The Microsoft doubters are at it again. Skeptics are questioning Microsoft's ability to deliver on the "Windows Live" strategy outlined recently by Bill Gates and Microsoft CTO Ray Ozzie. If history is a lesson, however, it's a mistake to underestimate Microsoft, a company that has repeatedly shown an ability to catch up to competitors when it falls behind, as it often does.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:"Without IE on Windows I wouldn't have been able to go to mozilla.org to download FireFox, instead I would have had to buy a Cd or go to another computer with a web browser already on it to get FF. "
Drop to the command prompt and type:
> FTP ftp.mozilla.org
Login anonymously, change to bin format and get the file. Install.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
I don't think the issue was that IE was bundled with the OS, it's that *Microsoft* bundled IE with the OS. This presents a competitive disadvantage to other participants in the field (in this case browsers) because ISVs aren't given much of a choice of what software to bundle for their users. Remember that bundling is the primary purpose of ISVs, not OS makers.
This was a major point raised in the litigation against Microsoft; basically, they were overstepping their bounds as manufacturers of an OS to artificially restrict competition in another market by presenting a disincentive to ISVs to even investigate other alternatives to the Microsoft-selected aggregate suite of software. It didn't help their case that they also sent around a nice quantity of interoffice memos basically advertising their malicious intent.
If you were like the vast majority of consumers, you would have purchased a computer bundled with lots of third party software from an ISV. A browser would have been a part of this package, without question. That's why this argument, though initially compelling, falls flat. It's a non-issue. In fact, many ISVs bundled Netscape anyway, especially when shipping to large corporations who had intranets specifically designed for that other proprietary beast.
P.S. The reason Microsoft has any argument in all of this is because an OS by its very nature is a fuzzy entity. Defining one is hideously difficult and circular. This lack of clarity on what an OS is actually comprised of is also something that contributes heavily to the arguments between both sides of the MS vs. *nix debates, usability, etc.
Member since:2005-07-12
Member since:2005-07-06
I don't understand this.
MS did more than bundle IE with their operating system, they integrated it so that IE worked in tandem with the file browser.
To me this is no different than what KDE does with Konquerer. You can use another web browser, sure, just like you could with Windows, but it won't be integrated into the GUI like Konquerer is and like IE is/was.
Now, that being said, I am no fan of Microsoft, I just think that sometimes they can do no right in the eyes of people who (like myself) do not appreciate their "crush, kill, destroy" tactics of pushing their operating system, their products and their modifications of (somewhat) globally accepted standards causing a dependency onto the consumer.
Member since:2005-11-16
"The IE case is interesting because while MS did take advantage of bundling and breaking standards to try and build up a mass dependency on Windows and IE, without that browser I would have had to go to far more trouble to get a different browser on my computer, and eventually a different OS. "
I guess without IE you also had to go to a lot of trouble to get Office installed? I recall the old days where you had what you needed on CD to get you started...like maybe a copy of Netscape. It wasn't a big deal when IE did not come with Windows in the past...why would it be any different if this were still the case?
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-12
Member since:
2005-06-29
What's the use in writing a web browser if no one will use it because the competitors' products are good and free and yours isn't. Then, once you have written your own web browser and decided it'll have tobe free, why not bundle it with your OS which doesn't have a web browser yet? Without IE on Windows I wouldn't have been able to go to mozilla.org to download FireFox, instead I would have had to buy a Cd or go to another computer with a web browser already on it to get FF.
The IE case is interesting because while MS did take advantage of bundling and breaking standards to try and build up a mass dependency on Windows and IE, without that browser I would have had to go to far more trouble to get a different browser on my computer, and eventually a different OS.
I don't think the bundling of the browser was the problem, for that matter I don't think it was necessarily bad at all. I think what was wrong was screwing with standards in order to entice people to break compatibility with other browsers. Microsoft could have included a different browser mind you, but as long as only one company is behind a product for the intent of promoting themselves do you think their browser would have been any less harmful?
FireFox is safe IMO because no one company is the driving force behind it, but I don't think there was such a browser available back when Microsoft was working on the first few versions of IE.