or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › EU fines Microsoft 561M euros for not giving customers a choice of browser
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EU fines Microsoft 561M euros for not giving customers a choice of browser

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
Microsoft's penalties with the European Union continue to grow, as the organization hit the Windows maker with another 561-million euro fine on Wednesday.

In all, Microsoft will have paid 2.24 billion euros in penalties assessed by the EU in the last decade, according to The Independent. The latest fine asserts that Microsoft has failed to provide Windows customers with alternative browsers to its own Internet Explorer.

European Commission HQ


In a settlement with the EU in 2009, Microsoft agreed to offer customers easy access to competing browsers such as Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome. But 28 million machines running Windows 7 Service Pack 1 were not given a browser choice, leading to Wednesday's fine.

The terms of the agreement required Microsoft to give users a choice of the 12 most widely used browsers. Among those is Apple's Safari browser, which remains available for Windows, but has not been updated to Safari 6 like its Mac OS X counterpart.

Following the announcement of Microsoft's latest fine, the EU issued a warning to other companies to not violate legally binding agreements, or else "face the consequences," said Joaquin Almunia, the EU's competition commissioner.

"I hope this decision will make companies think twice before they even think of intentionally breaching their obligations or even of neglecting their duty to ensure strict compliance," he said.

Microsoft issued a statement noting that the company has apologized for the error. It previously blamed the disappearance of the so-called "browser ballot" on a technical error.

Last year, the EU had set its sights on Apple and other book publishers over price fixing allegations. That probe was ended in late 2012 after regulators accepted a deal from those being investigated. However, Apple remains a target of the U.S. Department of Justice over the same allegations.
post #2 of 42
I would understand if this was the original antitrust issue with Netscape but I think it's foolish to require to sell an OS with the options built in. Especially 12 different options which I find ridiculous. If you really want to use a different browser you can use IE to download it just as you can use Safari on OS X to do the same, or various Linux distros that only came with one browser pre-installed.

This appears to be using MS to set an example. I don't care for this tactic in the courts. Each case should be fair and balanced for that case, not trying to prevent others from breaking the "law" by being extra harsh to one defendant.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #3 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I would understand if this was the original antitrust issue with Netscape but I think it's foolish to require to sell an OS with the options built in. Especially 12 different options which I find ridiculous. If you really want to use a different browser you can use IE to download it just as you can use Safari on OS X to do the same, or various Linux distros that only came with one browser pre-installed.

This appears to be using MS to set an example. I don't care for this tactic in the courts. Each case should be fair and balanced for that case, not trying to prevent others from breaking the "law" by being extra harsh to one defendant.

I tend to agree with your last paragraph.

 

I think Microsoft is going to face this issue for the foreseeable future as Windows still dominates the desktop. At some point they may be able to argue that tablets are also part of the greater "PC" space and thus they don't have a monopoly, but until then, they'll have to offer up choices of browser (which is what they got in trouble for before, bundling IE and therefore monopolizing the desktop browser space due to their desktop monopoly).

post #4 of 42

The EU likes to hand down big fines. Just wait until Samsung has to pay up for their abuse of FRAND patents against Apple. I think the MS fines (and Samsungs previous fines) are going to look like a good deal compared to what's coming.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #5 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

This appears to be using MS to set an example. I don't care for this tactic in the courts. Each case should be fair and balanced for that case, not trying to prevent others from breaking the "law" by being extra harsh to one defendant.

Couldn't agree more.

 

In the meantime, it is laughable to see how easily Google is able to run roughshod over these eurocrats....

post #6 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I would understand if this was the original antitrust issue with Netscape but I think it's foolish to require to sell an OS with the options built in. 

 

1. They aren't selling with all the choices built in. The settlement was that no full on browser, including their own, would be built in and there will be a screen in the initial start up, or on the desktop, to a lite browser whose purpose was to allow folks to pick and download the browser they want to use.

 

2. MS marketshare may have come down but they are still the dominant so they are, in the EUs judgement, still in a position to abuse their standing

 

3. They violated the settlement. This is the price. Just like the guy who goes to jail for drug dealing, got out on parole and is told he can't talk to his old drug dealing buddies but does. He gets caught, he goes back to jail. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #7 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I would understand if this was the original antitrust issue with Netscape but I think it's foolish to require to sell an OS with the options built in. Especially 12 different options which I find ridiculous. If you really want to use a different browser you can use IE to download it just as you can use Safari on OS X to do the same, or various Linux distros that only came with one browser pre-installed.

