be obsolete (everything gets updated) browsers into Windows? Spend extra time and money to develop another browser (outside of IE and MSN) to create a third browser to allow people to download one of the competitors? And this all still ignores the fact that MAC has only Safari and Linux has only Mozilla.
It's been a while since I used chrome (since it was built on top of IE), can one change the search provider used in the address bar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crushing the IE juggernaught
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since they build a better mousetrap yet only see a 30% market share some barrier to entry in the market must be in place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm
I mean we really do want to push MS to forcibly unbundle IE. It's not about the browser dominance, it creates a whole computer dominance. I don't think having them include multiple browsers is a good idea, but I do think that some method needs to come up to allow people to choose. That in itself would take years to come up with a fair/good method.
Remember: they tie IE to the file explorer too. If they can force unbundling then MS can't force IE as the file explorer either. I find this to be the truly critical factor.
So I think this isn't just a black and white google is taking the easy road here...maybe that's just me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basic app
Having a browser out of the box is to be assumed as much as having Notepad for text files or the Calculator app.
How are you suppose to download your browser of choice if you can get to the web to start with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Basic app
That's funny. Do you really think that the only to access the Internet is with a web browser? Maybe you should read up about the Internet a little before making such comments so that you don't embarrass yourself so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Basic app
You seem to be proving his point. If he (a person who understands enough of this area to comment on this thread) doesn't understand how to get a new browser without already having one, how can you possibly expect that the average computer user will know?
Should they "read up about the Internet a little ... so that you don't embarrass yourself so much."
Is this what you will tell your grandmother when she asks how she is supposed to view pictures that a family member just sent her?
That is so insulting that it sounds like you don't care what choices the user faces, but only that your browser of choice grows in market share, something I expect is at the root of a lot of this legislation. Education is the key, not forcing arbitrary choices down a user's throat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Basic app
Gee, thanks for the great contribution to the thread. Yes, I do know that the Internet is more that just the web, however as the commenter above notes, most people do not. Most of them would probably be furious that the computer/OS they just shelled out for cannot do something as basic as browse to Google out of the box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Basic app
"How are you suppose to download your browser of choice if you can get to the web to start with?"
You dont need IE to access the internet!
Seriously, for the uninformed, open an explorer window and type a URL in the address bar, magic! Wow, look what happened, I got to the internet without IE, thats amazing!
Apologies for the sarcasm but this is starting to bug me now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Basic app
It's not that I don't agree that you don't need IE to access the internet, but your comment was just uninformed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad form for Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad form for Google
the biggest example was telling apple that if it didn't ship IE for the mac, it would stop making office for the mac, rendering the mac pretty much useless at that time.
things are different now, and i guess europe wants to see MS punished for it's actions from a decade ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't that mean that Google can, in fact, make inroads despite bundling?
And when Android starts showing up on netbooks in 2010, will Chrome be bundled with it?
Does Google's CEO Eric Schmidt who sits on the board with Apple have a problem with Safari being bundled with Mac OS X?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this applied to cars...
The only slight difference in the case of Microsoft and Windows/IE is that you can't fully remove IE from your system. That is something that really needs to be addressed somehow. But even though it's there, it's fairly easy to ignore once you setup another browser as default on your system. I personally wouldn't uninstall it even if I could, even though I'm a heavy Firefox user, because every so often you run into a site or app that can't function properly without IE, sad to say. Additionally, sometimes it's nice to have two completely separate browser, because it's a different set of temp files, different set of cookies, etc. That allows you to sometimes compare two things side by side which you couldn't do with a single browser. Example: easily compare two different versions of a shopping cart for one online retailer. But I digress.
Basically, the only legitimate need for legislation in this matter is to get Microsoft to finally un-integrate IE so it can be fully removed from the system if users so choose. Other than that, I can think of no valid reason for forcing them to bundle competing web browsers into Windows. Honestly, it takes less than 5 minutes to download and install Firefox, if you have a fast internet connection. Why spend millions of dollars in legal fees trying to force Microsoft into preloading it? The only reason for doing that is pure greed. Sorry, but greed is NOT the basis for a lawsuit, or a business model, for that matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I used IE for years, downloaded Firefox about 6 months ago and have used it since, but I really don't see much difference between the two. Sure, you can put scripts in, but I have not used them, I really don't see the difference between either product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is everyone picking on MS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is everyone picking on MS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google and Microsoft
In all honesty Google pissed off MS by attracting a lot of their talent to begin with. MS took it as a slight and wanted to get revenge, so they did. Then Google took what MS did and wants to get revenge, and they did. And on the cycle goes. I don't believe it will end anytime soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is so last millenia...
