Google has made informal complaints to competition authorities in Europe and the US about default settings in Microsoft’s IE7. The latest Microsoft browser includes a small window so users can search without opening up a specific page. The default setting sends users to MSN for searches – just as equivalent features in Opera and Firefox send browsers to Google. A spokesman for the search giant told the New York Times it was concerned Microsoft was limiting choice. My take: …
“…”: Good argument Thom!
Since I don’t use Windows (or at least in that little time I do I don’t run IE)
How does one change search engine in IE7
I don’t see this as reason for problem if they do provide selection as Firefox does. And defaulting on their own search on install.
But I can clearly see this as a problem (that is if I look from Google perspective) if this is hidden in Internet properties. Most users don’t even know why that CPL exists. Much less they know how to change those settings. Internet settings in XP are too bloathed for common user. But I have to admit I didn’t look at this in Vista.
On the other hand… And even though I’m Linux user, I hope that MS will at least provide such on-fly selector and shut the hell up this stupidity.
They don’t. They default to whatever your preference was in the virtually never used feature in IE6; which probably defaults to msn.
Yea, I think Google is smoking its socks. Even if they don’t let you choose, that’s just reason not to use IE! Or reason to install the google toolbar for it *shock*.
But yes, I’ve been told they let you choose. I’ve personally only tried the first public release of IE7, and it was pretty bad so I barely used it.
But yes, I’ve been told they let you choose.
It indeed does. There’s an arrow next to the searchbox which opens a pull-down menu where you can select different search engines.
Yep – just like Firefox does.
Yeah you can choose. My IE7B2 actually defaulted to Google, but probably because I have the Google toolbar installed. B2 isn’t much better than any of the pre-releases btw.
So theoretically then Firefox limits choices as it defaults to Google for searches. Google is a monopoly now by limiting choice!
Yes..this is sarcasm before the flames come in. The default search can be changed easily, just as easy as in Firefox.
I use google for my searches as it comes back with the best results most of the time. I won;t use the google toolbar though if I can help it, nor google desktop. Honestly, why do I need extra stuff on my desktop when I already have that same functionality they provide?
Firefox does not have a monopoly in the Browser arena, Microsoft does and this is the key factor here. If you have a monopoly in one area and leverage that to create a monopoly in another area then you are doing something illegal. Microsoft has a virtual monopoly with Windows which is why they are under scrutinity with everything they bundle with the OS. If they default to MSN search despite people being able to change it is wrong for the reason I just established becuase most people will not change the default. I think the best thing MS can do is either completely disable this feature by default or offer it as a powertoy or something, unless they want to include competitors as alternatives when a person first fires up the browser.
True enough on that point about the monopoly. I was being sarcastic in my first post, sorry that was lost.
With that said, I installed the IE7 Beta and found that it defaults to Google as the search engine, not MSN. My normal browser is Firefox, and have never changed the default search of MSN on IE6. I have no Google software installed on my machine, so unless it imported from Firefox without me knowing, which I suppose is possible, the article and claims by Google are false.
Sorry, but IE is not a monopoly, nor was it ruled a monopoly when it had more marketshare.
Also, it does give you the choice when you start the browser. One click away from choosing something else.
Edited 2006-05-02 20:55
But Windows is a monopoly and IE comes from Windows. The majority of users are too timid to changes defaults like that, even if it is right there in front of their face. I think the only way to be fair and not leverage the monopoly is to have it default to nothing and present the user with a list of available search engines the first time they use it. Then make theri choice be the default for future searches.
I think the moment that google started this, they presented thereself as more of a monopoly the MS. Windows controls the desktop marked and for that the are a monopoly of that. But MS is no where near a monopoly on the search engine market. I believe google has that covered. If MS made this arguement to firefox and opera, then we would all shame MS for doing it, but flip it and let google to this and it becomes a understandable arguement. This product is made by MS, no one makes you use it. Yes it is intergrated but you can use other browsers. A company has every right IMHO to market a product. Search=revenue that every company should have the right to include. Even if it is MS!
1. The point isn’t that Microsoft has a monopoly on search. Not sure where you got that from. They are talking about Microsoft’s monopoly in the OS and Browser markets.
2. Google is not a monopoly in search, they have around 50% of the market, which is a far cry from a monopoly.
3. Firefox and Opera are not owned by Google, they have a business relationship with Google, so your point is null and void. Besides, Firefox has around 15% marketshare, Opera around 1%.
4. You are ignoring anti-trust laws.
I don’t necessarily agree with Google here but your ignorance amazes me.
But IE is not a monopoly, and the court even ruled that already. So that point is moot.
