Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Jan 2009 15:29 UTC
Internet Explorer After successfully battling Microsoft over the company's bundling of Windows Media Player, the European Union is now ready for more. The European Commission has charged Microsoft with violating competition laws because of the Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows.
Order by: Score:
Again?
by ringham on Sat 17th Jan 2009 15:36 UTC
ringham
Member since:
2006-03-23

Oh Jesus, not this BS again.
I don't see people complaining about Safari being bundled with OS X, nor do I see people complaining about Firefox being distributed with Ubuntu.

You can't install it under Windows - so what? Why is this a problem? You don't want it? Fine, don't use it, remove the icons from your Start Menu (or make an install step in the Firefox installer that will do that for you), and be done with it. Stop complaining and wasting people's time and money over this.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Again?
by SlackerJack on Sat 17th Jan 2009 15:48 UTC in reply to "Again?"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

This is because the harm Microsoft has coursed to competition over the last 10 years or so, Firefox is a third party app and is distrubuted by choice and easy removable(they can switch browser at any time and wouldn't make a difference because there is nothing to gain).

The fact is because Microsoft did what it did they are now getting whats coming to them,they abused their powerful postion locking in customers to their software, formats, you name it.

Reply Score: 20

RE[2]: Again?
by Hiev on Sat 17th Jan 2009 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Again?"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

locking in customers to their software


Yeah sure, because you don't have access to any other browser in Windows, just IE. Me rolls eyes.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Again?
by SlackerJack on Sat 17th Jan 2009 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Again?"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

You dont understand do you, Microsoft have defaults for a reason and why they bank on you not using anything else because most people dont, they use the defaults.

BTW, I think you people who ask such questions about Microsoft browser being bundled are missing the point.

Edited 2009-01-17 16:05 UTC

Reply Score: 13

RE[4]: Again?
by DrillSgt on Sat 17th Jan 2009 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Again?"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"BTW, I think you people who ask such questions about Microsoft browser being bundled are missing the point."

Actually not. I think the folks that cheer for crippling of software are missing the point. You can remove IE with the instructions on Microsoft's website. You can install a myriad of other web browsers. The EU is just trying to get money for themselves, and this is a way to do it.

With the newest IE, it is standards compliant in actuality and sites display fine. This case has no merit to it whatsoever, except for the fact the EU is attempting to actually kill off Microsoft.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Again?
by Moulinneuf on Sat 17th Jan 2009 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Again?"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

1. The Microsoft instruction don't work.

Internet explorer is so embeded in the windows system that what your describe as doing is doing nothing more then removingthe icon and certain pull down menu selection of IE.

when you ask for it by "run" command it come back , also IE is the Windows manager and System explorer and is tied into the network setup.

2. Majority of People don't know how to instal software , much less download them off the internet. The fact that other solution can be easily downloaded is irrelevant , the fact is that Microsoft forced out the other Browser by using it's control of the OS.

3. The EU is the European Union , most of the country there would gladly leave Microsoft alone this days , the problem is they are breaking the laws , if they let Microsoft do it , the other law breaker will point to them as defense or double standard , we are talking about company with billion in ressource to defend there law breaking.

4. Being standard compliant don't means it's not unlawfull to it's competition.

5. It's within the power of the EU to ban Microsoft from doing business on it's territory or remove there right to do business there completely. There are far more effective way to kill a company ( as a Government ) then slapping them from breaking the law from time to time and letting them make billion on your territtory at the same time.

Reply Score: 7

RE[5]: Again?
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 17th Jan 2009 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Again?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

"You can remove IE with the instructions on Microsoft's website."

Oh, you mean removing that copy of IE7 or IE8 you just installed the other day which automatically "reverts" back to your previously-installed version of Internet Explorer (most likely IE6 or IE7)? Gotcha. But that doesn't exactly sound like an "uninstall" to me, unless you found a page on Microsoft's site that I've never seen. Details on how to completely remove IE, please? Link?

I recall the "Add/Remove Windows Components" section of the control panel, if that's what you're talking about, simply removing the shortcuts to IE. Again, that's NOT removing the program; it's hiding it.

Edited 2009-01-17 19:07 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: Again?
by anarxia on Sat 17th Jan 2009 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Again?"
anarxia Member since:
2006-06-02

You cannot uninstall IE. The "uninstall" procedure simply removes the shortcut. The reason MS is in trouble for bundling a browser but Apple and Ubuntu are ok is because they are not convicted monopolists.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Again?
by Anonymous Penguin on Sat 17th Jan 2009 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Again?"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple and Ubuntu are ok is because they are not convicted monopolists.


How much I'd like to read "Linux" instead of "Ubuntu", please ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Again?
by systyrant on Sun 18th Jan 2009 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Again?"
systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

And, at least with Linux, you can remove the browser and the OS won't die or become severely crippled. Try that with Windows. If you actually removed IE completely windows would cease to function properly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Again?
by nberardi on Sun 18th Jan 2009 04:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Again?"
nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

What you don't understand is that by not bundling IE. It will mean there will be no browser on Windows, so how the hell do you plan on getting to the Internet?

Sure OEM's can bundle other browsers, but if that is an option why is IE a problem? The browser war was over about 3 years ago. IE's market share is vastly shrinking.

The EU is strapped for cash with the recent economic downturn, so where do they turn. Yup Microsoft, with some trumped up charge for something nobody cares about and a market that is getting more and more competitive. We now have 5 mainstream browsers that run on Windows.

If this is the case I want Safari off OSX and iPhone, and Firefox off Ubuntu. Hell get rid of browsers all together, we will just go back to the stone age, with Telnet. That is what the EU wants, so it must be good.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Again?
by Clinton on Sun 18th Jan 2009 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Again?"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

I don't think the problem is that Windows comes with IE pre-installed, but rather that you can't get rid of the dumb thing. Microsoft purposefully "integrated" it into the OS. That's what people are upset about.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Again?
by lemur2 on Sun 18th Jan 2009 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Again?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I don't think the problem is that Windows comes with IE pre-installed, but rather that you can't get rid of the dumb thing. Microsoft purposefully "integrated" it into the OS. That's what people are upset about.


Not only that, but also that the browser has a lot of non-standard and proprietary-to-Microsoft technology in it.

Siverlight is yet another new instance of the same type of thing.

The clear intent is to get web content as much as possible to require Microsoft-only technologies on the clients to view it. Anyone wishing to surf the web would then need to do so from a Windows platform.

That is what is so objectionable, and that, very much, is what is anti-trust about Microsoft irremovably bundling IE with Windows.

The Internet is intended to be platform independent, a world-wide resource for everyone to use. Microsoft must not be allowed to corrupt that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Again?
by nberardi on Sun 18th Jan 2009 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Again?"
nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

Can you get rid of Safari on OSX? Can I swap out FireFox for browsing the Apple iTunes Store inside iTunes? No it is tightly integrated in.

So I would respect you guys a lot more if you actually took the same stance for all instances of vendor lock in, not just the companies who you have decided to hate for whatever reason.

Reply Score: 1

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Ftp
Wget
Curl
BitTorrent

Not bundling IE doesn't mean that they can't bundle other browsers. Or offer Ftp scripts to download other browsers.

How did cavemen get their kills back home without SUVs?

<=======[[[){)o.;[>~

Reply Score: 2

nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

Yeah because the person first buy a computer would know what the hell all that stuff is. Come on, is this really the best argument you can come up with for how people can get on the internet on Windows with out IE.

It really proves my point of how stupid this latest attempt by the EU is.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Again?
by anda_skoa on Sun 18th Jan 2009 12:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Again?"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

It will mean there will be no browser on Windows, so how the hell do you plan on getting to the Internet?


This is of course a common misunderstanding of people less involved with IT related technologies.

The software part which actually "gets you to the Internet" is usually referred to as the TCP/IP stack. While not totally correct since you'll also need UDP/IP and ICMP, it is close enought to be accepted as the most widely used term.

A web browser is, as its name already indicates, only necessary to browse the "world wide web" (also referred to as WWW or just Web).

All other forms use cases such as communication (e.g mail, instant messaging, telephony), software distribution (installation, updates, upgrades), gaming (e.g. World of Warcraft), and so on have their own client side programs for transporting their respective data through the network.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Again?
by nberardi on Sun 18th Jan 2009 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Again?"
nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

Thanks for the history lesson, but to be frank I was being overly generic for a reason. We have all seen the news article about the young lady who blamed Dell because she could install Verizon High Speed Internet on her Ubuntu. What chances does she have if Internet Explorer isn't on the PC.

The point is to the average person Internet == World Wide Web == Email == Web Browsing == Online Shopping. They are all the same to the common person buying a computer for the first time, you can't expect them to know how to FTP to Mozilla to download Firefox to get on the internet.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Again?
by ringham on Sat 17th Jan 2009 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Again?"
RE[3]: Again?
by JMcCarthy on Sat 17th Jan 2009 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Again?"
JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

The Waambulance only renders services to those that manipulate for sympathy and cry -- and in this case I think it's poor persecuted Microsoft that's going to be crying all the way to the bank and in most need of its aid. ;-)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Again?
by GODhack on Sat 17th Jan 2009 16:10 UTC in reply to "Again?"
GODhack Member since:
2008-05-16

In Linux you can remove Firefox if you do not like it as easy as every other program.

And if you try try to totally remove IE from windos it will end in serious problems: YOU do not like IE good then you do not get windows.

This is unfair point. Millions of people keep IE in their PC just because Microsoft forced them to do so. muhaha

Reply Score: 11

RE[2]: Again?
by Moulinneuf on Sat 17th Jan 2009 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Again?"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

In GNU/Linux you have many software choice for each application.

Not only are they easy to remove , you have a choice of many of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers

Reply Score: 3

RE: Again?
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 17th Jan 2009 18:30 UTC in reply to "Again?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Oh Jesus, not this BS again.
I don't see people complaining about Safari being bundled with OS X, nor do I see people complaining about Firefox being distributed with Ubuntu.

You can't install it under Windows - so what? Why is this a problem? You don't want it? Fine, don't use it, remove the icons from your Start Menu (or make an install step in the Firefox installer that will do that for you), and be done with it. Stop complaining and wasting people's time and money over this.

The differences:
-Mac OS X is not on 90% of desktop PCs, and neither is Safari. In other words, no monopolies here.
-Ubuntu (or Linux in general) is not on 90% of desktop PCs, and neither is Firefox. Again, no monopoly.
-If someone wants to remove Firefox completely in Ubuntu, fire up your package management tool or type a quick command in the terminal, and *poof*--it's gone.
-Don't want Safari on Mac? I'm not a Mac user, but I hear it's completely possible to remove Safari from a stock Mac OS X install, leaving only webkit (which is a dependency for other programs).


Meanwhile, Windows is a monopoly in the OS market, and Microsoft is *illegally* leveraging that monopoly to sustain its monopoly in the web browsing market. How did they get their monopoly in web browsers in the first place? By--once again--leveraging their OS monopoly. Meanwhile, good luck successfully uninstalling IE from your Windows machine... you're gonna need it. Oh, and deleting shortcuts is *not* the same as removing/uninstalling the program. It does nothing more than *hide* it, leaving all insecurities intact.

Something should have been done to them before they got this far using illegal tactics, years ago. Look at all the damage they've done in the process. They deserve what's coming to them after the hell they caused out of pure greed.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: Again?
by Brendan on Sun 18th Jan 2009 08:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Again?"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

Meanwhile, Windows is a monopoly in the OS market, and Microsoft is *illegally* leveraging that monopoly to sustain its monopoly in the web browsing market.


It's worse than that. They use a monopoly in the OS market to create a monopoly in the web browser market, then use the monopoly in the web browser market to try to create a monopolies in other markets and to "embrace and extend" common networking protocols in order to lock competitors out.

For an example, here's an interesting article about web servers: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/11/16/microsoft_servers/prin...