Yes, even back then Microsoft's competitors wanted M$ to have to un-bundle windows and IE. Suits were filed, some settled, some lost, but the fact of the matter is, M$ still distros IE with Windows.
Then the competitor browsers wanted a free ride in on the operating system too. Such a load of crap. That also didn't amount to a hill of beans. If they had put firefox on the CD, then chances are the addition of a GPL browser, would have caused a lawsuit trying to make MS open source all of windows. Ain't gonna happen.
Fact of the matter is, if you don't get a browser with your OS, you won't be able to download anyone elses browser to get away from IE.
Do you think I support MS? Hell no, I am using Opera!
Do you think I like FireFox because I use Opera? Hell no, FF is a shambling pile of bloatware compared to Opera.
Do I think it's right for any one group to demand what another group does with it's product? Hell no, I'm a libertarian!
So let's move on from this stupid, insipid, smegmatic attack on how M$ chooses to sell their stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evil vs. Evil
When MS moved to block the Google/Yahoo deal, was it any surprise?
And I agree with Mikester, there are a lot of other built-in apps that come out of the box with Windows. It is seriously BS to say they can't package it with IE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Up To
First of all, I notice how you used "as high as" and "in some regions" instead of some overall average number. That kind of writing reminds me of the "up to" marketing that some ISPs use: it's misleading and doesn't reflect well on your character.
And if Firefox is the better browser and free, then doesn't it tell you that something is wrong with the market if it only has "as high as 30% in some regions"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pardon me but...
(soapbox on)
BTW, I have been using the net since '84. I used to dial up my local community college, use their link to the univerity 150 miles way, and use corral.uwyo.edu's LYNX browser to go chat at cleveland.freenet.edu. Trust me, I probably know the guts of this kludge we call the internet better than you.
But my elder parents, wouldn't have a clue. Neither would yours unless they are freakishly brilliant, or you're still a teeny-bopper.
(soapbox off)
L8R !-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here we go again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here we go again
Um. What is an "anti-competitive" tactic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here we go again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here we go again
That would imply that someone was being stifled. Yet, as the evidence clearly shows, everyone else is GAINING on Microsoft. How is that stifling?
An example is bundling your product with your OS (on which you have a monopoly) so that you can drive all competitors out of business and then start charging for it once there is no-one to compete with.
Yes, and prima facie evidence that this is not happening is the fact that even when you bundled an app with your OS (on which you have a large share of the market, though not a monopoly), you still ended up losing marketshare to upstart competitors.
You seem to be confusing straight up competition with "anti-competitive tactics."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go again
Everyone else is gaining NOW on Microsoft because Free software is one thing they cannot kill through sheer market share and their classic tactis (although they do try to find other tactics that work, ie FUD). However they did manage to do this on almost all commercial competitors. From Real Player, to Netscape to Lotus to Digital Research. For some reason you seem to have a selective memory when regarding all those who WERE stiffled by MS anti-competitive tactics.
Again, if you didn't read my post (that I linked before) I urge you to do so as I laid my argument there in more detail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go again
COMPETITION is NOT cheating.
However they did manage to do this on almost all commercial competitors. From Real Player, to Netscape to Lotus to Digital Research. For some reason you seem to have a selective memory when regarding all those who WERE stiffled by MS anti-competitive tactics.
If that's what this lawsuit were about you *might* have a point. But it's not. It's about the browser market.
And, for that matter, I'd suggest that you're wrong in your initial assessment. Microsoft beat all of the companies you listed above by creating a BETTER PRODUCT. The end result was that consumers were better off, not worse. Companies who could create better products were able to beat Microsoft in the market -- and many have: Intuit, Adobe, Apple and Google are just a few who come to mind.
You seem to have trouble confusing competition with what you seem to think is unfair. There's nothing "unfair" about building a better product.
The very point of antitrust should be to make sure that consumers aren't worse off. If they were worse off then there would be an issue, but that's not what happened, nor is it what's happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go again
No, I quite clearly said (please read before making such bad assumptions) that as long as the consumer is *better off* then there's no problem. The point of antitrust statutes are to protect consumers.
That's not anything goes.
And the lawsuit was opened by Opera who faced similar tactics to Netscape. Or do you think that Netscape lost only because it was inferior as well?
If you used Netscape, you would know that it WAS inferior. Look, I used Netscape from it's very first release, and stuck with it until the very end. But, by that time it was as bloated piece of crap. IE3 really was a better product -- and the market agreed.
Aaahahahahahahaahahha...gasp...aaahahaha So there you have it, the perfect ignorance of what Microsoft products are. Tell me Mike, do you consider that Microsoft builds better products and this is why it's winning or that it's winning so it MUST be building better products?