This appears to be using MS to set an example. I don't care for this tactic in the courts. Each case should be fair and balanced for that case, not trying to prevent others from breaking the "law" by being extra harsh to one defendant.

 

I agree, it seems a bit too much. But if I remember correctly, the EU gave them several warning, and they had the chance to respect the law. They obviously didn't.

I thought this story had ended long ago.

post #8 of 42
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
If you really want to use a different browser you can use IE to download it…

 

See, the EU fails to realize that this is the only reason people use IE in the first place. lol.gif


Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
Just wait until Samsung has to pay up for their abuse of FRAND patents against Apple.

 

You mean "just wait until Apple has to quintuple cover Samsung's court costs and pay a billion in damages to Samsung's reputation".

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #9 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

1. They aren't selling with all the choices built in. The settlement was that no full on browser, including their own, would be built in and there will be a screen in the initial start up, or on the desktop, to a lite browser whose purpose was to allow folks to pick and download the browser they want to use.

2. MS marketshare may have come down but they are still the dominant so they are, in the EUs judgement, still in a position to abuse their standing

3. They violated the settlement. This is the price. Just like the guy who goes to jail for drug dealing, got out on parole and is told he can't talk to his old drug dealing buddies but does. He gets caught, he goes back to jail. 

I'm well aware of what's happening and why, I just don't agree with it. I find it to be unjust in many aspects, including being 20 million Euro per license. We can say that MS had it coming, that's it's karma for all their illegal monopolistic behaviour in the past but that would only justify the excessive fine for having them do something that was foolish in the first place.

When it comes to huge corporations I care very little but it's the principle of an unjust ruling that bothers me. This happens in courts all around the world against individual people who don't have the means to defend themselves. That is my real issue here, not that MS has to dig slightly deeper into their pockets to pay a fine.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #10 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Couldn't agree more.

 

In the meantime, it is laughable to see how easily Google is able to run roughshod over these eurocrats....


That's because there isn't a good legal environment yet. The problem is worse with FB in my opinion. They retain information even after an account has been close. But the EU is starting to legislate on those matters, and it would be time for the US to do it as well.

post #11 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

 

I agree, it seems a bit too much. But if I remember correctly, the EU gave them several warning, and they had the chance to respect the law. They obviously didn't.

I thought this story had ended long ago.

Again, in this case, the law is stupid.

 

We have choice now, we are not forced to use crappy windows machines anymore. So, if Microsoft wants to give a certain user experience with their services (browser, mail app, etc) like Apple does, they have every right to do so. It's their product. Don't like it? Don't buy it, buy an iOS/OSX/Android/linux device instead.

 

They should block that chrome spyware thing.

post #12 of 42
Microsoft has been warned numerous times. If the EU does not react, they loose any credibility.

Its NOT "only Microsoft" as was mentioned before: Intel was fined over a billion EUR in recent years and Google has an ongoing anti-trust investigation against it that might soon result in a fine at least as high as the Microsoft one.

Also, the maximum fine for Microsoft could have theoretically been 105 of its global revenues (which is crazy,I agree), in this case it "only" represented about 1%. So they should consider themselves lucky 1smile.gif
post #13 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbkk View Post
..... and Google has an ongoing anti-trust investigation against it that might soon result in a fine at least as high as the Microsoft one.

Yawn.....

 

When the EU is able/willing to do something significant about Google, wake me up.

post #14 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

1. They aren't selling with all the choices built in. The settlement was that no full on browser, including their own, would be built in and there will be a screen in the initial start up, or on the desktop, to a lite browser whose purpose was to allow folks to pick and download the browser they want to use.

 

2. MS marketshare may have come down but they are still the dominant so they are, in the EUs judgement, still in a position to abuse their standing

 

3. They violated the settlement. This is the price. Just like the guy who goes to jail for drug dealing, got out on parole and is told he can't talk to his old drug dealing buddies but does. He gets caught, he goes back to jail. 

Not siding with anyone here, just a comment.

 

I would think that adding a small browser to the desktop JUST to download another browser if someone wants to actually would make it HARDER on the consumer than if IE is installed by default.  How many people here have had to help Mom, Grandma (etc) with installing software in the past?  I can also say from my experiences in IT, that age doesn't really matter as I've dealt with plenty of people of all age ranges that truly have no clue on how to install software or do any of a range of simple tasks.

 

My point?  If someone wants to install a second/alternative browser, then they are going to be more technically inclined to begin with.  Item #1 just makes it harder for everyone involved.

post #15 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

Again, in this case, the law is stupid.