-Brendan

Reply Score: 4

RE: Again?
by Lennie on Sun 18th Jan 2009 00:39 UTC in reply to "Again?"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

This isn't just about bundeling, it's about marketshare, bundeling and especially standards.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Again?
by Quake on Sun 18th Jan 2009 00:43 UTC in reply to "Again?"
Quake Member since:
2005-10-14

The thing is... I want to remove IE completely from my system instead of just removing the icons.

Until Microsoft lets me do that, I say sue them.

And oh, you talked about firefox being already installed in Ubuntu. It may be the case but they are not a monopoly, plus you can easily remove it from the system.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Again?
by melkor on Sun 18th Jan 2009 21:30 UTC in reply to "Again?"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Yeah, I know what you mean. Why didn't the EU bring this up at the last BS? I mean, it's not like IE has changed in the way that it's deployed. Oh, and they better start taking action against Apple and Ubuntu too, for the very reasons that you've stated.

One thing I've learnt is that osnews and the crowd that hangs out here is pro Linux, pro BSD, semi warm to Apple, and hates Microsoft with a passion. Don't expect any kindness from them, expect them to be ranting and raving as usual.

Dave

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Again?
by gustl on Mon 19th Jan 2009 11:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Again?"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

And you can count on Microsoft apologists to try to find arguments why Microsoft's competitors should be treated the same as Microsoft regarding business practices.

They just want to negate the huge difference in allowed behavior between a company with monopoly powers, and businesses without monopoly power.

Regarding Microsofts business practices, I guess there is no way to like them, unless you somehow profit from those practices yourselves.

I do not like Apples business practices either, but they do not concern me the way Microsoft's do.
Apple does not have a 90% marketshare in the office software market, where they can dictate the next office file formats.

Reply Score: 2

What's it like in EU IT?
by jwwf on Sat 17th Jan 2009 15:40 UTC
jwwf
Member since:
2006-01-19

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know. What I would like to know is if the EU proper uses MS software, and if so, what's the relationship like? I mean this in a practical sense, not some conspiracy theory sense. Is the EU as an organization totally MS free, or do they just get really bad discounts from their volume licensing reps? ;)

In other words, can you continue doing business with MS while suing them for billions?

Reply Score: 4

v Comment by Stephen!
by Stephen! on Sat 17th Jan 2009 16:46 UTC in reply to "What's it like in EU IT?"
RE: Comment by Stephen!
by El_Exigente on Sun 18th Jan 2009 07:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
El_Exigente Member since:
2007-01-08

I don't know why this comment was modded down. Having won a billion euros from Microsoft in a first lawsuit, it would seem kind of predictable that these EU bureaucrats would try to do it again. How can anyone think that a billion-euro success would not entice them to do the same thing again? (It seems to have enticed the Chinese government to do the same, by the way.)

And, of course, there is the point that there is no reason why they can't institute separate suits for each and every component in Windows for which competitors exist.
To me, a second suit over "anti-competitive behavior" for things that existed at the time of the first lawsuit, looks very much like double-jeopardy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by Anonymous Penguin on Sun 18th Jan 2009 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know why this comment was modded down. Having won a billion euros from Microsoft in a first lawsuit, it would seem kind of predictable that these EU bureaucrats would try to do it again. How can anyone think that a billion-euro success would not entice them to do the same thing again? (It seems to have enticed the Chinese government to do the same, by the way.)


Why was it modded down? I didn't do it, but it is offensive to the government of 27 countries. Let's imagine the same thing was written of the US government: can't you see dozen of American readers here screaming blue murder?
And besides, as it has been explained by several posts in this thread, the European Commission acted upon a complaint by Opera:

http://osnews.com/permalink?344075

Reply Score: 4

RE: What's it like in EU IT?
by dmantione on Sat 17th Jan 2009 18:56 UTC in reply to "What's it like in EU IT?"
dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06

For software services, the EU relies on its own procedures regarding European Tenders. The process consists of several stages:

Invitation to tender

During this phase the desire to purchase software is announced into the OJEC and invitations are sent out to many known vendors.

Pre-qualification phase

During this optional phase, vendors are selected for being suitable, i.e. wether they are financially strong, wether they have the required certifications and skills.

Request for proposals

During this phase, every vendor that passes the pre-qualification test submits a bid that complies to the technical specifications. Award criteria are known for each vendor.

Awards phase

The award criteria are applied to all the bids. Awards are done on the bid only, i.e. one can not disqualify a bid that one doesn't like by saying the company is not financially okay, once qualified, each bid of a vendor is valid and must be objectively checked how well it fits the award criteria.



Now, does the EU use Microsoft software? Yes, they do, and they use it a lot. They use Linux too, they use Solaris, and so on. Depending on what offer is the best.

This goes as far as that the EU does not decide by itself what OS it uses, it depends on the outcome of the tender process. Only if existing installations (like we have 100 workstations and need another 20), the operating system can be part of the specifications.

If the EU publishes biased tender specifications, it can be sued, and this does occasionally happen.

Edited 2009-01-17 18:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: What's it like in EU IT?
by arlix on Sat 17th Jan 2009 21:42 UTC in reply to "What's it like in EU IT?"
arlix Member since:
2009-01-17

It is the EU competition authority, like a court it investigates cases brought to their attention by competitors, here Opera. It does not act on its own and applies the rules. These rules aim to put into place a free market.

Of course the Commission's procurement is a different department.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Hiev on Sat 17th Jan 2009 15:44 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Next time, the EU will sue MS for including a calculator in every Windows installation.

Edited 2009-01-17 15:44 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by Bobthearch on Sat 17th Jan 2009 15:54 UTC in reply to "..."
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

And games. And a word processor. And a GUI. And an e-mail program. And a file browser...

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Sat 17th Jan 2009 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Don't blame MS for games, game makers choose to use DirectX, blame OpenGL still having a past century API, Word works on macs too.

You can see, there is no excuse.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: ...
by Xaero_Vincent on Sat 17th Jan 2009 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

Yeah I agree, OpenGL 3.0 was a massive let down for game developers. The DirectX APIs are moving ahead and v10 was a big change. Its unfortunate that no other equivalent APIs exist for Linux and Mac OS.

Edited 2009-01-17 17:19 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: ...
by Bobthearch on Sat 17th Jan 2009 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Don't blame MS for games...


I was being sarcastic. ;)

Naturally Windows includes a basic Word processor, simple time-wasters, and a calculator. Just like every other operating system...

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by melkor on Sun 18th Jan 2009 21:31 UTC in reply to "..."
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Probably. Wouldn't put it past them. Let's see how quick Europe sinks if Microsoft just says FU and pulls Windows from the shelves and refuses to provide any support to Europe. Yeah, go with Linux, and see how far you *really* get.

Dave

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by lemur2 on Mon 19th Jan 2009 05:29 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Probably. Wouldn't put it past them. Let's see how quick Europe sinks if Microsoft just says FU and pulls Windows from the shelves and refuses to provide any support to Europe. Yeah, go with Linux, and see how far you *really* get.

Dave


http://www.workswithu.com/the-works-with-u-1000/

http://www.ldjackson.net/2009/01/18/my-first-year-with-linux/

Edited 2009-01-19 05:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v Ridiculous
by Bobthearch on Sat 17th Jan 2009 15:51 UTC
RE: Ridiculous
by nbensa on Sat 17th Jan 2009 16:21 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous"
nbensa Member since:
2005-08-29

First, what commercial browser is being harmed by Microsoft's bundling of Windows and IE?


Netscape

Second, what other operating system is not bundled with a browser? QNX, OSX, BSD, BeOS... every single functional OS includes a browser.


Windows has 95% market share.

Third, it's common knowledge, even among casual computer users, that alternative browsers are freely available. Anyone can easily switch if they want to.


95% of computer users are lazy or dumb, or both.

Fourth, the Microsoft website has instructions on how to remove Internet Explorer.


See #3.

I bought a commercial Linux distro once; you wouldn't believe all of the stuff that it was bundled with! ;)


See #2

Reply Score: 14

v RE[2]: Ridiculous
by Bobthearch on Sat 17th Jan 2009 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
RE[3]: Ridiculous
by Moulinneuf on Sat 17th Jan 2009 19:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe it's just one example :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Ridiculous
by Bobthearch on Sat 17th Jan 2009 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ridiculous"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

None of those are commercial products currently attempting to compete with Internet Explorer on the Windows platform.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Ridiculous
by Moulinneuf on Sun 18th Jan 2009 00:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ridiculous"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

AOL Explorer , Maxthon (MyIE2) , etc ...

They are all forced into freeware status to compete.

Most of them are former commercial version that adapted and they all compete with IE on windows for browsing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Ridiculous
by slight on Sun 18th Jan 2009 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
slight Member since:
2006-09-10

Microsoft's bundling put Netscape out of business. Just because it's something that happened in the past doesn't make it any less of an abuse of monopoly.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by Bobthearch on Sat 17th Jan 2009 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Second, what other operating system is not bundled with a browser? QNX, OSX, BSD, BeOS... every single functional OS includes a browser.


Windows has 95% market share.


They have a large market share, therefore their operating system should be crippled as to not be capable of basic computing functions???

C'mon...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ridiculous
by satan666 on Sat 17th Jan 2009 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

They have a large market share, therefore their operating system should be crippled as to not be capable of basic computing functions???

C'mon...


Yes because monopolies should be discouraged as much as possible. Microsoft should be fined for any reason until they get to 50% market share.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ridiculous
by slight on Sun 18th Jan 2009 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
slight Member since:
2006-09-10

No, but vendors should be able to choose which browser it ships with without risk of penalty and the browser should at the very least be possible to remove.

Edited 2009-01-18 19:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by Moulinneuf on Sat 17th Jan 2009 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Netscape


No , and your comment proove how damaging Microsoft is to other web Browsers :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers

Windows has 95% market share.


Never in it's lifetime as it had 95% market share. It hold the dominant position in OEM instalation.

Beside the fact is other OS "include" more then one browsers choice and even include many competitors.

95% of computer users are lazy or dumb, or both.


Not really they where lied to , the difference is they believe that Firefox for example as been made by pirates , that only Microsoft is an acceptable choice because some website require it or complain about them using another browser.

See #3.


They actually don't work ...

Internet Explorer is tied into the system , it's use as System and windows explorer and some network connection setup is only accessible by it.

See #2


They are Free Software , Open source and offer more then one choice , they also don't remove or break the others when you use them.

You don't see the EU jumping on Honda or other Dominant player in other market.

Edited 2009-01-17 19:22 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by kensai on Sun 18th Jan 2009 00:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
kensai Member since:
2005-12-27

Last time I checked the news, Windows had 89% Market Share and that was only like 2 months ago, and it appeared in osnews. So no 95% anymore.

Things are looking pretty good, Linux has 14% of the servers market and 90% of the super computers market. Oh, and not to mention 100% of the instant-on OS market.

Now to the point, the problem being discussed is that IE can not be completely removed from Windows, is impossible.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Ridiculous
by dcwrwrfhndz on Sat 17th Jan 2009 16:45 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous"
dcwrwrfhndz Member since:
2006-05-26

So tell me, which is the browser bundled with FreeBSD or OpenBSD?

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by Bobthearch on Sat 17th Jan 2009 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Seriously?

When I last downloaded and installed FreeBSD, the package included several internet browsers.

I assume you'll jump in to correct me if FreeBSD does not include a browser...

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Ridiculous
by Lennie on Sun 18th Jan 2009 00:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

When I last downloaded and installed FreeBSD, the package included several internet browsers.

That's fine them, they already give you choice.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by phoenix on Sat 17th Jan 2009 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

So tell me, which is the browser bundled with FreeBSD or OpenBSD?


None. Neither OS includes a web browser as part of the base OS.

Both include multiple web browsers as part of their respective ports trees, but none are installed by default. It's up to the user to decide which browser(s), if any, that they want to install.

Same with Linux distros. Some may include Firefox is in the base install, but all offer very simple methods for swapping browsers, uninstalling all browsers, or installing multiple browsers.