If you look at those markets, yes, Microsoft started out with crappy products, but they became much better over time. Which is, yes, Microsoft's MO. The first versions suck, but they get better. As I pointed out, plenty of companies have, in fact, beaten Microsoft. If they were so powerful, then how do you explain that?
And, yes, it's the customers who decide what's a better product, and they flocked to Office in part because Office provided a MUCH BETTER overall experience than Lotus and WP -- which didn't work together well. Sure, as a standalone spreadsheet program Lotus may have been better (that's debatable, since the company took its eye off the ball when it went whole hog on Notes/Domino). And in the early days WP was a better product -- but Word definitely did get better, while WordPerfect rested on its laurels.
The only reason MS finally came out on top is due to their aforementioned anti-competitive tactics. If you are not aware of MS' shady history now would be a good time to educate yourself.
Oh, grow up. I'm quite aware of what Microsoft has done and I was all for the original lawsuit when it occurred. But these days, there's simply no excuse for doing that in the browser market. Opera didn't fail because of Microsoft's abuse. It failed because it didn't make a product people wanted.
You seem to confuse competition with simply gaining market share and then correlating from there to the (false) fact that this is because of better product.
The market clearly thinks it's a better product. Until we elect you grandmaster of "what is good" I trust the market. Not you.
It IS happening. Were it not for MS tactics, then IE would be at around 10% as it's obviously an inferior product.
I'm not sure how you can just declare that. Look, I don't use IE at all. I use FF and Chrome, and it's a better product for me. But for many people, IE is a perfectly good product, and PART OF THE BENEFIT is that they don't have to go and download another browser. So why force them to? Just because some dude who won't even admit his real name says it's "better"? Sorry, man. That's not how the world works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go again
Web standards fell by the wayside, using anything other than MS Windows & IE was problematic (not because windows was more valuable, but because MS tactics dropped the utility of everything else) and everyone was worse off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the Comments on the Google Public Policy Blog
---
The point most of you are missing is that MS is not simply bundling IE with Windows. If that was the only thing they did, it would not be any worse than Apple bundling Safari with MacOS, or Ubuntu providing Firefox in the default installation. A web browser is a pretty indispensable part of the modern desktop, and Windows would be crippled without one.
However, three important points to consider are the following:
1) MS has effectively forbidden OEM vendors to install any competing browser along with Windows on new computers. Doing so would make them lose their heavy discount on OEM Windows licenses.
(Yes, MacOS bundles Safari, but only Apple sells Macs with MacOS preinstalled, so no shady OEM deals are involved there.)
2) MS has, for no obvious technical reasons, tied the browser component very tightly with the OS. It is actually impossible to uninstall IE from Windows - you are stuck with it. (Removing Safari from MacOS is simply a matter of deleting the application, and then it's completely gone, for good. Apple's system software update does not arbitrarily require a web browser to function.)
3) For a very long time, Internet Explorer did not adhere to international web standards, so web sites that wanted to support both IE and other browsers had to jump through a lot of hoops to work around incompatibilities. Most of these incompatibilities were designed into IE on purpose, they were not bugs. (Yes, Netscape did some ugly things too back in the nineties. The world is not black and white.)
These are the anti-competitive issues. Bundling is OK. The case is about MS removing choice for Windows users and trying to take control over the Web by making a majority of web pages incompatible with existing standards and inaccessible with competing browsers.
So, people, read before you write, OK? You need to know what you are talking about before you can make any useful comments.
---
Just to makes some of the connections crystal clear here:
As many commenters have pointed out the general public is not very computer literate and often don't distinguish between 'the internet' and Internet Explorer. So the preloaded browser is very important. And it would be nice if an OEM could offer an alternative experience (maybe a pimped version of Firefox, or a value-added Opera, or the nice new fast Safari). But they can't.
That certainly sounds anti-competitive to me.
I suspect Microsoft aren't going to change the way they do business out of the goodness of their heart, which means that legal means are the last resort.
Clearly Google would be idiotic to leave this to chance. Google is hugely vulnerable to that initial user experience- if IE comes installed with only MS based search (maybe a start page that by default pops up with a Live Search page) then due to Microsofts dominant position in as the most popular OS many people will never even try Google- or Cuil or Baidu or Ask.com.
Its not like Google wants for competition. And if you think switching browsers (download browser, install, transfer bookmarks and familiarise yourself with any differences in the software) is as easy as switching search engines (type URL or in FF click on the little drop down menu next to the search box) then well... I'm flabbergasted.
Maybe in a couple of generations when everyone is much more computer literate and changing browsers really IS a non event for the general populace this wouldn't be an issue, but currently as it stands I agree with Google: MS have a case to answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bundling IE
Unbundling IE might not solve that sort of insidious maliciousness, but it would go a long way; and remove the "installed stuff works better inherently" argument.
You blew it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]