1) IE 6 had a built-in search (that defaulted to MSN) as well. IE 7 only makes it easier to change the default and add new search engines.
2) You really need to read through the Sherman Antitrust Act. It doesn’t say what you think it does.
That’s rediculous.
Why shouldn’t Microsoft include features that allow users to access information quicker? Why should there be no search toolbar in IE which defaults to their search engine and most importantly can be configured?
What’s expected here? Set Google as the default? Google definately have a perceived monopoly here. Ever heard the so-called phrase, “if it’s not on Google it doesn’t exist” or “just Google it”?
IE isn’t a monopoly – Firefox (which I use) is a good example of how the percentages are slowly being eroded. High percentage when there are MANY choices doesn’t equate to monopoly to me.
IE might be popular but nobody is being forced to use IE. Yes it is bundled with Windows, but there is CHOICE.
Where is the convincing arguements from other browsers? Other browsers do have great advantages over IE but there obviously hasn’t been a strong enough cause for people to switch. Perhaps it’s just pure lazyness. Perhaps it’s fear but again where’s the other browser’s counter to that?
When exactly is the user not permitted to use other browsers? Windows XP even includes a tool to help set the default browser.
MSN is definately not a monopoly.
Being a monopoly or not has nothing to do with it, if you’re going to complain about some other company, don’t act as if it’s alright for yours to do it; that’s just double standards.
Why is google whining? If firefox had a search page, guess what would be its default. If opera had the same, guess what would be its search default. IMHO, this is all fair marketing. After all, no one makes you use IE or firefox or opera, it all comes to choice. Besides there is a way to change the defaults in IE7. So why should google complain?
They’re whining because they realize there are still people that use computers that have no idea what the difference between Google and Microsoft’s search engines are. So despite that an educated user can switch the destination of the bar, they know that they never will and that those are searches that will never go to Google. Since Google is expected by investors to grow massively every year until the sun dies, they’ll increasingly make every conceivable effort to obtain every last drop of marketshare available. If that includes getting the “public” to put pressure on Microsoft to include some “Pick your search from this list” dialog on install under threat of some nebulous anti-trust threat, then that’s what they’ll do.
Whether they should or not is a different question.
If opera had the same, guess what would be its search default.
Opera actually does have their own search engine, but the browser defaults to Google.
Microsoft makes it trivial to change the default search engine in IE, by the way — even easier than in Firefox or Opera.
This is getting retarded. Everything Microsoft does gets bitched about as being unfair.
The IE7 betas so far have MSN, Google, and I think Yahoo (and maybe more) in the dropdown list that Thom is talking about. If people can’t figure out how to click that, too freakin’ bad. Besides, IE doesn’t have a monopoly. Even if Windows still does, it doesn’t matter, because IE market share is supposedly around or under 85% now.
Google is just being a crybaby.
They say “why not ask the user on installation?” Well how would you ask the user? Give them a DROPDOWN with the choices? Just like the actual browser already does? What’s the point then? If they don’t notice it in the browser, why would they notice it during installation? Anyone that dumb would just click “next” and use the default (MSN) anyway.
Edited 2006-05-02 20:20
Couldn’t agree more.
So firefox defaults to google, microsoft doesnt publicly get angry. Yes its harder in IE to change that setting. But Firefox in linux doesnt even have an option for msn and adding is about as many steps as changing it on IE., so that defence is null and void. I hate microsoft I hate them alot but I cant expect them not to put there companies search 1st. This is rediculous of google who I love ALOT.
First let me say I don’t know if Google’s complaints are justified or not.
What I want to say is that the writing’s been on the wall for years. They should have known that the moment MS came up with a good enough search engine enabled by default in IE their business will suffer. They should have put more efforts into promoting alternative browsers so when that time arrived the impact on them will be minimum. If they haven’t done their homework, they’re the only ones to blame.
Edited 2006-05-02 20:52
Is that Firefox is not bundled with Windows, and that it doesn’t belong to Google. In the case of IE7, it comes as the default browser, and both it and MSN belong to MS. Saying it’s the same thing is simply not true, just like bundling third-party apps in a Linux distro is not the same as bundling MS apps with Windows.
As for offering a choice to the user, this could easily be done with a wizard that would pop up when IE7 is first used, with pretty icons for the various search engines. Of course, MS would never do that (unless forced to) because most people would pick Google as their default choice…
Google is being stupid on this one.
DOH… *smacks my forehead*
Google is far better than MSN. The real question is why does MS think they need their own search engine anyway.
The same question could be asked of everyone else non-Google.
In other words, you don’t get it. 😛
None of the other search engines also have an OS as their main product. So what’s your point? Do you even have one?
