Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Windows Businesses Chrome Firefox Handhelds Internet Explorer Microsoft News

Windows RT Browser Restrictions Draw Antitrust Attention 375

Posted by Soulskill
from the it's-like-deja-vu-but-different dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Last week we heard complaints from Mozilla that Windows RT would restrict users' choice in web browsers, unfairly favoring Internet Explorer over alternatives like Firefox and Chrome. Unfortunately for Microsoft, the situation is now on the Senate Judiciary Committee's radar, and they will look into claims that Microsoft is engaging in anti-competitive behavior. That said, it could be a difficult case to make, since Windows RT is destined for ARM-based tablets, and Apple currently dominates that market. 'When it comes to proving abuse of monopoly power, an important question is determining the market in which a monopolist has power — the relevant market, in antitrust legal terms. In the [late '90s] DOJ case, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's findings of fact concluded Microsoft had a monopoly in the market for "Intel-compatible PC operating systems." Windows on ARM doesn't run on x86 chips, so by Jackson's standards, Windows RT hasn't been judged to be part of Microsoft's monopoly.' Microsoft addressed some of these issues in a blog post in February."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows RT Browser Restrictions Draw Antitrust Attention

Comments Filter:
  • Again? (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, 2012 @02:50PM (#39997753)

    How many times do we have to go through this? No, Microsoft, you don't get to dictate what programs I will use.

  • by recoiledsnake (879048) on Monday May 14, 2012 @03:03PM (#39997937)

    How many copies of webkit do you want on your phone/pad. ;-)

    Count the number of gekko/webkit links and bundles you find on a well-augmented Ubuntu or Fedora box.

    So, you solution is to ban all those browsers on the Linux box, I presume?

    Ff Webkit is all important, why is Chrome way more popular than Safari on Windows? They use the same Webkit engine, don't they? A browser is much much more than it's engine.

    "I" may or may not want something, but that doesn't mean browser makers must be banned from providing alternate rendering and JS engines.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, 2012 @03:13PM (#39998055)

    So, I don't follow your logic. Lets say I buy a car. But the dealership decides to put a lock on my engine hood, so I can't open it. Then a few thousand miles later, I go to put oil in my car. But I can't, because its locked. So I take it to the dealer and say, hey, unlock my car so I can put oil in it. And they say, sorry sir, only we are allowed to put the oil in, and it will cost X amount. And we are the only ones that can do it. We won't unlock it for you, or any other mechanic shop.

    That's not anti-competitive in your mind. I mean, sure, Apple may not have a written policy stating they want to be anticompetitive. But I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find many people (non-fanboys) that don't agree that Apple benefits by forcing their hand/control over everything that happens in their ecosystem. Thats entirely how they have success. They control everything, which allows it to run and work incredibly well. They don't have to worry about the mechanic down the street screwing up your car, and then you coming to them to complain about the car not functioning. Because you'll never get to that point.

  • by Reapman (740286) on Monday May 14, 2012 @03:19PM (#39998111)

    ok. if other browsers are allowed then please recompile (or ask someone else to) Mozilla Firefox for iOS and submit to Apple for submission. What do you anticipate happening?

    Either browsers are allowed and Mozilla can launch Firefox for iOS, or browsers are not allowed and they can't. Letting me skin a browser isn't an alternative web browser. That would be like saying IE6 didn't rule the interwebs back in the day because you could install 3rd party varients of it!

    And the answer "I don't want Firefox" isn't a valid answer. We're not talking what you want to do, we're talking what you CAN do. Installing a non Safari based browser is not allowed (note Opera is the Mini version and gets around it by offloading the rendering to the cloud)

    Sorry but I'm really tired of this "BUT THEY DO ALLOW IT!" comments I keep seeing on here. Show me Mozilla Firefox or Chrome or IE or something that doesn't need Safari on the phone AND does it's rendering on the phone and I'll believe it. Until then.. wrong. Apple will deny the app.

  • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Monday May 14, 2012 @05:59PM (#39999887) Homepage Journal

    Still bad in my opinion, but not illegal

    Warren Magnuson and John Moss [wikipedia.org] would like a word with you:

    Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty. This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions, and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives.

    So yes, your hypothetical scenario is specifically illegal. That law is why you can buy Fram air filters (instead of AC Delco), Pennzoil 10W-30 (instead of Ford Lubr-o-matic), and Shell gas (instead of Huile d'Fiat) without voiding your car's warranty.

    On the other hand, if your car's reputation is based on being a generic vehicle and the brand has been built on support for aftermarket parts, a sudden addition of a locked hood, while requiring the expensive oil and limited service locations, would be seen as anti-competitive.

    And illegal. There are times when car analogies are appropriate and reasonable. This isn't one of them.

Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are all thumbs. -- Glaser and Way

Working...