Very different situations.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Ridiculous
by edogawaconan on Sun 18th Jan 2009 04:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
edogawaconan Member since:
2006-10-10

OpenBSD includes lynx in base install.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Ridiculous
by Moulinneuf on Sat 17th Jan 2009 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
v RE[2]: Ridiculous
by Moulinneuf on Sat 17th Jan 2009 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
v RE[2]: Ridiculous
by Moulinneuf on Sun 18th Jan 2009 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
RE[2]: Ridiculous
by Lennie on Tue 20th Jan 2009 08:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

lynx, the rest is in Ports and will be downloaded on install.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ridiculous
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 17th Jan 2009 18:46 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

First, what commercial browser is being harmed by Microsoft's bundling of Windows and IE?

On the Windows side of things, Opera was certainly harmed by IE. Now they release their browser for free, but no doubt they were harmed at some point in the past. Also, someone mentioned Netscape, which was slammed into the ground (illegally, I might add).

Second, what other operating system is not bundled with a browser? QNX, OSX, BSD, BeOS... every single functional OS includes a browser.

Do they tie it in so tightly on purpose to make it hard, if not possible, to successfully remove? Microsoft sure as hell does. Also, I'm not even sure that the BSDs even "bundle" a browser. Sure, it might come on the discs for convenience... but you have full control over what gets installed. Web browser included.

Third, it's common knowledge, even among casual computer users, that alternative browsers are freely available. Anyone can easily switch if they want to.

Is it really? It's common knowledge among my friends, but only because i explained it to them (which was like trying to teach a brick wall to talk). Surely there are still people who just know it as "the Internet" and you get to it by clicking that "little blue 'e'" on the desktop.

Edited 2009-01-17 18:50 UTC

Reply Score: 9

v RE[2]: Ridiculous
by Bobthearch on Sat 17th Jan 2009 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
RE[3]: Ridiculous
by Moulinneuf on Sat 17th Jan 2009 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Compare the market share ... downloads. Obviously Opera has some difficulties other than illegal competition from IE...


Then Microsoft won't have any trouble making Opera the default browser on it's OS and making IE a download with no link to it or auto-install.

Opera's lack of popularity cannot be blamed on Microsoft.


On the contrary , Opera lack of popularity on dekstop OS is entirely Microsoft fault as people love it on there cellphone.

But that seems to be outside the scope of the current EU lawsuit.


Wich one ? That's the problem with Microsoft they try and play fast and loose with so many laws and they seem suprized by behing forced to follow them.

You can uninstall it after-the-fact through the Add-Remove in the Control Panel.


It as been proven as false ...

I think so


name me 10 web browser other then Firefox , Opera , IE.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Ridiculous
by Bobthearch on Sat 17th Jan 2009 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ridiculous"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

On the contrary , Opera lack of popularity on dekstop OS is entirely Microsoft fault as people love it on there cellphone.

Or maybe people simply use Opera on their phones because that's what comes BUNDLED on them???

Maybe the EU should sue Opera!

LMAO

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Ridiculous
by Moulinneuf on Sat 17th Jan 2009 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ridiculous"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Or maybe people simply use Opera on their phones because that's what comes BUNDLED on them???


It's a request and people ( cellphone makers ) pay for it and pass the fee on to there customers , who gladly pay for it since it's there request ...

It's not the only choice either. Bundled means that your forced ( in case of the law ) to have the OS too or something else.

Maybe the EU should sue Opera!


Opera is not breaking any law , unlike Microsoft , who is a repeat offender , witch is a new law term that take into account corporation other breaking of the law.

LMAO


CMHO is more what your doing Crying my heart out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Ridiculous
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sun 18th Jan 2009 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ridiculous"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Then Microsoft won't have any trouble making Opera the default browser on it's OS and making IE a download with no link to it or auto-install.


Why in the world would they do that?

You've never actually run a successful business, have you? Just a random guess.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Ridiculous
by Moulinneuf on Sun 18th Jan 2009 09:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ridiculous"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Why in the world would they do that?


Avoid being fined hundred of Millions , if not billions this time around , again , but not the last ( wait for the Vista procedures to be coming around soon ). They could always ask that Opera run there search engine as first/default choice as counter part on their browsers. Nobody could argue that they forced the IE browsers on anyone this way.

The real question is how much are they gonna get fined for this , this time , if they don't comply.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Ridiculous
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sun 18th Jan 2009 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ridiculous"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

If the EU wants to keep up it's socialist approach of "you're too successful, so you owe us a hand-out", then Microsoft would be better off just cutting those ingrates loose. Close all local offices in EU countries, stop all distribution in the EU, and add a clause to the Windows EULA saying "You are not allowed to run this software anywhere in the EU." Oh, and blacklist EU IP ranges from accessing Windows Update.

Then wait a week or two for the EU to realize how dependent they are on Windows and come crawling back on their hands and knees.

Hey, a man can dream...

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Ridiculous
by Anonymous Penguin on Sun 18th Jan 2009 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ridiculous"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Really? I wish they did. So that half a billion people, the largest economy in the world, could prove in no time that they can live and work very well without proprietary, crappy OSes from another continent.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ridiculous
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 17th Jan 2009 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

it is not really "uninstalled" It is removed from accessibility. But why that is a big deal to the MS hate crowed I will not know. MS uses IEs rendering engine in the help documents, and other systems of similar nature... surly they do not claim that the help docs should have a system allowing someone to swap out the html rendering system. it is an internal function to the OS for god sakes.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ridiculous
by cjcoats on Sun 18th Jan 2009 02:48 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous"
cjcoats Member since:
2006-04-16

...what other operating system is not bundled with a browser? QNX, OSX, BSD, BeOS... every single functional OS includes a browser.


My current OS (Mandriva Linux 2009.0) is not bundled with a browser. It is bundled with five different browsers.


Let competition among them flourish! And the world will be better for it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Ridiculous
by bert64 on Sun 18th Jan 2009 12:41 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

First, what commercial browser is being harmed by Microsoft's bundling of Windows and IE?

Second, what other operating system is not bundled with a browser? QNX, OSX, BSD, BeOS... every single functional OS includes a browser.

Third, it's common knowledge, even among casual computer users, that alternative browsers are freely available. Anyone can easily switch if they want to.

Fourth, the Microsoft website has instructions on how to remove Internet Explorer.

I bought a commercial Linux distro once; you wouldn't believe all of the stuff that it was bundled with! ;)


The market for commercial browsers is effectively dead because of MS bundling IE... You can't sell a desktop browser anymore, so the only remaining ones are free. Once Netscape were out of the way, browser development totally stagnated for several years which was extremely bad for end users.

It is not common knowledge among casual users that browsers can be replaced... They will use whatever came with the machine. OEMs used to bundle netscape with computers they sold, MS made underhanded efforts to prevent that happening. Users wanted Netscape, they got IE because MS were blackmailing the OEMs.

Where are the instructions to remove IE?

Linux distributions do not have sufficient weight to bully other suppliers, often come with more than 1 browser (or make others available), and the browsers are written by third parties, and are easily removed.

Reply Score: 2

From the article ...
by WorknMan on Sat 17th Jan 2009 15:51 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

The executive arm of the European Union had dispatched a "statement of objections" to Microsoft, in which it formed a preliminary view that the firm had prevented rival browsers from competing, the U.S. software firm disclosed


Yeah, guess that's why Firefox's marketshare is up over 20% now.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: From the article ...
by Bobthearch on Sat 17th Jan 2009 16:22 UTC in reply to "From the article ..."
From reality ...
by Moulinneuf on Sat 17th Jan 2009 19:46 UTC in reply to "From the article ..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

What as Firefox market share number your citing to do with Microsoft Breaking the law ? Nothing ...

Is Firefox anti-competive to it's competitor ? No ...

Firefox create it's own competition.

Reply Score: 1

RE: From reality ...
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 17th Jan 2009 23:02 UTC in reply to "From reality ..."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Please explain this "anti-competativness"

What have they done? the core of the US case was that they went out and actually forced OEMs to not install Netscape on their computers. THAT is anti-compatative. Having a default browser on a desktop isn't.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: From reality ...
by Moulinneuf on Sun 18th Jan 2009 09:52 UTC in reply to "RE: From reality ..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

What have they done?


1.Bundled there OS with the browser in such a way that competition can't fairly compete.
2. Pushed the price of internet browsers to zero.

Amongst other things.

Having a default browser on a desktop isn't.


Why are you against offering choice ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: From reality ...
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun 18th Jan 2009 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: From reality ..."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

1) How is it bundled in such a way as to hurt competition? It can be removed from access by the user, thus it is not bundled in any anti-competitive way.

2)I'm not saying there should not be a choice... It is not MS's responsibility to make sure software gets installed on a system. OEMs can install other browsers before they sell the computer.

As to "pushing the price of the browser to zero"

I have been using the internet since there were only a few hundred pages on the WWW. I used Netscape and guess what... I never paid a dime for it.

Browsers were not a priced product. Opera came out with their browser and tried charging money for it in a market where no one was charging money for the product... Opera's problem, not MSs.

Edited 2009-01-18 14:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: From reality ...
by lemur2 on Sun 18th Jan 2009 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: From reality ..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

1) How is it bundled in such a way as to hurt competition? It can be removed from access by the user, thus it is not bundled in any anti-competitive way.

2)I'm not saying there should not be a choice... It is not MS's responsibility to make sure software gets installed on a system. OEMs can install other browsers before they sell the computer.

As to "pushing the price of the browser to zero"

I have been using the internet since there were only a few hundred pages on the WWW. I used Netscape and guess what... I never paid a dime for it.

Browsers were not a priced product. Opera came out with their browser and tried charging money for it in a market where no one was charging money for the product... Opera's problem, not MSs.


I personally don't believe there is any problem for Microsoft with the price of the browser. That is not the issue.

The issue is Microsoft trying to make it so that some of the content offered over the web is viewable by their browser on their platform only.

That is the real heart of the anti-trust issue at this time, IMO.

If Microsoft can achieve a position where there is significant content on the web that can be viewed by IE only, then there is an anti-trust issue for Microsoft to answer. Microsoft would have used their dominant position on the desktop to force a situation where users HAD to buy Windows in order to view all web content. If Silverlight catches on, one would also need a Windows platform in order to be able to create certain types of content.

That is using a monopoly in one market to gain an advantage in another. That in turn is anti-trust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-trust

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: From reality ...
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun 18th Jan 2009 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: From reality ..."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Dude... internet content is not an issue anymore. No one codes only for IE at all unless you are on an intranet and then the company has the right to code for IE only if they like.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: From reality ...
by lemur2 on Mon 19th Jan 2009 07:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: From reality ..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Dude... internet content is not an issue anymore. No one codes only for IE at all unless you are on an intranet and then the company has the right to code for IE only if they like.


I disagree entirely.

Here is an article giving the point of view of Opera as to what this is about:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10144833-56.html

Krogh said the Internet is too important for consumer choice to be limited. Developers of software and services, he remarked, shouldn't have to "attach them to something which is proprietary."

The fact that Microsoft's market share has dropped, he said, doesn't ensure that true choice will win out. "There has been more competition before," he said, referring to the Netscape and pre-Netscape days. "Fair competition does not necessarily prevail. We still think whenever a platform has a sufficiently high market share, it should be open and easy for consumers to choose their component to access the Internet."


This is what it is about. End users shouldn't feel they have to use IE in order to view all of the web content, they should feel that all web content is viewable whatever browser they use, so that there can be a free market so consumers can choose which browser they like best.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: From reality ...
by Moulinneuf on Sun 18th Jan 2009 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: From reality ..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

1. a) Large number of People think the E on there desktop is the internet ...

b) If it was truely really easily removable , then people would not have anything tangible to show the court that show the opposite.