What does having an OS have to do with whether you should make an entry into the search engine market? Nice red herring.
Microsoft’s MSN departments are completely separate from their Windows departments, with the exception of things like MSN Passport/MSN Messenger.
i am amused about monopoly wars,
firefox and opera by default put google as search engine
and about bundled systems, just try to uninstall / remove web browsing konqueror and see whole KDE is gone…
So isn’t is popular desktop KDE comes with all bundled softwares and pose security risk and vulnerable to exploits….
Sorry but thats taking the PC attitude to far into the equalness for everyone … “wimps” just came to my mind … Yes Im not in favour of Microsofts OS or their strategies .. but really its their right to point their browser at MSN & hey they have been doing that for years already … so stop whining Google .
& hey here is one thing where MS does not have a monopoly but Google on the other hand is doing very fine indeed – so they have no good reason to complain – MS didnt complain when they could so neither should Google – Just IMO
Google is much more barefaced then MS.
I use MSN search as default search engine
with the Konqueror browser in my linux box.
Lets just solve this problem by pulling the plug on the net
Or maybe all browsers should be merged into an ueber-browser which everyone can agree on & gives the user all only possible options in all colours with one million pop-ups to warn that the content may be of less quality than it may appear
.
Let nonone be offended – hooray 4 utter PC-behaviour – hey some loose some win .. as long as its legal .
And this is – MS incorporating IE too “kill” Netscape Communicator propably wasnt – well difficult – what is OS & what isnt – if internet browsing ability is part of the MS OS then … Fight! Fight! Fight! …
Google is getting greedy here – Just IMO .
I just dont get it. So its wrong for Microsoft to target MSN on their own application? Does that mean that the Yahoo and Google toolbars are also not playing nice because they default to their respective developer’s search engine?
Other browsers do have great advantages over IE but there obviously hasn’t been a strong enough cause for people to switch.
People have been switching away from IE, in large numbers too. What, do you expect millions and millions of users to switch overnight? This takes time.
MSN may not be a monopoly, nor is IE, but Microsoft is, and as such they have to be careful what they do. In this case, I agree with the Google reps, why not have a wizard that asks you what your favorite search engine is upon first use? This is the best solution for the user…too bad so many people here would rather take Microsoft’s side than that of its users…
I don’t. Why ask the users when it’s just as easy to change it yourself (unlike IE6) and is probably less clicks overall. Both methods would probably be done the same way,s o what’s the point? Just an extra step in the install for users when there isn’t a need.
Legally, I think google has nothing.
Morally, nothing.
Technically, nothing.
Which of those do you agree with them on?
archiesteel,
Nobody said that. What I am saying is that there’s no technical limit to force you to use IE only on Windows systems. It’s not as if when you install Mozilla it comes up with a big error, “Sorry but this application is not allowed”.
I think Google has zero here. You can bet your bottom dollar that if GoogleOS ever happens it’ll be THEIR search engine that is the default.
There’s absolutely nothing stopping users from using a non Microsoft browser.
So its wrong for Microsoft to target MSN on their own application?
Yes, because it is using their monopoly status to make gains into other markets.
IE definitely doesn’t have a monopoly, so that point is moot.
The point is not moot, because MS has an OS monopoly, and therefore has a monopoly on which browser is installed by default. From a legal point of view this is quite important.
There’s two things wrong with your argument. First, Google isn’t “doing the same thing.” It would be the same thing if it set Google as the search engine default on its own Google browser, which would be the default browser on its Google OS. The least we can say is that we’re nowhere near this yet.
The second thing is that the fact that MS is a monopoly does matter. Rules aren’t the same when you hold a monopoly (or quasi-monopoly), as Microsoft does. What may be legal for others to do may not be for you.
So it’s not a question of double standards. That would require both companies to do the same thing, as well as a level playing field. Since both conditions are false, your argument doesn’t stand.
I don’t. Why ask the users when it’s just as easy to change it yourself (unlike IE6) and is probably less clicks overall.
Right, why ask the user for what he wants. Your way is much better, that way people – especially newbies – won’t know that they can change. I myself would have no idea how to change it. Your way is much better. It makes you look for things. It’s like a game.
How could it be less clicks overall? You only need one click!!
You’re not really interested in making it easy for users to choose Google or any other search engines. You just want Microsoft to be able to use its monopoly advantage to promote its search engine – otherwise, what is the point of your posts?
Both methods would probably be done the same way,s o what’s the point? Just an extra step in the install for users when there isn’t a need.