 

We have choice now, we are not forced to use crappy windows machines anymore. So, if Microsoft wants to give a certain user experience with their services (browser, mail app, etc) like Apple does, they have every right to do so. It's their product. Don't like it? Don't buy it, buy an iOS/OSX/Android/linux device instead.

 

They should block that chrome spyware thing.


Yes, but this affair is more than 10 years old. The law may be stupid, that doesn't change that you have to respect it, then after maybe try to change it.

post #16 of 42

EU should forget about this now. The browser wars are over. Webkit won.

post #17 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

You mean "just wait until Apple has to quintuple cover Samsung's court costs and pay a billion in damages to Samsung's reputation".

 

Don't understand this?  What are you implying?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #18 of 42
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Don't understand this?  What are you implying?


That Apple will lose and be forced to pay Samsung. Seems to be the way cases go.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #19 of 42

One quick question, does chromeOS allow changing the default browser ?
 

post #20 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post


Yes, but this affair is more than 10 years old. The law may be stupid, that doesn't change that you have to respect it, then after maybe try to change it.

So MS had to include every single browser in existence with Windows? I can make a browser today and sue MS for not including it in their OS, because it's unfair to me that these other browsers get preferential treatment?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #21 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

What? The world's most popular browser is Chrome:

http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

As he stated, WebKit won.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #22 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"I hope this decision will make companies think twice before they even think of intentionally breaching their obligations or even of neglecting their duty to ensure strict compliance," he said.
 

I see where the problem is.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #23 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I see where the problem is.

pre-cognitive thought? Who'd have thunk it?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #24 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

To amplify slightly on your point: One of Apple's historical advantages was that the machines work "out of the box". A machine which ships without an operational browser is at a very serious competitive disadvantage. The EU ruling is just dumb (yes, it's the law, and MS is supposed to comply, but it IS dumb).

Not really. It is quite common for the first boot set up to ask the user for personal information, install preferences, establish network connection, look for software updates, get an Apple ID, etc. They just add one more screen that asks which browser to select.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #25 of 42
Originally Posted by igriv View Post
What? The world's most popular browser is Chrome:

 

I see you know nothing about Chrome whatsoever.


Originally Posted by igriv View Post
Yes, but this is irrelevant. Why does Google give away Chrome? Answer: because this drives people to Google search. The underlying libraries are not what this is about.

 

I see you're trying to make up an argument to cover up the fact that you know absolutely nothing about Chrome whatsoever.

 

Just admit it. You had no idea Chrome used WebKit, created by Apple.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #26 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I'm well aware of what's happening and why, I just don't agree with it. I find it to be unjust in many aspects, including being 20 million Euro per license. We can say that MS had it coming, that's it's karma for all their illegal monopolistic behaviour in the past but that would only justify the excessive fine for having them do something that was foolish in the first place.

When it comes to huge corporations I care very little but it's the principle of an unjust ruling that bothers me. This happens in courts all around the world against individual people who don't have the means to defend themselves. That is my real issue here, not that MS has to dig slightly deeper into their pockets to pay a fine.

 

How is this not just? Microsoft voluntarily entered into an agreement with the EU in order to escape potentially huge penalties for abusing their market position to take over the browser market -- i.e., the web. They violated that agreement, which probably saved them hundreds of millions of dollars, or worse. How is it not just that they now pay a massive fine for "inadvertently" (where have we heard that before?) not living up to the agreement.

 

I think it's entirely just. What's ridiculous are the slap on the wrist fines regulators in this country hit violators with, where it just becomes the cost of doing business illegally. For penalties to be effective, to have any deterrent effect at all, they have to be severe, unpredictably severe. MS is getting off light here. Companies who violate consent decrees and other legal agreements -- i.e., repeat offenders -- should be fined within an inch of their corporate lives.

post #27 of 42
Originally Posted by igriv View Post
I admit it, I didn't know it used webkit. And so?

 

So… that was the argument at hand. Sort of the idea.


I didn't care…

 

Then don't comment.

 

Finally a simple resolution.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #28 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

Tell me how not complying earned MS hundreds of millions?

 

They escaped much larger fines, or more draconian penalties, by entering into the agreement in the first place. So, it was the agreement itself that saved them money or harsher penalties, not not complying with it.

post #29 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

Yes, but this is irrelevant. Why does Google give away Chrome? Answer: because this drives people to Google search. The underlying libraries are not what this is about.

If it was irrelevant then why claim that Chrome isn't based on the WebKit rendering engine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

How is this not just? Microsoft voluntarily entered into an agreement with the EU in order to escape potentially huge penalties for abusing their market position to take over the browser market -- i.e., the web. They violated that agreement, which probably saved them hundreds of millions of dollars, or worse. How is it not just that they now pay a massive fine for "inadvertently" (where have we heard that before?) not living up to the agreement.