2) a) Wrong , it is Microsoft responsability to not break the law. Installing there competition would go a long way to completely remove there bundle accusation.

b) True OEM can install other browser on other OS , but by contract Microsoft force IE to be there and prominent for special rebates on windows.

Netscape was a paying product :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator

One majopr reason people got it wrong was because the cost of the browser was included in the price of there ISP internet connection , you paid for the Internet connection and you received a disk or software kit that would install software and help you setup your connection , wich the browser was part of.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: From reality ...
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun 18th Jan 2009 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: From reality ..."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

All your arguments are from 15 years ago.

Opera has none of those arguments anymore or to begin with.

Opera went after an end user who never paid for their browser.... I don't care if the ISP paid for the ability to distribute Netscape, Netscape never tried to sell to the end user and the end user could simply go to the Netscape homepage and get the latest version.... I know... I did it myself. Opera is at fault for screwing up their market research for desktop sales.

The browser can be removed. If it is not available for the end user to use, it is effectively removed. It is no incumbent on MS to allow a 3rd party browser render OS functions like documentation, etc.

the OEM licensing issue has been dead since 1998.

you are complaining like it is the mid 90's. Give up already. Microsoft is not in violation of anything anymore. The EU is on a witch hunt. BTW... this is coming from someone who thinks MS should have been broken up like Judge Jackson ordered. (Thanks Bush)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: From reality ...
by Moulinneuf on Sun 18th Jan 2009 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: From reality ..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

You have no real arguments , no real points and want a discussion where none exist , you also want to impose your lies and are lying to yourself. I am just telling you how things really are and where.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator

"However, within 2 months of that press release, Netscape apparently reversed its policy on who could freely obtain and use version 1.0 by only mentioning that educational and non-profit institutions could use version 1.0 at no charge."

"Gone was the notion expressed in the first press release that Navigator would be freely available in the spirit of Internet software."

I have an old netscape communicator suite box right at my feet ... you had an "evaluation" copy , gratis on the net but if you liked the software and kept using it you where supposed to pay for it.

- Netscape sold to the End users.

- The browser cannot be removed , the court said so.

- The OEM issue is still in court for XP , next will be media center and will be brought in for Vista.

- The ISP paid for it.

Your like Microsoft in denial of reality ...

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: From reality ...
by DrillSgt on Mon 19th Jan 2009 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: From reality ..."
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"I don't care if the ISP paid for the ability to distribute Netscape, Netscape never tried to sell to the end user and the end user could simply go to the Netscape homepage and get the latest version...."

Actually, Netscape used to be a pay for product. They had a boxed version you had to purchase. As well, plugins cost additional money as well. Want to listen to midi files? You needed a plugin such as Crescendo, which cost money. It was not until IE came on the scene with IE 3.0 that plugins became free for use with IE, but for Netscape you still had to pay for them. That was about 12-13 years ago. IE won by not only being available with the operating system, but as well the plugins were free for use. Besides, very few people at that time wanted to spend hours on dial-up to get a web browser. Mosaic, the grand-daddy of graphical browsers, was a pay for at first as well. The exception is some ISP's gave it away for free, same as with Netscape. The trick was you had to have one of those ISP's in order to get it that way.

Reply Score: 2

RE: From reality ...
by WorknMan on Sun 18th Jan 2009 01:51 UTC in reply to "From reality ..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

What as Firefox market share number your citing to do with Microsoft Breaking the law ? Nothing ...


Read the part of the article I quoted again:

The executive arm of the European Union had dispatched a "statement of objections" to Microsoft, in which it formed a preliminary view that the firm had prevented rival browsers from competing
, the U.S. software firm disclosed [/q]

If MS had prevented rival browsers from competing, then how is it that Firefox was able to carve out a 20% marketshare for itself?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: From reality ...
by Moulinneuf on Sun 18th Jan 2009 10:03 UTC in reply to "RE: From reality ..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

If MS had followed the law they would not be not be accused of anti-competitive practives ...

Firefox Marketshare as nothing to do with Microsoft breaking the law.

One could even argue that if Microsoft would offer other choice of browser instead of imposing it's own browser , the other would have higher marketshare.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: From reality ...
by Nalle on Sun 18th Jan 2009 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE: From reality ..."
Nalle Member since:
2005-07-06


Just removing previous posters boldface! It made the whole thread become bold from here.

Edited 2009-01-18 12:00 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: From reality ...
by kajaman on Sun 18th Jan 2009 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: From reality ..."
kajaman Member since:
2006-01-06

This implementation of "bbcode" should detect such situation and don't allow making bold whole content of page if you accidentally type [/c] or whatever

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: From reality ...
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 18th Jan 2009 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE: From reality ..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

If MS had prevented rival browsers from competing, then how is it that Firefox was able to carve out a 20% marketshare for itself?

Firefox was free, and Mozilla did *loads* of marketing.

Word of mouth in the press also spread quickly, especially because at the same time one hole after another was found in IE, quickly giving it its well-earned, incredibly bad track record for security... making an alternative seem desirable. With Firefox being free (while for a time Opera wasn't) and much safer than IE, it was the obvious choice for the press to advocate. Meanwhile, Firefox's GUI was more like IE and Netscape at the time, and therefore more familiar to new users by default than Opera's.

Opera didn't fail to gain market share because it was a "suck-ass product" as you claim. It failed because it was:

-Not free, unlike IE. You had to pay for it.
-Not familiar. People knew Netscape and/or IE, and little to nothing about Opera. It had a different style of interface also, which complicated things more.
-Not as compatible. With so many sites designed it a pathetic way to only work on either Netscape or IE due to their market shares and ****ed up "standards," Opera didn't display near as many web pages properly (or at all).


While, to recap, Firefox took IE's market share by storm because it:

-Was at the right place at the right time; when IE's flaws were becoming well-known and abused more and more. The press and word of mouth quickly caught on.
-Had a familiar GUI for users of Netscape and IE.
-Was free, *and* more secure.
-Mozilla marketed the hell out of it, even spinning off a corporation to do the job.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: From reality ...
by slight on Sun 18th Jan 2009 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE: From reality ..."
slight Member since:
2006-09-10

Before MS started bundling IE with Windows Netscape had the majority of the browser market. Once MS started bundling *their* browser with their OS the vast majority of people no longer had to bother making a choice about which browser they'd use, they just used the one installed by default, despite the fact that it was vastly inferior for a significant period of time.

The fact Firefox has managed to claw back 20% against an incumbent installed on the vast majority of computers by default just shows to go how far behind IE slipped during those 5 years or so where MS stopped bothering to develop it because they had essentially destroyed all the competition. It was only very recently when Firefox's market share started seriously encroaching on IE's share that MS actually bothered developing their browser again.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: From reality ...
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sun 18th Jan 2009 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: From reality ..."
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Once MS started bundling *their* browser with their OS the vast majority of people no longer had to bother making a choice about which browser they'd use, they just used the one installed by default, despite the fact that it was vastly inferior for a significant period of time.


Did you ever use Netscape in those days? It started to stagnate with the 3.x versions, then turned into a complete steaming pile of dung with the 4.x versions.

IE won because it was superior to Netscape in every measurable way: it was faster, it crashed less, it consumed fewer system resources, it had better support for web standards, etc etc etc. Even Mac users largely ditched Netscape in favour of IE, and the bundled-with-the-OS excuse doesn't exactly apply there.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: From reality ...
by raver31 on Sun 18th Jan 2009 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: From reality ..."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

I have already posted, so I can't mod you down for trolling, so have a virtual -1

IE was NEVER more compatible with web standards, it was only more compatible with Microsoft html additions.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: From reality ...
by wrocic on Sun 18th Jan 2009 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: From reality ..."
wrocic Member since:
2008-07-10

Don't worry, I got him for ya !

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: From reality ...
by BallmerKnowsBest on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 16:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: From reality ..."
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Yeah, way to go, little fella! You get a gold star!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: From reality ...
by BallmerKnowsBest on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: From reality ..."
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

I have already posted, so I can't mod you down for trolling, so have a virtual -1


Awwww, I hurt the poor baby's widdle feelings.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: From reality ...
by WorknMan on Mon 19th Jan 2009 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: From reality ..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Yeah, plus (IRIC), MS started bundling Internet Explorer in Windows starting with Win95 OSR2 (which was like IE v2). Even as late as IE4 vs Netscape4, the browser war was still pretty even.

It wasn't until IE5 came out that Netscape ran into serious trouble.

Reply Score: 2

I hate MS but this sucks
by bnolsen on Sat 17th Jan 2009 16:17 UTC
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

This is the wrong way to get MS. You think they would be wise enough to go after the *real* problem, which is MS's anti competitive behavior regarding their under the table OEM deals. Or has MS really protected themselves in this arena?

It would make sense to restructure all OEM deals to tie payment to MS per installation only, probably with same cost per copy across the board to stop the leveraged abuses against OEMs who choose to ship products without MS licenses.

Edited 2009-01-17 16:21 UTC

Reply Score: 11

RE: I hate MS but this sucks
by ktlc on Sat 17th Jan 2009 17:11 UTC in reply to "I hate MS but this sucks"
ktlc Member since:
2006-06-13

Yes, the OEM deals are the root of the monopoly problem, but I'm not sure they're doing something illegal there. The EULA provides for a refund for instance.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I hate MS but this sucks
by dmantione on Sat 17th Jan 2009 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE: I hate MS but this sucks"
dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06

The reason for this must be found in the first US Microsoft anti-trust case. Not the one about about browser bundling, but the one before that, which was about the OEM deals.

Back then, if you sold a CPU, you had to sell MS-DOS, so people thought MS-DOS came for free. People still do, but after big M lost the case, they removed everything illegal from the OEM deal. Microsoft knows the border what is allowed and not very well.

Reply Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

The browser bundling was part of that case. MS made deals with the OEMs to not package Netscape with their systems.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I hate MS but this sucks
by dmantione on Sun 18th Jan 2009 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I hate MS but this sucks"
dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think so, because the first anti-trust case was from something around 1992 and was settled in 1994. It dealt about bundling MS-DOS with a CPU. It had nothing to do with Netscape yet.

It's of course very well possible that OEM practises were look at during the IE-Netscape anti-trust case.

Reply Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Yes, they were.

Specifically, the practice of charging an OEM the full sticker price for windows (a competitive disadvantage to the OEM) if they installed Netscape on the system.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I hate MS but this sucks
by Laurence on Sun 18th Jan 2009 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE: I hate MS but this sucks"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Yes, the OEM deals are the root of the monopoly problem, but I'm not sure they're doing something illegal there. The EULA provides for a refund for instance.

Easier said than done though. After weeks of trying, I never managed to get Vista refunded on a laptop I bought

Reply Score: 2

RE: I hate MS but this sucks
by arlix on Sat 17th Jan 2009 21:44 UTC in reply to "I hate MS but this sucks"
arlix Member since:
2009-01-17

A competition authority investigates when there is a formal complaint of a competitor. That Microsoft has a market monopoly is an established fact.

Reply Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Monopolies are not illegal.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by satan666
by satan666 on Sat 17th Jan 2009 16:40 UTC
satan666
Member since:
2008-04-18

This unbundling is not good enough. The best thing that could ever happen is to force the computer vendors to unbundle the OS. So you want to buy a computer, you go to the store, you choose the computer and after that you are asked if you want any OS to go with it (Windows or whatever). Then you check the prices and the quality of the OS and you decide on this or that OS.
Also, the governments should forbid their employees from using proprietary software at work unless there is no free software available for that specific task.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Comment by satan666
by DrillSgt on Sat 17th Jan 2009 18:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by satan666"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"So you want to buy a computer, you go to the store, you choose the computer and after that you are asked if you want any OS to go with it (Windows or whatever). Then you check the prices and the quality of the OS and you decide on this or that OS."

Who checks the quality of the OS? The user who has not a clue? So instead of the single $1500 outlay, they then need to shell out more money for the OS and installation of said OS on the machine? That's a way to boost the economy..make things cost much more than they should.