But there is a need. A majority of people prefer to use Google, if we are to believe statistics. And it shouldn’t be done with a pull down menu: in order to be fair, there shouldn’t be a default – the user has to click on an icon for a search engine to continue.
Are you really trying to say that one click, once, is any kind of burden? As opposed to figuring out a) that you can change search engines and b) how to change it?
Legally, I think google has nothing.
Well, considering there’s no case, no one has nothing legally at this point. However, since MS is in a monopoly position, it’s anyone’s guess, really. I don’t think it’s worth suing over this particular issue, however in the context of another antitrust issue (should one come up) it could certainly be used as evidence of MS’s continuous abuse of its monopoly position.
Morally, nothing.
Morals have nothing to do with this, really. However, one can easily argue that Microsoft’s decision to have its OS’ default browser point to its own web search by default is as amoral. This is a business decision to maximize profit, it has nothing to do with morality. The same goes for Google.
As far as users go, however, I think the best thing, from a moral standpoint, is to offer freedom of choice without giving advantage to anyone (i.e. no default choice).
Technically, nothing.
…except that Google is a better search engine than MSN, of course!!
By the way, you make it really hard not to nag you about always coming to Microsoft’s defense. You may not be a Tom K, a tomcat or a ronaldst, but you should still admit to having a strong pro-MS bias.
Which of those do you agree with them on?
I think that Google is right to raise the issue, even if nothing comes out of it. Microsoft’s misuse of monopoly should be denounced when they occur as a matter of record.
Much like you have a strong anti-MS bias?
Just because some people have opinions that differ to yours, it doesn’t automatically mean they’re biased.
Right, why ask the user for what he wants. Your way is much better, that way people – especially newbies – won’t know that they can change. I myself would have no idea how to change it. Your way is much better. It makes you look for things. It’s like a game.
It’s a business decision, and yes I do believe it’s better in this case to not ask them during install what they want, but give them the choice directly on the main interface.
How could it be less clicks overall? You only need one click!!
Asking: Two clicks to choose which engine. One click for next.
Default, not asking: Two clicks to choose which engine in IE itself
You’re not really interested in making it easy for users to choose Google or any other search engines. You just want Microsoft to be able to use its monopoly advantage to promote its search engine – otherwise, what is the point of your posts?
1. It already IS easy for users to choose Google
2. Shame, you had to resort to accusing me of just favoring Microsoft using their power and size when that is not the case. I hate IE and could care less how it does, but I am trying to be objective here.
But there is a need. A majority of people prefer to use Google, if we are to believe statistics. And it shouldn’t be done with a pull down menu: in order to be fair, there shouldn’t be a default – the user has to click on an icon for a search engine to continue.
I don’t think they should be asked during install. Now if you ask them when they go to first use the search box, that I don’t have any issues with. However, I believe it is Microsofts legal, moral and technical right to choose MSN as a default. If I used IE, I would personally choose Google though.
Well, considering there’s no case, no one has nothing legally at this point. However, since MS is in a monopoly position, it’s anyone’s guess, really. I don’t think it’s worth suing over this particular issue, however in the context of another antitrust issue (should one come up) it could certainly be used as evidence of MS’s continuous abuse of its monopoly position.
Right. What I meant, is there is no legal precedence and they couldn’t sue MS on this alone. If it was used in a larger anti-trust suit, maybe it might sway the judge a bit. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Morals have nothing to do with this, really. However, one can easily argue that Microsoft’s decision to have its OS’ default browser point to its own web search by default is as amoral. This is a business decision to maximize profit, it has nothing to do with morality. The same goes for Google.
Which is it? Nothing to do with morals or amoral? My point is basically that it is not amoral. It’s their products and they are not fighting a little guy here. Everyone knows google.
…except that Google is a better search engine than MSN, of course!!
I agree there, but that’s not relevant.
By the way, you make it really hard not to nag you about always coming to Microsoft’s defense. You may not be a Tom K, a tomcat or a ronaldst, but you should still admit to having a strong pro-MS bias.
I do have a slight bias because I get sick of seeing the non-stop trash talking of Microsoft even when I believe they are doing nothing wrong, or what have you. I’ve done the same for Opera, Mozilla, Apple, etc. On this site mostly though, It’s Microsoft. There is a very strong anti-Microsoft crowd here. I am also most fmailiar with Microsoft and Microsoft products, so I am able to chime in more than I would with another company/product. Does this make sense to you?
I just think it’s sad that you feel the need to keep bringing it up. Meta-arguments are pathetic and you keep making our debates into them. Oh well, you’re only hurting yourself.
I don’t think they should be asked during install. Now if you ask them when they go to first use the search box, that I don’t have any issues with.