I think it's entirely just. What's ridiculous are the slap on the wrist fines regulators in this country hit violators with, where it just becomes the cost of doing business illegally. For penalties to be effective, to have any deterrent effect at all, they have to be severe, unpredictably severe. MS is getting off light here. Companies who violate consent decrees and other legal agreements -- i.e., repeat offenders -- should be fined within an inch of their corporate lives.

At 20 million Euro per installation I think that's unjust. Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just. Do you think it's fair that one can get their hand cut off for stealing bread to feed a starving family or that a woman can be put to death for being raped? I certainly don't think so. Of course, this just a corporation which means it's not about human rights as my examples indicate but unjust is still unjust.

If you want an example about an agreement would you say that Colombia's House's tricky wording, small windows, and negative option billing are just practices simply because the customer had to initially agree to it? I certainly don't think so.

Now do I think MS was also unjust with the way they initiatively dominated the browser market? As previously stated, I do, but this has nothing to do with that and this entire issue by the EU is a unjust farce.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #30 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

Tell me how not complying earned MS hundreds of millions?

Tell me how penalties should only be based on what you gained from breaking the law?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #31 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

...but the engine really is not relevant. Do you agree?.

The engine is very relevant. It's the core of the browser. WebKit is a great example of the success of an open-source community helping tie the modern internet together with standards. Apple made great efforts at the start for the desktop version which carried over to the mobile version. Consider where MS and Mozilla are with their mobile browsers.

Google's adoption took the performance of WebKit and helped make it the de facto standard engine that web developers support. iOS would have done this anyway, as well the support from other mobile OSes (note that WebOS uses WebKit for the OS's UI) but Chrome sped this up by several years. When was the last time you went to a gov't site that still said "You must use Internet Explorer or Firefox to properly view this page"?

We recently heard from Opera that they're dropping their Presto engine in favour of WebKit. This is huge! Even though Opera never saw huge adoption they have been the leaders in countless browser features that are now the standard in every modern browser.

There is still a ways to go but the internet is a much better place because of WebKit.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #32 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

I admit it, I didn't know it used webkit. And so? I didn't care, though now that I know, I wonder why it (Chrome) is so superior to Safari.

 

Otherwise, I am glad to see the customary level of moderation from the moderator.

There's a quick history of Webkit here to bring you up-to-date:

http://web.appstorm.net/general/opinion/the-history-of-webkit/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #33 of 42
They deserve the fine. They were warned and even apologized for the mistake.
Actually this concept is quite simple, not sure why some of you don't seem to understand it.
Anyway, it was a "technical problem".
Really? Their developer doesn't know how to hard code 12 entries or utilise a cursor mechanism, if stored on a database table, onto a screen them action the selected item?
I say fine them billions for their clusterf$$k.
post #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

At 20 million Euro per installation I think that's unjust.

 

 

 

What's this number you are tossing around? 561 Million Euros / 28 Million machines = ~20 Euros per machine.

post #35 of 42

This is such a BS fine. It's the software equivalent of suing McDonalds because they don't offer Whoppers or Frostees.

In that same token, why isn't Apple being sued for pre-loading Safari onto every Mac they sell? Or every iOS product, for that matter, as you can't even set third party browsers as default on your iPhone or iPad.

Both the stupidity, as well as the hypocrisy here, just make the EU look more ridiculous than it already does.

post #36 of 42
That is a very excessive amount in my opinion.
post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just.

I'm putting this on my sig. I can't tell you the number of times I've said this only to have other posters and even a moderator (no not Tallest Skil) jump down my throat.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #38 of 42
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
I can't tell you the number of times I've said this only to have other posters and even a moderator (no not Tallest Skil) jump down my throat.

 

Can't imagine I would have; I believe the same thing. 1tongue.gif

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #39 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post



What's this number you are tossing around? 561 Million Euros / 28 Million machines = ~20 Euros per machine.

Holy crap! My shorthand math was way off. Thanks for pointing that out. I honestly was thinking it was 20 million Euro per license which should explain part of the reason I thought it so unfair. At 20 Euro per license that certainly seems fair as punishment but I still disagree with requiring them to include the dozen options.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #40 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I'm putting this on my sig. I can't tell you the number of times I've said this only to have other posters and even a moderator (no not Tallest Skil) jump down my throat.

I'll never tell you that. I say question everything… and as you know I certainly do my best. 1biggrin.gif

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › EU fines Microsoft 561M euros for not giving customers a choice of browser