Reply Score: 3

I hope EU gets it right this time
by miscz on Sat 17th Jan 2009 16:45 UTC
miscz
Member since:
2005-07-17

Windows XP N was a failure because Microsoft priced it the same as regular one. And they did this again with Vista where it is even more insane - it has all sorts of editions but those stipped of WMP cost the same.

If I could buy Windows without all the crap bundled (I use free software, or free as in beer) at lower cost I could justify buying it.

Reply Score: 6

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

I agree, sort of. I'd never buy the loaded $300 Super-Duper XP/Vista packages. Too expensive for me, and I get the functionality I need from inexpensive or free 3rd party apps.

But the basic XP/Vista versions are ~$90 retail. That seems reasonable to me. That's $20 less than OSX, the only other commercial OS commonly available...

Reply Score: 1

dcwrwrfhndz Member since:
2006-05-26

@miscz

If I should be forced to buy windows, I'd prefer buying it without all the bundled crap even at the same price, as alternatives exist. Less bloat, less security breaches, more control over the system.

Edited 2009-01-17 19:46 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Stupid
by Xaero_Vincent on Sat 17th Jan 2009 17:10 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

A web browser must be included with Windows so that other web browsers can be downloaded. Are they going to force Microsoft to host a public FTP with the IE setup program? Oh wait... it will be unlawful to bundle an FTP client with Windows.

BTW, Windows marketshare is around 88% now, not 95%.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Stupid
by diegoviola on Sat 17th Jan 2009 19:28 UTC in reply to "Stupid"
diegoviola Member since:
2006-08-15

A web browser must be included with Windows so that other web browsers can be downloaded. Are they going to force Microsoft to host a public FTP with the IE setup program? Oh wait... it will be unlawful to bundle an FTP client with Windows.

BTW, Windows marketshare is around 88% now, not 95%.

You don't need a web browser to download other browsers, there are other ways to do that.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Stupid
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 17th Jan 2009 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Stupid"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

right.... we can ship them on 3.5 inch floppy or CD-ROM when you get your Dial-Up services like the good ol days!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Stupid
by miscz on Sat 17th Jan 2009 23:07 UTC in reply to "Stupid"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

Microsoft could create some post-installation wizard where you can choose which browser you'd like to use. They could even bundle them with installation media. They do similar things nowadays with web service provider setup in new IE. Windows 7 is already stripped of lots of apps which are downloadable via Windows Live.

Reply Score: 2

It's not about the market share
by johnnysaucepn on Sat 17th Jan 2009 17:21 UTC
johnnysaucepn
Member since:
2006-08-22

The point continues to be missed, it appears. The issue is not that an OS shouldn't be allowed to offer a web browser application, the problem is that MS have used their 'default' monopoly as a way to enforce their own technologies on the web, restricting development of the web via agreed standards.

Standards are agreed, MS ignores them, no-one can use them, developers are forced to conform to MS technology instead, further fragmenting the web audience and tying users (home ones specifically) to using Windows machines for out-of-the-box browsing instead.

The difference with Apple/Safari is that Safari has so far been committed to open standards. Firefox advocates have also managed to push their way in by campaigning at their own expense, but they shouldn't have had to.

Regardless of whether a browser is provided for free or purchased, they all still depend on financial support garnered from active users in order to survive.

Edited 2009-01-17 17:22 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: It's not about the market share
by Hiev on Sat 17th Jan 2009 17:47 UTC in reply to "It's not about the market share"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

developers are forced to conform to MS technology instead


Developers are not forced to do anything, they choose to because it is easier that way, not because they can't use other technologies.

Reply Score: 1

anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

"developers are forced to conform to MS technology instead


Developers are not forced to do anything, they choose to because it is easier that way, not because they can't use other technologies.
"

I know that it is hard to be serious in the comments section, but you don't really believe all those web site developers chose to support IE6 because it is so great.

Heck I would be surprised if they would support IE7 given the choice. Probably IE8.

Reply Score: 4

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Well, because IE6 is the only IE that have ever existed, right?.

Oh, and by easier I mean also easier deployment.

Edited 2009-01-17 18:48 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: It's not about the market share
by Nelson on Sat 17th Jan 2009 17:53 UTC in reply to "It's not about the market share"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The point continues to be missed, it appears. The issue is not that an OS shouldn't be allowed to offer a web browser application, the problem is that MS have used their 'default' monopoly as a way to enforce their own technologies on the web, restricting development of the web via agreed standards.


This is, by far, the most ridiculous argument I've heard in favor of unbundling internet explorer.

Having a litmus test based on an arbitrary collection of standards is a dangerous position to take, who decides the threshold for failure when complying with standards? IE may not be the best, but it complies to some standards, does it fail your test because it doesn't comply to some others?

What about Firefox? It complies to some but not all. Same for Opera, and same for Safari. No browser will ever be perfect, and frankly, though a lot of people do not like hearing this, end users really do not care. It's all technical mumbo-jumbo to them.

Would you hypothetically disqualify Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera from this test of yours, simply because they fail to fully implement some standards?

Why do you hold IE to a different expectation than you do these browsers?

Several posts in this thread have alluded to the fact that the "default" gives them the competitive edge in that users are usually too dumb, or not very motivated to install alternatives.

This is true, but it would speak to the motivation they would have, or maybe even the confusion that would be introduced, if they were asked up front, potentially when buying a Computer "By the way, which browser do you want?"

That market is not a very advertised market, so they would be in the dark. I know several people who refer to IE simply as "The Internet". Why would you introduce such a hurdle?

What's the end game in all this? A bump in market share? Firefox has already been able to claim significant and impressive numbers, Opera has been surpassed by Chrome in a very small amount of time.

This seems to me like Opera is crying over spilt milk.

I understand completely why Microsoft has to play by different rules, be under more scrutiny than others, they are a convicted monopolist -- but this is getting ridiculous.

A bigger testament to how this is a tax payer waste is the result of their last attack on Microsoft, what happened? XP version N? How much did that sell again?

No one's life was made better, no competitor got any edge outside of statistical noise. No nothing.

Can you honestly sit here and say that Firefox is not very competitive? It caused Microsoft to wake up and release IE7 to try to save some face after the mess that was IE6.

Do people seriously think that IE is dominant primarily because it's included in Windows? Perhaps, but Internet Explorer gained it's entrenched status by beating Netscape in the browser wars.

This was due to the sheer size (and resources) of Microsoft, and the fact that IE was just better than Netscape during the browser wars.

Perhaps the bundling impacted the browser wars, maybe it tipped the scales for IE, but that was in the 90s, this is 2009 and you have Firefox with 20% of the market.

You can't say that there's no competition there.

To wrap up, I would like to say that I legitimately would like to discuss this, and I'm open to other viewpoints.

Reply Score: 4

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

The OS should come with no web browser (the linux kernel doesn't include a browser either), and then third parties should be free to bundle multiple components together to create a distribution.
Very few people buy windows retail anyway, they get it bundled with hardware from an OEM.
Make all of the components separate and modular, giving OEMs the choice. And allow OEMs to sell standalone retail software bundles too (the same thing that comes pre-installed, but available separately not tied to hardware).

While you're right about opera/safari/firefox not complying to all standards, there is a large subset to which all of these browsers comply, while IE is massively behind. Because of the large market share of IE, noone develops websites using these standards so other browsers have less incentive to implement them anyway.

Reply Score: 1

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

The Linux Kernel is not comparable to Windows as an OS.

Reply Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Standards are agreed, MS ignores them, no-one can use them, developers are forced to conform to MS technology instead, further fragmenting the web audience and tying users (home ones specifically) to using Windows machines for out-of-the-box browsing instead.


The main flaw of this argument is that I am running Windows and use Opera and Firefox on a daily basis. It is very rare these days that I have to fire up Internet Explorer for anything. I can even use Autopatcher for OS updates.

This argument might've been a lot more valid 10 years ago, but things are not the same as they once were. IE has released IE7, which is a lot more standards-compliant than was IE6, and IE8 will probably be even more so. Firefox has gained enough marketshare so that most sites aren't specifically targeted to IE anymore.

Don't get me wrong... there is some truth to what you say about what MS tried to do, but they have ultimately not succeeded. And do you know what? We haven't needed any government entity to get us this far, and we sure as hell don't need one now.

Reply Score: 2

slight Member since:
2006-09-10

No you're looking at this from the wrong end. As a web developer I *have* to conform to IE6's way of seeing the web, which is broken in more ways than I can count. The fact that some users have decent browsers is neither here nor there, as a commercial developer you absolutely have to conform to the lowest common denominator with noticeable market share.

Another poster above did make a good point that there's no way to disqualify a browser based on compliance with certain standards as no browser's standards support is perfect, but the fact remains that IE has been a *major* brake on web development and the deployment of new standards for a very long time.

Reply Score: 3

It's not unfair at all
by eantoranz on Sat 17th Jan 2009 17:48 UTC
eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

That the EC goes after them for bundling EI... what is veeeeeeeery impressive is that it's SO late in time. 15 or so years after the fact, when the only way to hear about netscape nowadays is when people say that their code was used for mozilla (and so, firefox), it's hard not to say that it's just too late. It has been the Microsoft way all the time.

They include IE so that you can get other browsers? Can't they offer an application (not a full fledged browser) that allows you to download the browser you want? I bet Microsoft has the resources to keep a web service with the updated addresses of the latest browser version for said client... so "IE is included so that you can get whatever browser you like" does not hold water.

My take is that Microsoft should completely separate the güindous department from everything else and all the other divisions should get the same APIs as any other 3rd party developers. It's already sickening that through Güindous they have managed to shove down everyone's throat whatever they think off (even if it's too late to catch up) the example by excellence being IE.

And well..... I don't know, maybe I'm biased (I know I am)... but it sure makes me feel a little relieved every month when I go check the browser market share, OS market share, top500 (this is a 6-month wait), the most reliable hosters etc etc etc... it's been a looooong run... but I do feel that "times are a changing". Let's hope the day when Microsoft becomes "a" player" (instead of "the" player) arrives soon (by the way, it's my opinion that Microsoft is not a software company, but a marketing one, so their place as "the" player isn't even deserved at all). It's log overdue if you ask me.

Edited 2009-01-17 17:50 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: It's not unfair at all
by dmantione on Sat 17th Jan 2009 21:36 UTC in reply to "It's not unfair at all"
dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06

The reason that the EU acts only now is that, it does nothing without a complaint (unlike the US where DoJ initiates things). Sometimes it starts an investigation on its own and then sends invitations to victims to file a complaint, but when no body is willing to do so, nothing happens.

The Opera complaint is the first IE complaint that was filed.

Reply Score: 1

No title
by sj87 on Sat 17th Jan 2009 18:22 UTC
sj87
Member since:
2007-12-16

If Internet Explorer was an actual web browser and not a piece of shit, there would be no point to argue since there are really only free( soft)ware browsers around, not really a source of income for anyone (of course excluding those 'default search engine agreements' etc). But since IE is what it is, it's just easier for people living without it.

Reply Score: 3

time to pay the piper
by TechGeek on Sat 17th Jan 2009 18:31 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Lets look at what Microsoft has actually done to the Internet. First they miss the boat that is the web when it arrives. Then in a panic they go out and buy IE and internalize it. At this point they have NO browser share. So how do they fix that. They cripple the browser market buy giving away what they just bought. Further, they bundle it with Windows. In most markets that is called price gouging. Then they start developing IE and start adding their own stuff to html. Since they now have large market share, they can steer how the web is written. This becomes problematic as developers write code aimed at the largest market share, other browsers are being locked out. Sites begin including more IE only code. Microsoft further ties the browser into the OS by creating ActiveX extensions.

20 years later, we still have one browser with over 75% market share. We still have sites reliant on IE. We still have the major browser accepting code that is IE only. The only competing browsers are free, since they can't really be put out of business. And Microsoft still has the attitude that all computers should be running Microsoft Windows. Yeah, I dont know why anyone would be pissed off at Microsoft....