I could live with that, that way there’s no default choice. That’s an acceptable solution.
Which is it? Nothing to do with morals or amoral?
I think you’re confusing “amoral” with “immoral”.
a·mor·al
adj.
1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
So in fact “nothing to do with morals” and “amoral” are synonyms.
My point is basically that it is not amoral.
Actually it is. My objection is to you bringing morals into this.
It’s their products and they are not fighting a little guy here. Everyone knows google.
That’s irrelevant: if they are abusing their monopoly status to push another one of their businesses, it’s wrong. Also, Google isn’t saying that it should be their service used as default. That makes a big difference in the strength of their argument.
I do have a slight bias because I get sick of seeing the non-stop trash talking of Microsoft even when I believe they are doing nothing wrong, or what have you.
I’d agree with you if you also defended Linux or F/OSS when it’s the victim of trash talking – and, contrary to what you believe, there’s a lot of it on this site as well. I just don’t understand why you don’t get sick of that as well…
> But there is a need. A majority of people prefer to
> use Google, if we are to believe statistics. And it
> shouldn’t be done with a pull down menu: in order to
> be fair, there shouldn’t be a default – the user has
> to click on an icon for a search engine to continue.
By this argument there shouldn’t be any defaults. If I think that the Windows kernel sucks, can I replace it? No. Do I complain? No – because it is built as a part into Windows, and such is IE and now MSN, although one still has the choice to replace them. Very much the same applies, for example, to Ubuntu/Firefox/Google.
> However, since MS is in a monopoly position, it’s
> anyone’s guess, really. I don’t think it’s worth
> suing over this particular issue, however in the
> context of another antitrust issue (should one come
> up) it could certainly be used as evidence of MS’s
> continuous abuse of its monopoly position.
This is much closer to the actual issue. MS is in a monopoly position. It is too strong for competitors to establish (so far). All this are attempts to tie them to the ground again. And what I think about all these attemps is that they are silly. They get lost in technical details and endless court fightings while the core issue remains untouched: MS is a monopoly, and as long as nobody stands up to establish competition, the customer is going to lose.
Nobody said that. What I am saying is that there’s no technical limit to force you to use IE only on Windows systems. It’s not as if when you install Mozilla it comes up with a big error, “Sorry but this application is not allowed”.
Yes, flanque, I know that. However, IE comes as the default. People often use defaults without changing them, especially newbies (won’t someone think of the newbies?). MS knows that, and is trying to take advantage of this. Since MS is a monopoly, doing this might be considered as anti-competitive.
I think Google has zero here. You can bet your bottom dollar that if GoogleOS ever happens it’ll be THEIR search engine that is the default.
Hypothetical scenarios are irrelevant. However, as I’ve already demonstrated, for the comparison to be valid Google would also have to be a monopoly.
There’s absolutely nothing stopping users from using a non Microsoft browser.
That’s not the point. The point is about the default settings, and how MS uses its OS monopoly to try to gain market share in another market.
One problem: Windows is not a monopoly.
The courts ruled Microsoft used monopolistic business practices.
One problem: Windows is not a monopoly.
The courts ruled Microsoft used monopolistic business practices.
Same difference. From a legal point of view, this is virtually the same thing. Microsoft is a de facto monopoly, with 90%+ of the OS and Office Suite markets. You don’t need 100% to be considered a monopoly…
I’m not an expert in Law, so I’m going to have to do research on what constitutes a Monopoly.
I do not agree with your assertion that having a desktop “monopoly” (which i dont believe they even have anymore) automatic means a browser monopoly.
A monopoly should be based off the actual percentage, not potential percentage.
edit: I’m trying to read through the laws, but they are very hard to decipher meaning and there are is a lot of stuff on anti-trust in different parts of the US code.
By the dictionary definition of monopoly though, Microsoft is not.
Edited 2006-05-03 17:04
I do not agree with your assertion that having a desktop “monopoly” (which i dont believe they even have anymore) automatic means a browser monopoly.
It means control on what browser is installed by default. Now, I will personally disagree with you that they don’t have a desktop monopoly. 90%+ of the market is large enough for them to wield monopoly power.
Well find me the US code that states that. Because it’s not a monopoly by strict definition.
Just noticed all my non-abusive, on-topic posts that were modded down to zero. Someone’s having fun!!
(P.S. you can mod this one down, it’s off-topic!)
I don’t hide the fact that I’m critical of Microsoft (though I like Windows, just not as much as Linux). I’ve never tried to hide it. There are very good reasons to be critical of Microsoft (at least in the OS and Office suite markets).
