Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 17th Jul 2013 17:11 UTC
Google "Google must do more to allay concerns that it is blocking competitors in web search results, the EU's antitrust chief said on Wednesday, after rivals criticized concessions it has offered as being inadequate."
Thread beginning with comment 567333
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Funny
by Alfman on Thu 18th Jul 2013 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Funny"
Member since:


"Well, the question, as it pertains to my original post is not whether or not they did something illegal, but rather if it should have been illegal in the first place."

Actually I did understand that, and I did want to convey the opinion that it *should* be illegal for monopolies to prohibit vendors from installing competing software.

"Anyway, as a result of MS no longer being able to control what OEMs include with the OS, that's why most PCs sold today come with 40 pieces of crapware running in the system tray, and of course MS gets blamed for it."

The computers I dealt with already had the crapware, so I didn't get the impression the trial made any difference in this regards, but it'd be interesting if you could empirically show otherwise.

"Since the browser situation pretty much sorted itself out sans direct government interference, do you really think putting that restriction on MS benefitted consumers in the long run?"

You can't really say that though, the government(s) DID interfere. Microsoft was seeking to dominate the browser market through coercion rather than merit, and IE at the time was *notoriously* worse than the competition. More indirectly I do think there's long term benefit in that it dissuades microsoft from attempting this tactic again with other competing (none-browser) software.

Mind you I know our anti-trust policy has very limited effectiveness, but still I think it's better than nothing.

"And why didn't apps like Winamp not have issues gaining marketshare over MS defaults? Maybe because unlike Netscape 4, Winamp didn't suck ass? ;) "

As I remember it, the bundled version of MS media player in the 90s was a basic OLE player with no media library or even a queue. MS was late on the bandwagon and as usual had to play catch up.

I tried researching it, do you have historic market share information for winamp?

According to this link winamp had 5.5M users compared to MS's 43.1M in 2003. The monstrosity that was realplayer had 26M (it was heavily bundled too).

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Funny
by Stephen! on Thu 18th Jul 2013 13:36 in reply to "RE[5]: Funny"
Stephen! Member since:

I do think there's long term benefit in that it dissuades microsoft from attempting this tactic again with other competing (none-browser) software.

Although there is the integration of SkyDrive into Windows Eight, so perhaps now that the antitrust has died down, they're gradually starting to edge down that path again.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Funny
by zima on Wed 24th Jul 2013 23:59 in reply to "RE[5]: Funny"
zima Member since:

IE wasn't really "*notoriously* worse" in comparison to the old Netscape - in the first browser war, IE won also on merit.

BTW, older Steam hardware survey showed also percentages for installed software, also few audio players (including Winamp and WMP) ...sadly the new one doesn't do that, and I can't quickly find the old one archived anywhere.

Reply Parent Score: 2