Reply Score: 10

RE: time to pay the piper
by Jokel on Sun 18th Jan 2009 08:00 UTC in reply to "time to pay the piper"
Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

And they are still trying to "tweak" some standards. Think about silverlight. Only a windows OS can use it at this moment. Oh - I know - there are Linux and MAC versions on the way, but it is still a closed format. The problem is, that Microsoft is -again- introducing something that cannot be used by the competition. Be sure the Linux or MAC versions are always 2 to 3 versions behind and incompatible with sites using the latest version.

Yes - finally the browsers from Microsoft are starting to use decent code. But now they use another way to mangle sites in a way only Microsoft software can read it. It's the whole "IE6 only site" nightmare again, but this time with the plugins and without using a crappy browser. The net result however, is the same..,

And they are pushing siverlight very actively. Take a look here: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/17/2049257

Now - it sounds to me as they found another way to crush competition - even if that competition is only a few percent. Really an "over the top" reaction. If that's not a sign of monopolistic behavior I really don't know what is...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: time to pay the piper
by damylen on Sun 18th Jan 2009 11:48 UTC in reply to "RE: time to pay the piper"
damylen Member since:
2009-01-18

Jokel, you are not correct in your statements about silverlight. Microsoft is actually bringing Silverlight to the Mac and Windows and is helping Novell to create a open-source linux implementation (which will also run on other platforms). Yes this implementation is a bit behind, but it is not being build by Microsoft.
Silverlight mobile will run on Symbian S60 and Windows Mobile.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: time to pay the piper
by lemur2 on Sun 18th Jan 2009 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: time to pay the piper"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

deleted ... duplicate post.

Edited 2009-01-18 12:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: time to pay the piper
by lemur2 on Sun 18th Jan 2009 12:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: time to pay the piper"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Jokel, you are not correct in your statements about silverlight. Microsoft is actually bringing Silverlight to the Mac and Windows and is helping Novell to create a open-source linux implementation (which will also run on other platforms). Yes this implementation is a bit behind, but it is not being build by Microsoft.
Silverlight mobile will run on Symbian S60 and Windows Mobile.


Moonlight is the version of Silverlight being built by Novell for Linux.

It isn't (fully) open source. Microsoft are revealing part of the Silverlight specifications, and providing x86 binary codecs exclusively to Novell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_(runtime)#Microsoft_support

This would leave Novell's Moonlight totally dependent on Microsoft's good wishes in order to continue.

It is not a good idea to hand to one's opponent any critical dependency such as that ... one's opponent can shut one down at any time.

Silverlight is to be avoided at all costs. It is NOT web standard, it is NOT W3C endorsed, it is in all respects a throughly bad idea to be vehemently opposed for the best interests of everyone on the planet bar Microsoft.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by Anonymous Penguin
by Anonymous Penguin on Sat 17th Jan 2009 19:42 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

I am a European who prefers Linux and OS X to Windows.
Having said that, I disagree with the European Commission this time. It seems to me pretty normal that an operating system, any operating system should come bundled with a browser. This is not keeping people from using Firefox instead of IE, Konqueror, Safari...

Of course I'd like to see "alternative" operating systems having a larger share of the market.
But this isn't the right approach.
OS X isn't as popular as it could be because Europeans perceive Apple hardware as limited in choice and expensive.
As to Linux, so much has been said with regard to what could be done in order to make it more popular.
But certainly the EU institutions could do a lot in order to promote Linux, and that would be a better approach, IMO.

Edited 2009-01-17 19:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Anonymous Penguin
by dmantione on Sat 17th Jan 2009 20:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by Anonymous Penguin"
dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06

I am a European who prefers Linux and OS X to Windows.
Having said that, I disagree with the European Commission this time. It seems to me pretty normal that an operating system, any operating system should come bundled with a browser. This is not keeping people from using Firefox instead of IE, Konqueror, Safari...


It is *not* forbidden to bundle a browser. I think the DG Competition fully agrees with anyone else that having software pre-installed has advantages.

What the DG Competition has problems with, is that Microsoft had a dominant position in the OS market and used that position to disrupt another market. Opera complaint was that Microsoft is still today disrupting the browser market and hurting its possibilities to compete.

Bundling a browser without disrupting the browser market is possible.

Note a large portion of the Opera complaint is not so much that is has to compete against a bundled browser, but that it is hurt selling a mobile browser, because of all the proprietary Microsoft extensions in use on the web. Microsoft can fix that without unbundling IE.

Microsoft at this time has received a Statement of Objections. This means that it has officially notified it is disrupting the browser market and needs to act. At this time Microsoft is free to choose how it will fix disrupting the market.

It can unbundle IE, but it can also bundle competing browsers, for example.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks. I find your post informative, but I can't mod you up, because I have already posted.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You can mod up after posting, just not down.

Edited 2009-01-17 21:01 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom, I keep trying, but I get the following error message: "Error: You have already posted a comment in this thread, and therefore, can no longer moderate comments in this story."

Reply Score: 2

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Sorry Thom, but I've never been able to up-vote a comment after posting in a topic. I can't even vote your's up.

Reply Score: 2

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

yep, same with me...

Reply Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

What the DG Competition has problems with, is that Microsoft had a dominant position in the OS market and used that position to disrupt another market. Opera complaint was that Microsoft is still today disrupting the browser market and hurting its possibilities to compete.


Well, maybe Opera should be more concerned about fixing (or at least acknowedging) bugs that users report to them...

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=263311

instead of closing such discussion threads, and bitching and whining to the EU about what Microsoft is/is not doing.

Reply Score: 2

dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not denying that they should improve their products, but their product is okay. I'm using it occasionally, especially when I cannot use Konqueror (for example why I occasionally use Windows), and I cannot say anything else than that it is a top quality browser.

The point is, with great power comes great responsibility. Regardless wether Opera is crap or wether it rules, Microsoft should behave to the rules that apply to dominant players. Opera has to operate in a disrupted market and has every right to complain about that.

Now that the complaint is there, the jurisprudence is there from the Media Player case, what did people expect that would happen?

Reply Score: 1

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

The point is, with great power comes great responsibility. Regardless wether Opera is crap or wether it rules, Microsoft should behave to the rules that apply to dominant players. Opera has to operate in a disrupted market and has every right to complain about that.


Well, look at it this way... Opera has been around since 1994-96, and what is their marketshare, like 1%? Then Firefox burst onto the scene in 2002 (as Phoenix), and now they got like 20%. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Chrome has a bigger marketshare than Opera at this point.

During the time that Netscape died and Firefox rose from the ashes, Opera could've been a serious contender, but they weren't. And do you know why? Because they make a suck-ass product. I ONLY became interested in it (and use it) because of the text-to-speech feature, but as I pointed out already, that feature has been broken since v9.5 came out, and still isn't fixed.

Am I saying that Opera hasn't been hurt by Microsoft's business practices? No. What I am saying is that they've probably been hurt more by their own ineptitude than anything MS has done. Even if MS were not in the picture, Opera would still be getting its ass handed to it by its competitors.

So why is Opera bitching and whining about what MS is doing, when they can't even compete with anybody else on the lower tier?

Edited 2009-01-18 00:01 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Hehe...
by looncraz on Sat 17th Jan 2009 19:57 UTC
looncraz
Member since:
2005-07-24

[quote]The browser may have made huge strides when it comes to security and standards support, but its interface is still about as pleasant as stubbing your toes against a doorpost and toppling face first into a pile of dog doo. But that's just my opinion.[/quote]

I assume we are speaking of recent advancements ( as in IE8 ).

As far as your opinion... I rather like it :-)

--The loon

Reply Score: 2

what about safari in macosx
by riha on Sat 17th Jan 2009 20:26 UTC
riha
Member since:
2006-01-24

it is the same.

Reply Score: 1

RE: what about safari in macosx
by dmantione on Sat 17th Jan 2009 22:09 UTC in reply to "what about safari in macosx"
dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06

Three criteria are being used:
A - Is there a market for web browsers?
B - Is Apple dominant in the OS market?
C - Does the bundling of Safari into the MacOS disprupt the browser market?

The answer to all three criteria should be yes, before the practise is incompatible with EU market rules.

Criterium A is satisfied. Criterium C is somewhat satisfied as well, because a MacOS user is less likely to install another browser. But criterium B is not satisfied. Therefore, the bundling of Safari is not against EU competition principles.

Reply Score: 1

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Three criteria are being used:
A - Is there a market for web browsers?
B - Is Apple dominant in the OS market?
C - Does the bundling of Safari into the MacOS disprupt the browser market?

The answer to all three criteria should be yes, before the practise is incompatible with EU market rules.

Criterium A is satisfied. Criterium C is somewhat satisfied as well, because a MacOS user is less likely to install another browser. But criterium B is not satisfied. Therefore, the bundling of Safari is not against EU competition principles.


I'd argue that the answer to each A, B, and C is "no."

The browser market is effectively killed by not only the strong dominance of IE, but the availability of many free top-quality browsers. A software company would be crazy to introduce a new browser against Mozilla, Opera, Chrome, and the others.

Edited 2009-01-17 22:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06

The reason why A has been answered with a yes, because a companies like Opera and Mozilla are present in a certain market (they make money with their activities) and do compete with each other.

The argument that the browser market has been destroyed has a lot of merit and if this is the case, Microsoft would no longer be bound to the rules of engagement for this market. However, the DG Competition has decided that there still exists some market, and that action is required to prevent the destruction of that market.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: what about safari in macosx
by riha on Mon 19th Jan 2009 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: what about safari in macosx"
riha Member since:
2006-01-24

"Three criteria are being used:
A - Is there a market for web browsers?
B - Is Apple dominant in the OS market?
C - Does the bundling of Safari into the MacOS disprupt the browser market?

The answer to all three criteria should be yes, before the practise is incompatible with EU market rules.

Criterium A is satisfied. Criterium C is somewhat satisfied as well, because a MacOS user is less likely to install another browser. But criterium B is not satisfied. Therefore, the bundling of Safari is not against EU competition principles.


I'd argue that the answer to each A, B, and C is "no."

The browser market is effectively killed by not only the strong dominance of IE, but the availability of many free top-quality browsers. A software company would be crazy to introduce a new browser against Mozilla, Opera, Chrome, and the others.
"


But, hey, look at your list, google with chrome is one of those crazy companies then because not long back the list ontained Mozilla, Opera and IE. Now we have chrome as well.

So, sure it is possible, you just have to have an good product that poeple will like.

Reply Score: 1

siimo
Member since:
2006-06-22

They will not be able to remove the back end trident layout engine as a lot of software out there including Microsoft's relies on this. .Net framework has a WebBrowser control that relies on this too so it would also break the .Net Framework.

Reply Score: 2

dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06

This is not DG Competition's problem. Microsoft can make the HTML engine in the .NET framework pluggable, or remove the web browser components from .NET and ship those with IE instead (and then document them so that other browser vendors can also ship .NET web browser components).

Edited 2009-01-17 22:14 UTC

Reply Score: 1

About Time
by Starclopsofish on Sat 17th Jan 2009 21:22 UTC
Starclopsofish
Member since:
2009-01-15

I have no problem with MS including IE as the default browser, but I don't like having uninstallable malware on my computer.

Of course I don't use Windows for anything but games anymore (all it's good for- and really that's only because OGL developers are too lazy to recompile for Linux...) so this doesn't effect me much.

Learn 2 competition, MS.

Reply Score: 2

MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

billion dollar fine now and get this shakedown over with.

Reply Score: 1

What the EU wants
by arlix on Sat 17th Jan 2009 21:39 UTC
arlix
Member since:
2009-01-17

Any competitor can make an antitrust complaint. Then a ruling follows and the company has to comply.

What we saw in the EU was that the foreign company started to discuss the merits of our market rules and did not comply. Thus is was fined for non-compliance. It also went to court without legal arguments and tried to sack in the competition law scene. It utterly failed.