I’ve once asked sappyvcv what good reasons he had to defend MS, and then he got angry that I pointed out that he did defend MS, on nearly every occasion he had (though even he’s been unhappy with the way Vista has been delayed).
I have my opinions, and obviously he has his, but I don’t try to hide mine – and when I debate, it’s not about opinions, it’s about rational arguments. That’s what debate is.
Not that this really concerns you. What, another MS defender to the rescue? 🙂
heh, I wouldn’t class myself as an MS defender as I know they have plenty of faults – but so do a lot of other companies yet some people just seem intent on criticising MS in any which way they can.
Most of those people are former Windows users who’ve switched fairly recently. Most long-term users of other platforms seem to have a more grown-up attitude to MS.
heh, I wouldn’t class myself as an MS defender as I know they have plenty of faults – but so do a lot of other companies yet some people just seem intent on criticising MS in any which way they can.
Yes, but those other companies are not monopolies, and they can’t abuse their monopoly position to stifle competition.
As a Linux user, MS represents an even bigger problem. Sure, there are lots of companies out there, but few are as bent on making life difficult for Linux users as MS is, with the possible exception of SCO (which is also hated for this reason). If MS was ready to live in peace with Linux (and offer MS Office for the platform), it would receive a lot less criticism.
Most of those people are former Windows users who’ve switched fairly recently. Most long-term users of other platforms seem to have a more grown-up attitude to MS.
Well, that’s not me. I still use Windows daily, and I’ve used the various MS OSes since the very beginning, when the IBM PC first came out. The first version of Windows I used regularly was 3.0 (I played around with 2.0, but it just sucked too much…). I also used computers before that, learning Basic on a TRS-80 Model III. I still think MS’s monopoly is a dangerous threat to the IT industry, and as such any abuse should be denounced loudly and unequivocally. That, to me, is the responsible “grown-up” attitude to have with regards to MS, though you’re welcome to disagree.
So you feel the need to drag me into this. Obviously, you feel something special for me
So you feel the need to drag me into this. Obviously, you feel something special for me
That’s because I believe you can still be saved from the dark side. 🙂
Nah. Black is better than white. I’m good, thanks though.
Honestly and realistically, I could care less what Microscrap and Google do.
I have received zero dollar directly from either company – unless you count repairing other peoples MS computers every once and a while.
I use, promote, and make my money as a systems administrator in Linux on a university campus. Three-fifths of the IT budget is based on repairing and upgrading MS computers staff, faculty, and students break. I also use Opera as a web browser since it doesn’t lock up like Internet `Exploder` or even Firefox.
Maybe we would all be better off without MS or Google. Either way, again, I could care less about either company.
Edited 2006-05-03 12:17
By that logic, why should you care about anything Open Source? You receive no money from that.
Sounds pretty self-centered if you ask me. Not saying you have to care, but your reasons are selfish.
tell me what is wrong with this post to get -2 score and even deleted from this site
——————————————
i am amused about monopoly wars,
firefox and opera by default put google as search engine
and about bundled systems, just try to uninstall / remove web browsing konqueror and see whole KDE is gone…
So isn’t is popular desktop KDE comes with all bundled softwares and pose security risk and vulnerable to exploits….
tell me what is wrong with this post to get -2 score and even deleted from this site
Your post did not get deleted. It got modded down by the readers to a point until it falls under your treshold, making it invisible. Setting your treshold to -5 should reveal the comment again.
Please refrain from duplicate posting and insults at OSN’s staff. It’s a sure way to get banned, you see.
Your first post was off-topic, this discussion isn’t about KDE and security risks. That’s why it got modded down.
Meanwhile, your last post is off-topic as well…draw your own conclusions.
Okay Billy,
Let me explain this to you in very simple terms.
I could care less about the Microscrap v. Google war. Why? Because it has nothing to do with the real war over finances in local economies – including my wallet.
If that makes me selfish then so be it. It’s my money. BTW. I support open source projects, do you?
And open source does? Selfish
By the way, who the hell is Billy?
And support open source? Not really. I’m not anti-open source though.
`And open source does?`
My employment is built upon and related completely to open-source solutions, including a strong foundation in Linux. So yes, it does pay. It pays well for this rural area. If that makes me a selfish – well – okay, I’ll accept that definition.
Why does it pay, well, someone or some group is getting really tired of paying out astronomical fees, licenses, maintenance or support contracts, and etc. that are not balanced in favor of the institution. My pay is only a small fraction of cost reduction and recovery process.
Does that make it clearer for you Bill?
Then why did you bother to post? Posting just to say you don’t care is pathetic and arrogant.
Go troll somewhere else, RMS.
Thank you! 🙂 I like RMS. Willy.
