2010-04-13, 12:28 PM
"The evidence gathered during the investigation leads the Commission to believe that the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which makes Internet Explorer available on 90% of the world's PCs, distorts competition on the merits between competing web browsers insofar as it provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage which other web browsers are unable to match."
That's not really an evidence.
You have to take into consideration that IE is the earliest browser, thus more people use it. Microsoft was the biggest tech company, everyone would obviously trust microsoft's brand more.
It is possible Internet Explorer would still gained 90% PC share without it being bundled with windows.
Just look at google, it's not bundled with anything, there's yahoo, ask, and now bing. All the search engines have similiar performance, it's only the fact that google was first in the market that makes it have 90% of the market share.
The same could be said about IE. It's true through advanced javascript test other browsers are much faster. but to the user, it's no difference. (In fact some of my friends I've recommended FF to says they still prefer IE, since IE takes 1 second to start up while FF takes 5 seconds. And they constantly get the "firefox is already running" when they reopen the browser very fast, which is a habit of IE users) User wouldn't see much of a difference when a website loads in 0.5 second or 0.05 second.
Now what about the number of songs apple's itune have sold? all apple products requires you to install iTune, isn't that a monopoly?
That's not really an evidence.
You have to take into consideration that IE is the earliest browser, thus more people use it. Microsoft was the biggest tech company, everyone would obviously trust microsoft's brand more.
It is possible Internet Explorer would still gained 90% PC share without it being bundled with windows.
Just look at google, it's not bundled with anything, there's yahoo, ask, and now bing. All the search engines have similiar performance, it's only the fact that google was first in the market that makes it have 90% of the market share.
The same could be said about IE. It's true through advanced javascript test other browsers are much faster. but to the user, it's no difference. (In fact some of my friends I've recommended FF to says they still prefer IE, since IE takes 1 second to start up while FF takes 5 seconds. And they constantly get the "firefox is already running" when they reopen the browser very fast, which is a habit of IE users) User wouldn't see much of a difference when a website loads in 0.5 second or 0.05 second.
Now what about the number of songs apple's itune have sold? all apple products requires you to install iTune, isn't that a monopoly?