Now another competititor complained again, which was under the impression of the dirty games Microsoft played in Norway concerning Open XML. The Commission investigates again and won't make the same mistakes of offering nice deals.

There are market rules which apply for all of us. Whoever discusses the technological merits of the move has not understood what this new case is about.

Reply Score: 2

Apple
by Bobthearch on Sat 17th Jan 2009 22:01 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

Maybe Microsoft should start suing media outlets that distribute instructions for installing alternative browsers in Windows?

That would put MS on par with Apple...

Reply Score: 2

I never thought I would say this...
by poundsmack on Sat 17th Jan 2009 22:40 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

but give Microsoft a break!

lets say the EU wins. ok great now no more IE in windows. I can use whatever browser I want! let me just first up IE on my brand new install of windows to go download..... hey wait... why cant i get on the internet? face/palm

Reply Score: 1

Havin_it
Member since:
2006-03-10

...how are you supposed to download Firefox?

Sorry, but it does seem idiotic (well, unreasonable at least) to expect a company to supply an OS without a web browser.

Let me just also point out that there's no technical barrier whatsoever preventing OEMs from disabling IE as a functioning web-browser, and preinstalling whatever default browser suits them.

I think if the EU want to get their teeth into Microsoft for something, perhaps it ought to be the bribery/extortion that has for years kept OEMs disinclined to experiment with alternative software modules and OSes.

EDIT: dang it, poundsmack beat me to it...
/facepalm

Edited 2009-01-18 01:34 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06



I think if the EU want to get their teeth into Microsoft for something, perhaps it ought to be the bribery/extortion that has for years kept OEMs disinclined to experiment with alternative software modules and OSes.



Sorry, but I have to disagree here. Do you really believe you can compare the Government of 27 countries, economically stronger than the US, with Dell or HP?

Reply Score: 3

Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

I didn't make such a comparison... what do you mean?

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, then probably I misunderstood you.

Reply Score: 2

sj87 Member since:
2007-12-16

...how are you supposed to download Firefox?

Sorry, but it does seem idiotic (well, unreasonable at least) to expect a company to supply an OS without a web browser.


Well you're just as wrong as is this article too. It's not about bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, it's about not offering a choice for it and the integration of the browser so that "it can't be uninstalled".

It's neither about distributing Trident binaries within the .NET platform or having the technology in Windows to parse RSS feeds in Vista's sidebar widgets.

Reply Score: 2

Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

I understand the argument, but I'm still not all that comfortable with it. First of all, you say that it's about the non-uninstallable-ness of IE, but it's not about the same code being present for use in other applications. Given that it is the same component, it seems to me that you can't have one without the other, no?

If you mean it should be easier to "bury" the actual browser UI so nobody can actually use IE the browser, from what I remember this isn't all that hard at all: Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs -> Add/Remove Windows Components -> untick IE, isn't that it?

Frankly that seems a lot more user-friendly than any of the proposed methods of "offering a choice" that are being bandied about here. I'm not saying it would be all that hard for MS to knock up an applet to let people choose on first-run,* probably an afternoon's work for someone on the IE team ;) I do, however, think that it's going to be frankly a cruelty to the majority of end-users to put them through something of this complexity when all they want to do is get on YouTube or find some porn.

I accept that the status quo is unfair, but the remedy looks likely to harm the consumer more than the "disease".


* - though I wonder who would manage the list of browsers to choose from, and how they are ranked? It can't be Microsoft I presume, as they can't be trusted not to unfairly favour IE. So who gets that job? An EC quango? Tim Berners-Lee? (No, can't be Sir Tim, the W3C have a browser too!)

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I understand the argument, but I'm still not all that comfortable with it. First of all, you say that it's about the non-uninstallable-ness of IE, but it's not about the same code being present for use in other applications. Given that it is the same component, it seems to me that you can't have one without the other, no?

If you mean it should be easier to "bury" the actual browser UI so nobody can actually use IE the browser, from what I remember this isn't all that hard at all: Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs -> Add/Remove Windows Components -> untick IE, isn't that it?

Frankly that seems a lot more user-friendly than any of the proposed methods of "offering a choice" that are being bandied about here. I'm not saying it would be all that hard for MS to knock up an applet to let people choose on first-run,* probably an afternoon's work for someone on the IE team ;) I do, however, think that it's going to be frankly a cruelty to the majority of end-users to put them through something of this complexity when all they want to do is get on YouTube or find some porn.

I accept that the status quo is unfair, but the remedy looks likely to harm the consumer more than the "disease".


* - though I wonder who would manage the list of browsers to choose from, and how they are ranked? It can't be Microsoft I presume, as they can't be trusted not to unfairly favour IE. So who gets that job? An EC quango? Tim Berners-Lee? (No, can't be Sir Tim, the W3C have a browser too!)


Personally, I would be happy with either of two solutions:

(a) it was made so that trident was strictly isolated from the Internet (ie. to ban it completely from the TCP/IP stack, but it could remain for internal OS use only).

... or ...

(b) trident was made strictly and fully W3C compliant, with no special-to-Microsoft extensions whatsoever.

Either of those solutions would effectively make it impossible to have an IE-only website. All websites would render equally well on any client device used to access the site. Hence, the entire public's access to the entire content of the web would be preserved.

The latter of these solutions would avoid the need for Microsoft to have to deliver an OS without a browser.

Reply Score: 3

robbydek Member since:
2009-01-18

I agree it's as easy as uninstalling it, although explorer uses it.

I think the EU wouldn't have went after Microsoft on this, since you can easily change your default browser, if Opera haven't complained. It's just because Opera can't seem to get the hold of a decent market share. Well guess what, Google Chrome did right when it came out and Firefox has managed to keep one and even make gains. Frankly it's something wrong with Opera's browser, not Microsoft's bundling, because if it was Microsoft's bundling the US would be after Microsoft, too.

Reply Score: 1

dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06

...how are you supposed to download Firefox?

C:\>ftp ftp.mozilla.org
Verbonden met dm-ftp01.mozilla.org.
220-
220- ftp.mozilla.org / archive.mozilla.org - files are in /pub/mozilla.org
220-
220- Notice: This server is the only place to obtain nightly builds and needs to
220- remain available to developers and testers. High bandwidth servers that
220- contain the public release files are available at ftp://releases.mozilla.org/
220- If you need to link to a public release, please link to the release server,
220- not here. Thanks!
220-
220- Attempts to download high traffic release files from this server will get a
220- "550 Permission denied." response.
220
Gebruiker (dm-ftp01.mozilla.org:(none)): ftp
331 Please specify the password.
Wachtwoord:
230-
230- ftp.mozilla.org / archive.mozilla.org - files are in /pub/mozilla.org
230-
230- Notice: This server is the only place to obtain nightly builds and needs to
230- remain available to developers and testers. High bandwidth servers that
230- contain the public release files are available at ftp://releases.mozilla.org/
230- If you need to link to a public release, please link to the release server,
230- not here. Thanks!
230-
230- Attempts to download high traffic release files from this server will get a
230- "550 Permission denied." response.
230 Login successful.
ftp> cd /pub/firefox/releases/3.0.5/win32/nl
250 Directory successfully changed.
ftp> bin
200 Switching to Binary mode.
ftp> mget *.exe
200 Switching to Binary mode.
mget Firefox Setup 3.0.5.exe?

Reply Score: 1

Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

Ah, OK. As long as it's a nice user-friendly solution, eh? :/

Now, let's just hope that the owners of SmartFTP, FileZilla, Cygwin ftp et al. don't raise a complaint with this bundling of an FTP client...

Reply Score: 3

kajaman Member since:
2006-01-06

haha, nice ;) . Hasn't seen command-line FTP for a long time (sic!).

Reply Score: 1

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

...how are you supposed to download Firefox?

Sorry, but it does seem idiotic (well, unreasonable at least) to expect a company to supply an OS without a web browser.

Oh, I don't know... maybe with something like this?
http://www.reactos.org/media/screenshots/2007/ros_033_download.jpg

Yes, if Microsoft would take a tip from ReactOS, they could get their asses out of this mess... and it would be a win for everyone. Upon first boot of Windows, there could be a "Connect to the Internet" icon on the desktop which, when clicked, brings up a short wizard, asking you which Web browser, of the main ones at the very least, you want to start off with. Typical choices could obviously be IE, Opera, Firefox, Firefox, and the SeaMonkey suite. Choose one, click next, it downloads it if required and installs, and then places shortcuts on the desktop and start menu.


It's not near has hard (or impossible) as you make it out to be.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

and it would be a win for everyone


How would this be a business win for MS?

brings up a short wizard, asking you which Web browser, of the main ones at the very least, you want to start off with.


Why would they voluntarily do this? Contrary to popular opinion (at least on OSNews) companies generally want you to use THEIR product, not the competitions.

Why is no one complaining about that OSX comes with just one browser?

Reply Score: 2

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Why would they voluntarily do this? Contrary to popular opinion (at least on OSNews) companies generally want you to use THEIR product, not the competitions.

Duh. But why are they in trouble with the law right now? Oh yeah, for leveraging their monopoly in OSes to gain (and now sustain) a monopoly in Web browsers. Give people a choice right from the start, and guess what? No more OS/browser antitrust! Well, partially; they might still need to do something about the [in]ability to uninstall (***not just hide***) their security hole-laden atrocity of a browser (at least the front-end/GUI portion of it), but they'll immediately have a lot of complaints solved.

So far they have refused to really do anything worthwhile to allow fair competition and further growth of the Web, all to feed their own illegally-gained-and-maintained monopoly (with a major boost from Windows itself). It's about time something gets done, though I seriously doubt anything will. Go EU, since my country apparently was too afraid to set things right years ago. At least the situation is slowly getting better, but Microsoft IMO didn't get the punishment that, I think, they deserved.

Reply Score: 2

The problem
by dizzey on Sun 18th Jan 2009 03:00 UTC
dizzey
Member since:
2005-10-15

The real problem with bundling IE on windows is,
well fine every OS has a browser but as said windows have 95% market share and IE has allot of extensions and render some stuff in it's own way. this is why many web pages only works in IE.

the problem with this is that there is allot harder for other OS to gain market share. People think it is trouble running anything else than windows when their internet bank and many other sites that i am using only works in IE.

If IE only followed wc3 specs then we would not have the problem with needing IE to make daily tasks on the web.

Reply Score: 1

For all clueless posters
by somebody on Sun 18th Jan 2009 05:08 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

Linux OS is not the same as Linux distribution.

You're welcome to find firefox here.
http://git.kernel.org/

Well... in any case... if you do find it, then you probably have too good imagination to be eligible to move at the same locations normal people do.

kernel is OS, distribution is just selection of packages on that os.

Edited 2009-01-18 05:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: For all clueless posters
by dmantione on Sun 18th Jan 2009 08:16 UTC in reply to "For all clueless posters"
dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06

While I would wish so, an OS consists of more than a kernel. In fact, Richard Stallman, who is a strong proponent of making the distinction between the Linux kernel and the GNU operating system, considers the compiler the most important part of an OS. Unfortunately for Stallman, GNU/Linux doesn't cover the description as well, for a typical system may contain much more KDE code than GNU code.

Calling something like a SuSE or Red Hat installation a Linux OS is IMO not incorrect, at least it is the most practical thing to do. Anything else would require a sum up of every component.

Edited 2009-01-18 08:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: For all clueless posters
by somebody on Sun 18th Jan 2009 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE: For all clueless posters"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

lol, and since when is practical and correct the same? it is more practical for some newbies to say they run Ubuntu. some even going to the length of treating it the same as Linux. but is that right?

it is more than understandable in some cases. but in case where specifics are questioned like here? not. this is legal question and as such it is based on facts. and here they are...

fact 1: linux os is kernel
fact 2: linux distribution consists of os and various parts, which make it usable and user friendly for user to perform various tasks
fact 3: if you don't like your choices? roll out your own. hell, what stops you from installing wine and IE by default (except MS license and EULA off course:) on your distro?
fact 4: firefox is not part of linux os, but can be part of software selection (and usually is)

as much as I agree with your thinking in plain user language... I have to disagree on the basis in which you used it. this is legal question and you have to use facts not myths or conveniences.

otherwise typical legal process would go something like this:
"Dear jury, I know it is doubtful accused did that, but since he has two hands, he could handle knife and as such he could kill the victim. so... for shear convenience please find him guilty so we can catch the morning coffee."