Edited 2006-05-03 17:18
If you’re a Google-phile, the first thing you’ll probably do in your new IE7 is go to http://www.google.com – and when you do so, the site “sniffs” that you are using IE7, and pops up a message in the top-right of the page. It has a dirty big arrow pointing toward the search-box, and a friendly message offering to show you exactly how to switch your default search to Google.
Given that they are able to do this, I really don’t see why they need to whinge on about it. Do they really think MS should hand them the default-search placing on a platter? FFS.
As usual, everyone competing with MSFT shouting, screaming, whining and whimping about “unfair” competition and the like.
Everytime the same crap from crappy companies with crappy inferior products, be it
Linux, Apple, Real, Google, AOL, *put any company here*
Market is competition, if you cannot compete dont whine, just die gracefully!! SUKCERZ!!
I prefer Microsoft anyway (much better products than all competition combined), but screaming & shouting makes you look like a pissed crappy retarted LOSER!!
Edited 2006-05-03 13:45
Well find me the US code that states that.
No. You insist on defending Microsoft, you come up with your own arguments.
Because it’s not a monopoly by strict definition.
The dictionary isn’t a law book. For all practical purposes, Microsoft has a monopoly in the Desktop OS and Office Suite market. The only reason they only got a slap on the wrist from the DOJ is that the Bush administration let the case go for ideological reasons (as well as taking good care of an important campaign contributor, I’m sure…)
How do you expect me not to call you a MS apologist when you make a point of arguing that they do not benefit from a monopoly position in the OS and Office markets? If Ford made 90% of the cars, would you defend them the same way? Would you argue that they did not have monopoly status because every other auto makers got to share that 10%? What if 90% of all electronic appliances were made by Sony?
You don’t like me calling you a MS apologist? Though luck, because that’s what you are – and the odd criticism against MS once in a blue moon won’t convince me, that’s just lip service to manager a modicum of credibility.
At least have the decency to admit that you have a strong bias (not a small one) towards MS, because honestly there’s no other justification for going to such lengths to dispute a fact that just about everyone in the IT world knows is true, that MS holds monopoly power over the OS and Office suite markets.
Dude, you’re the one making the argument that they ARE a monopoly and have a monopoly on the desktop. The burden of proof is on YOU, because by the only definition we KNOW for sure, they are not.
How do you expect me not to call you a MS apologist when you make a point of arguing that they do not benefit from a monopoly position in the OS and Office markets?
Yet again, you come back to that. Pathetic.
If Ford made 90% of the cars, would you defend them the same way? Would you argue that they did not have monopoly status because every other auto makers got to share that 10%? What if 90% of all electronic appliances were made by Sony?
Yes.
You don’t like me calling you a MS apologist? Though luck, because that’s what you are – and the odd criticism against MS once in a blue moon won’t convince me, that’s just lip service to manager a modicum of credibility.
Why don’t you stick to arguing the actual points and stop crying about it? It’s getting really pathetic.
If you’re unable to back up your claims, where the burden of proof is on YOU, then that’s your problem, not mine. But don’t go falling back on your pathetic semantics bullshit that just creates pointless noise in this thread.
Dude, you’re the one making the argument that they ARE a monopoly and have a monopoly on the desktop.
You make it sound as if I’m the only one making this argument, while in reality you’re about the only one (with MS) taking your position.
The burden of proof is on YOU, because by the only definition we KNOW for sure, they are not.
So you’ve found the appropriate legal entries to describe it? Because using the dictionary here is NOT appropriate. And since there is a general consensus that MS is indeed a monopoly, it is up to YOU to prove that the consensus is wrong. Good luck!
Yet again, you come back to that. Pathetic.
I tell it like it is. Based on your past posting history, you ARE a MS apologist. I’m sorry if the truth hurts.
Yes.
The depths you’re willing to go to in order to avoid admitting that you were wrong are abysmal. A company does not need 100% of a market in order to exercise monopoly powers – that’s clear to everyone but you, it seems.
Why don’t you stick to arguing the actual points and stop crying about it? It’s getting really pathetic.
Crying? I’m not the one who’s throwing a hissy fit because someone has exposed my bias…
f you’re unable to back up your claims, where the burden of proof is on YOU, then that’s your problem, not mine. But don’t go falling back on your pathetic semantics bullshit that just creates pointless noise in this thread.
The consensus is that MS is able to exercise monopoly powers in the OS and Office suite markets. The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.
And speaking of pathetic semantic bullshit, I think this thread shows that you win the crown for this event with your “the dictionary says it ain’t a monopoly, so who cares what countless lawyers and judges have said – the dictionary is good enough for me.”
