Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Apr 2013 10:34 UTC
Legal After Microsoft's extortion racket has failed to stop Android, and after Oracle's crazy baseless lawsuit failed to stop Android, and after Nokia adopting Windows Phone failed to stop Android, Microsoft, Nokia, and Oracle are now grasping the next straw in their fruitless efforts to stop Android: they've filed an antitrust complaint with the EU, claiming Google unfairly bundles applications with Android.
Thread beginning with comment 558225
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: IE bundled with Windows
by lucas_maximus on Thu 11th Apr 2013 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE: IE bundled with Windows"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

With IE on Windows there were web-facing features like ActiveX which were strictly Windows-only.


Nobody that developers modern websites require ActiveX, it is mainly used on bespoke intranet systems.

ActiveX is usually used for Browser plugins (Java and Flash).

If a web service used ActiveX, as many chose to do, then they required anyone wishing to utilise that service to be running IE on Windows. Hence IE was an attempt (one of many by Microsoft) at consumer lock-in to Microsoft's Windows platform.


The bolded statement is total bullshit. ActiveX is a client side tech not server side. You can expose a legacy ActiveX dll as a WebService but that no way ties you into IE.

Please don't tell lies.

The antitrust violation was that IE was bundled with Windows. In anycase, lets forget back at the time people actually wanted IE because it was better than netscape (IE4 was downloaded by a huge number of people on launch, which considering the speeds at the time is astounding).

Edited 2013-04-11 10:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: IE bundled with Windows
by lemur2 on Thu 11th Apr 2013 11:52 in reply to "RE[2]: IE bundled with Windows"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" With IE on Windows there were web-facing features like ActiveX which were strictly Windows-only.


Nobody that developers modern websites require ActiveX, it is mainly used on bespoke intranet systems.
"

This is why I used the past tense. Not the bold words above and below.

"If a web service used ActiveX, as many chose to do, then they required anyone wishing to utilise that service to be running IE on Windows. Hence IE was an attempt (one of many by Microsoft) at consumer lock-in to Microsoft's Windows platform.


The bolded statement is total bullshit. ActiveX is a client side tech not server side. You can expose a legacy ActiveX dll as a WebService but that no way ties you into IE.
"

It does, however, tie you into Windows, no bullshit. "ActiveX" and "dll" are Windows terms. They have no place in web-facing services.

Please don't tell lies.


No problem. Please refrain from them yourself.

The antitrust violation was that IE was bundled with Windows. In any case, lets forget back at the time people actually wanted IE because it was better than netscape (IE4 was downloaded by a huge number of people on launch, which considering the speeds at the time is astounding).


The anti-trust problem was not only that IE was bundled with Windows, but also that it was not offered for any other platform other than Windows, and that it included non-open methods such that some web services could only work if the client's browser was IE running under Windows. For quite some while I was offered Internet Banking services from my bank only if I was prepared to buy a Windows machine to access the Internet with. In the end I changed my bank.

To this very day, if I want to interact with some slow-to-change government departments in my country, such as the tax office to file a tax return online, then I am required to use a Windows machine and IE as the browser.

Utterly unacceptable.

Edited 2013-04-11 11:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It does, however, tie you into Windows, no bullshit. "ActiveX" and "dll" are Windows terms. They have no place in web-facing services.


Choice of developers of said websites/web-application. At no point did Microsoft mandate them to write code this way. Also as we are using the past tense I think you mean "It did tie you into Windows".

No problem. Please refrain from them yourself


I wasn't speaking utter rubbish.

The anti-trust problem was not only that IE was bundled with Windows, but also that it was not offered for any other platform other than Windows, and that it included non-open methods such that some web services could only work if the client's browser was IE running under Windows.


A web-service cannot be windows specific. If it is then it isn't a web-service.

What you actually mean is that their client side code would only work with IE.

For quite some while I was offered Internet Banking services from my bank only if I was prepared to buy a Windows machine to access the Internet with. In the end I changed my bank.

To this very day, if I want to interact with some slow-to-change government departments in my country, such as the tax office to file a tax return online, then I am required to use a Windows machine and IE as the browser.

Utterly unacceptable.


This has nothing to do with Microsoft that your previous bank's web developers didn't know how to write cross browser code.

Also it actually makes sense why there is that requirement because most banks have very tightly controlled internal computing environments and they are probably only allowed to use IE, thus the site is only tested against IE and the bank can only probably guarantee the site works with IE.

Anyway wouldn't it have been easier to change your UA string than your bank?

Edited 2013-04-11 12:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2