Edited 2009-01-18 17:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Part of OS
by Gone fishing on Sun 18th Jan 2009 05:35 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

Isn’t the issue that IE is part of Windows not an application and as such is difficult to remove. OEMs etc don’t have the option of having Firefox etc as the default installed browser and of course it’s the same thing with WMP. With SUSE, Ubuntu etc the browser may come with the OS but it’s not part of the OS and as such its very easy to remove as an OEM, end user etc. Changing the browser from Konqueror to Firefox is a trivial matter. I think the EU has said they’ve had enough.

Also from a technical point of view the bundling of IE as part of the OS seems to have been a disaster opening scores of vulnerabilities into an already un-secure OS. The fact that MS insist on persisting with integrating IE into the OS rather than creating a standalone application (which could be ported to other Oses, would be more secure and could be optional on install) seems to imply the EU is correct, MS does wish to use its market share to stifle competition.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Part of OS
by kajaman on Sun 18th Jan 2009 12:40 UTC in reply to "Part of OS"
kajaman Member since:
2006-01-06

Yeah, this is the case as EU sees it. I am EU citizen, and long term Linux user, but in this very case, I can't understand the whole case.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Part of OS
by Havin_it on Sun 18th Jan 2009 13:43 UTC in reply to "Part of OS"
Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

It's ridiculous to suggest that an OEM with all their experience of replacing Windows system components (e.g. Power management, wifi control) with custom software, not to mention all the other third-party "crapware" they bake into their install images, couldn't disable the IE browser UI and set another browser as the default. Even I can do that, and I sure as hell can't write a .cpl applet.

Yes, it's part of the OS, because the OS has a host of uses for a HTML-rendering component besides just a web browser. A lot of other things would not work if you ripped-out KHTML from KDE, or WebKit from OS X, I assure you. Perhaps Gnome are also using Gecko or some other engine in a similar manner, I don't know. The fact is, yes an OS needs an HTML component, and there's no sense in not using its functionality to also offer a web-browser.

As for the vulns that this architecture introduces, I've never heard of any being exploited through any other application than the browser UI, so I fail to see the relevance. That's because the other applications of the same component are almost always limited to a prescribed set of input, be it local files or a single "trusted" web location.

Reply Score: 2

One thing...
by raver31 on Sun 18th Jan 2009 15:36 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

One thing most of the trolls around here do not realise is that the EU is around 27 separate governments from individual countries.

One real Microsoft shill even suggested that Microsoft stop allowing their products to be used in the EU.... Clearly this cabbage does not realise the EU is the biggest market in the world !


go on then Microsoft, take that trolls advise and stop us people in the EU using your wares, then see how long you last !


Also, another troll said that XP/Vista basic retail for $90 seems good value to him...maybe it does to him, in the US... however, Microsoft in their wisdom,( read: greed), decided to sell their products at an inflated price in the EU. So here in the UK, I can pick up a copy of XP Home Basic for £98.... NOT the £63 that they should be selling at compared to the US $90

Edited 2009-01-18 15:37 UTC

Reply Score: 3

It is about market share
by Drexel on Sun 18th Jan 2009 17:13 UTC
Drexel
Member since:
2006-12-05

The only reason microsoft has market share in the browser market in the first place is because it was provided with windows. That is why it is an issue to supply a browser with windows 7 being that windows has a high market share as well. It is anti-competitive to create a platform of ANYTHING and dictate what goes on it!!!! Windows at this point is the ONLY CHOICE with no competition (because of capitalism and paying off politicians and lawyers) and there isn't anything that can be done about it at this point so we have to at least give others the possibility of creating and investing SAFELY in applications that go on top of the monopoly OS and not worry about Microsoft creating another way to obstruct the competition from competing with Microsoft applications so others can innovate something better.

An open platform (unbiased) is a better platform of choice than one on top of 1 company that dictates what goes on on top of it, kinda like a government of software! It is like a government that dictates what products are sold. I know people don't like that, so what is the difference between tangible products and Intellectual Property? People don't understand technology and that is why software development is a powerful tool for manipulation and it is power because you know something that most people don't know! This isn't entirely about technology though, it has economics in mind of course that have been around for years!! The only thing new is that software is unlike any product ever introduced to the world and it gives people the power to manipulate how it is used and sold to a certain degree now days. Software is a technical paradise and laws have a hard time protecting what happens with it. Microsoft is the perfect example of that. Apple now days is using proprietary software and all means of controlling and vendor lock-in too to compete with Microsoft, but it isn't any better and may be worse if it could amazing beat out Microsoft.

The old system of capitalism is going to collapse unless it is better controlled by an unbiased and unpaid-off government overseer of technology. But who doesn't like money? The root of all evil indeed.

Microsoft is obstructing innovation by hogging up the market with there halfway produced products (not saying that IE is halfway produced) installed or not installed with windows just to hold that particular area of the software market. Companies like this can dictate what software you use and it makes me wonder why people call America a free country. It is more like freedom to control the system and the people to your liking.

If Microsoft adds applications on top of their own OS then where is the competition? Not to mention th Thankfully Common sense that most people don't have because they are used to it. It is Corporate dictatorship and can be

Reply Score: 2

RE: It is about market share
by Drexel on Sun 18th Jan 2009 17:36 UTC in reply to "It is about market share"
Drexel Member since:
2006-12-05

ok, somehow that post didn't completely overwrite the text I had in it before the paste.

Reply Score: 1

the real issue
by psycroptic on Mon 19th Jan 2009 11:57 UTC
psycroptic
Member since:
2009-01-19

I would hope that the EU (or whoever the filing party might be here) realizes the true root of the "anti-competitive" nature of what Microsoft was/is doing. I don't really think that installing a default browser into the OS (even when the OS does indeed possess monopoly power over most of the world's PC market) goes against any sort of logic or ethics. Rather, it's the extent to which it has been bundled. On most other desktop operating systems, the browser is a separated component from the OS. In OSX, all Linux distributions, and so on, the "Web Browser" application can be removed by the user after the fact. Yes, most will come with at least one, and some Linux distributions include four or five different browsers, but the difference with Windows is that IE is entrenched within the OS itself, to a point at which removing it becomes no longer an option. (And no, "hiding access" to an application is not the same as removing it.) The heart of the issue here is that to use Windows, you MUST have IE on your system, and we've seen flaws in different OS components that nonetheless use IE code (I vaguely remember a Help&Support bug a while back that made all Windows systems vulnerable whether you were actively using IE or not.)

With all this said, I'm pretty sure that at the moment, the Web and most of the people who use it have wisened up to the fact that proprietary standards scaffolded over what is inherently a (mostly) free network just introduces more problems and headaches than any "problems" it purports to solve. So, many of the issues regarding proprietary IE-only language are fading pretty quickly. I think computer users with any sort of technological competence absolutely have the ability and wherewithal to download and install a different browser (I've been doing it with firefox/mozilla on multiple OS's including Windows for over 5 years without any problems at all.)

Reply Score: 1

RE: the real issue
by lemur2 on Mon 19th Jan 2009 12:28 UTC in reply to "the real issue"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

So, many of the issues regarding proprietary IE-only language are fading pretty quickly. I think computer users with any sort of technological competence absolutely have the ability and wherewithal to download and install a different browser (I've been doing it with firefox/mozilla on multiple OS's including Windows for over 5 years without any problems at all.)


I don't think so.

The main reason, for example, why SVG is not commonly used (even though it is a W3C standard) is that IE doesn't support it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graphics#Native_suppor...

We wouldn't need Silverlight, or flash for that matter, if the proper standards (in particular, SVG and SMIL) were supported by all web browsers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W3c#Standards

If the standards were followed by all, as they should be, then we could have device independence for viewing the web.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_Independence
http://www.w3.org/TR/di-princ/

Device Independence is actually a design aim of the web in the first place.

IE is Microsoft's deliberate vehicle to undermine the very concept of device independence, and require everyone to use IE on a Windows platform in order to view web content. Microsoft's strategy CANNOT be allowed to succeed.

The EU is doing good work to help to see that Microsoft's strategy for the web does not prevail.

Edited 2009-01-19 12:33 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: the real issue
by psycroptic on Mon 19th Jan 2009 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE: the real issue"
psycroptic Member since:
2009-01-19

Sure; we're not there yet by a long shot, and it most likely will take some outside force in order for Microsoft to update IE to be fully (or as full as possibile) standards compliant. But I think it's safe to say that there's been significant progress made since, I don't know, '99 or so. I mean, the whole MS DHTML deal kinda died down after it was shown to be quite un-portable. And while Silverlight still is a bit unsettling to me simply because it's entirely created within the Redmond walls, it seems to me (on the surface at least, cause I haven't delved into the details) that they're being a bit less imprisoning of the specifics of the whole thing.

Idk; I tend to hold out hope for open standards in general, just cause I think they work and I feel that they overall tend to make things easier.

IE is Microsoft's deliberate vehicle to undermine the very concept of device independence, and require everyone to use IE on a Windows platform in order to view web content. Microsoft's strategy CANNOT be allowed to succeed.


If you were to ask them, I suppose they might answer you with something along the lines of "it's our business model." While I do think that you can absolutely attack them for deliberately not complying with decades- and half-decades-old standards, it sounds as if you're making IE out to be this malevolent entity.

My original opinion (on tying the browser into the OS as much as MS has) still stands, though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: the real issue
by RickGraham on Mon 19th Jan 2009 14:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: the real issue"
RickGraham Member since:
2009-01-19

The thing is, Microsoft has implemented SVG. Silverlight is SVG with the Element and Attribute names changed to make the spec proprietary. The content is the same.

Why?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: the real issue
by lemur2 on Mon 19th Jan 2009 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: the real issue"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The thing is, Microsoft has implemented SVG. Silverlight is SVG with the Element and Attribute names changed to make the spec proprietary. The content is the same.


Is this really the case? Two observations make it seem unlikely:

(1) Merely changing the name of parts of the spec would not make it proprietary, and

(2) Since Firefox, Safari, Opera, Konqueror et al already render SVG correctly, why would Novell need to write the Moonlight plugin (and therein include binary codecs as supplied by Microsoft) in order to add Silverlight capability to browsers on Linux?

Edited 2009-01-19 22:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

What if no IE was bundled
by riha on Mon 19th Jan 2009 23:59 UTC
riha
Member since:
2006-01-24

I can hardly imagine that microsoft would like to bundle FF, Chrome or any other browser with their OS. What if IE was nt bundled. That would look fun when maybe 50% of all new windows users will connect to the internet for the first time and they do not have any default browser installed.

How should they be able to download anything from the internet then?

You have to have some kind of starting point.


I think it is up to people to choose which brosser to use.


I do not use IE at all, i still have the links in my start menu and so on, but i do not use it because i do not have to. But it sure was nice to have it there after initial installation of Xp, Vista and so on. That gave me the possibility to browse internet and download FF, Safari and Chrome instead.



Soon people will start complaining about the "explorer" that gives you window management in Windows as well. There are third party window managers for windows as well, maybe we should tell EU that they should have an chance as well.

Edited 2009-01-20 00:01 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Huh?
by ikonuser on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 05:36 UTC
ikonuser
Member since:
2009-01-22

Microsoft is the owner of Windows. Why shouldn't they be allowed to bundle what they want with it. You don't hear about anyone caring that distros bundle window managers with Linux. I'm no fan of Windows or Microsoft but they do have the right to do what they want with their software.

Reply Score: 1