You want pathetic? Just look in a mirror.
You make it sound as if I’m the only one making this argument, while in reality you’re about the only one (with MS) taking your position.
I never said that. And actually, the courts ruled they used monopolistic business practices with OEMs. That’s about it.
So you’ve found the appropriate legal entries to describe it? Because using the dictionary here is NOT appropriate. And since there is a general consensus that MS is indeed a monopoly, it is up to YOU to prove that the consensus is wrong. Good luck!
No. See, since the dictionary definition says they are NOT a monopoly, we have to go by the legal definition. And unless you can find the legal wording that can back up the claim that they are, you shouldn’t be saying they are. General consensus means little. It’s the law that is important. So no, the burden of proof is still on you.
Crying? I’m not the one who’s throwing a hissy fit because someone has exposed my bias…
Heh, cute. If you think I’m throwing a “hissy fit”, I feel sorry for you. I’m just curious why you keep insisting arguing semantics with me, and saying stupid shit like above.
The consensus is that MS is able to exercise monopoly powers in the OS and Office suite markets. The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.
See above. We’re talking legalities here. General consensus doesn’t make it true.
And speaking of pathetic semantic bullshit, I think this thread shows that you win the crown for this event with your “the dictionary says it ain’t a monopoly, so who cares what countless lawyers and judges have said – the dictionary is good enough for me.”
Again, the judges ruled they used monopolistic business practices. They did not rule that Microsoft itself is a monopoly.
And unless you can find the legal wording that can back up the claim that they are, you shouldn’t be saying they are. General consensus means little. It’s the law that is important. So no, the burden of proof is still on you.
No it isn’t. You’re the one challenging the assertion, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Until then, we’re both expressing our opinions, and little else.
Heh, cute. If you think I’m throwing a “hissy fit”, I feel sorry for you.
Yeah, like you saying that I’m “crying”, right? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I’m just curious why you keep insisting arguing semantics with me, and saying stupid shit like above.
You’re the one arguing semantics. I’m saying that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, there’s no reason to argue that it’s not really a duck.
Microsoft has been able to use its dominant market position to impose its will as far as Desktop OSes and Office suites go, in pretty much the same way as if it was an absolute monopoly. So it’s not an absolute monopoly, but for all practical purposes it’s pretty much the same thing.
As I said, there’s only one person nitpicking on semantics here, and it’s you, not me. And until you can come up with a reasonable argument as to why Microsoft shouldn’t be considered a monopoly in the two aforementioned markets, the consensus will still hold. And if you think the consensus doesn’t matter, then there’s little I can do for you. Keep living in your own private world, which makes perfect sense to you and you alone.
Again, the judges ruled they used monopolistic business practices. They did not rule that Microsoft itself is a monopoly.
And you have the gall to say that I’m the one arguing semantics? Unbelievable.
“Your honor, my client may have commited treasonous acts, but that doesn’t make him a traitor!”
or
“Your honor, my clients has used murderous practices, but that doesn’t make him a murderer!”
Yeah, right. Nice talking to you.
Edited 2006-05-04 18:54
No it isn’t. You’re the one challenging the assertion, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Until then, we’re both expressing our opinions, and little else.
You have to be f–king kidding me. When you make an assertion, you have to back it up.
When you’re willing to accept that, we can continue this conversation.
See below the comments if they desire that score at all?
you can mod down anything in favour of MS but your moderator is emotionally excited and have not any objective views.
I can point out many stupid comments gets 5 score on this site, even though they are rated by users
———————
Your take
By ma_d (1.24) on 2006-05-02 19:46:53 UTC
“…”: Good argument Thom!
0 Replies Reply Score: 5
——————–
RE[2]: Kind of a downside for IE users
By vitae (1.68) on 2006-05-02 21:56:26 UTC in reply to “RE: Kind of a downside for …”
None of the other search engines also have an OS as their main product. So what’s your point? Do you even have one?
1 Reply Reply Score: 2
——————
RE[3]: Re: Microscrap v. Google war
By sappyvcv (1.20) on 2006-05-03 14:57:34 UTC in reply to “RE[2]: Re: Microscrap v. Go…”
Then why did you bother to post? Posting just to say you don’t care is pathetic and arrogant.
Go troll somewhere else, RMS.
1 Reply Reply Score: 1
You have to be f–king kidding me. When you make an assertion, you have to back it up.
DOJ vs. Microsoft
EU vs. Microsoft
etc.
etc.
Carry on defending the multibillion multinational. They sure need your help.
Convincing argument.
I see this is going nowhere and you’re just going to run around in circles.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
What can I say, it takes two to tango…