Slashdot Mirror
New IE Disables Netscape-style Plug-ins
Snibor Eoj writes: "In his latest column, Robert Cringely takes a look at Microsoft's motivation for disabling Netscape API plug-ins in IE. As always with Cringely, it's an interesting take on things. We'll see how this one turns out..." Among other things, this will disable Quicktime plugins.
They can ditch whatever they want, period. Regardless of "monopoly" status, which can be debated here for ever, MS is still in control of thier product. MS has no monopoly in browsers, never has, and never will. Therefore they can create any browser any way they want forever, period. They can license it, give it away, kill off Netscape, DO ANYTHING they want to it. Its thier property, thier software, thier decision.
;)
Monopolies are regulated. Monopolies - regardless of your overwhelming adherance to capitalist-dogma - can occur with much less than %XY of marketshare. Any business with enough power to do as they will, with no effective opposition to check on technology, direction and price is a monopoly. Period. Corporations serve customers. When customers have no choice the corporation is a public service.
And btw, if MS ditched RFC 822 and did their own e-mail thing then yes, it would be their perrogative. They could do ANYTHING they want with THEIR software, and I will do ANYTHING I want with my computer.
Wrong, they would be doing exactly what it anti-monoply laws are meant to prevent (see above) - one major player cannot randomly force their clients to make a move - one that makes no sense, other than to cripple already limp competitiors - this is abuse of their monopoly position. If they *DIDNT* have a monopoly - would they arbitrarily switch to a non-open standard? NO, of course not, it would be suicide, unless their was a compelling reason (technology or price)... breaking the plugin API is almost the same as saying "we are a monopoly - watch us extinguish our only competitor and ram change down the throat of the plugin vendors.. try and stop us"... where do the vendors go? NOWHERE b/c m$ is a monopoly... see it coming round now?
Its important to remember that popularity and market share do not mean monopoly. Even if 99.99% of all computer users used IE it still wouldn't necessarily mean MS had a monopoly in browsers.
Most people, and the law disagree. It really matters how you define monopoly. In the US, if Microsoft isnt a monopoly - your laws need to be adjusted. M$ has been running rampant in the IS industry - UNCHALLENGED - for far too long.. the health of the IS industry is suffering, opportunity is non-existant, innovation has been stiffled.
If the DoJ dosnt win a reward with some teeth this wont be the end of Anti-Trust concerns for M$... there is always the EU
Microsoft thinks to itself ~if we change it these ways, and don't point out what we changed, lots of people won't notice they're writing "Java" that runs only on our systems~ (this is documented in the antitrust findings of fact)
Sun takes umbrage at M$ breaking their contract and trying to hijack their product. Sun takes M$ to court, and wins.
M$ then blames Sun for the fallout, and whines
-- I especially love the "real world compatibility" part: compatibility, that is, with Microsoft's trojans, designed to get their corrupted "Java" in.Lord, how I pity the honest people who work there.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
1) If IE stops supporting external plug ins, how many plug-in publishers will go out of business?
.NET.
2) If a plug-in maker goes out of business, I won't have future updates of that plug-in for my Linux based browser.
3) If a plug-in such as RealPlayer or Flash goes away, websites will change to a MS based technology to drive it's content.
4) If a websites require MS based technology that is not supported by my browser, the internet starts becoming much smaller for non-MS people.
5)By creating the perception that plug-in technology is a liability, the laywers start looking for other browser publishers who do use plug-ins and sue them. Hello Netscape, AOL, and maybe even desktop shells with integrated HTML support. Hello Gnome.
6) Without plug-in support it becomes damn near imposible for other OSs (Hello Linux) to utilize Microsoft's
7) This is a very clever way for MS to further the goal of "the browser is the operating system". Hello monopoly.
>Only problem: most web developers write HTML
>with IE in mind
The problem, to be more precise, is that web developers do not write HTML at all. They write
the markup language for some or other particular browser application, but it most certainly is NOT HTML.
If web developers would be professional enough to embrace standards properly, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
YOU CAN RUN NETSCAPE AND USE THOSE PLUGINS. Netscape DOES run on windows!
An activex Java applet engine is silly, but that's what MS wants, so they can co-opt part of the Java developer base. Sun's Java plugin uses NS API. Most of Java is open enough that you can run Java code and code in Java without using anything Sun. Cool high-profile things are happening with Java, and the only thing funny about that is how prejudiced programmers are language bigoting themselves out of jobs. Java is the best thing the open source movement has going for it, the only winner if Java loses is MS.
AC's cheerfully ignored
If Microsoft is =selectively= crippling IE, to force users down a specific upgrade path, then that is a very serious problem. So serious, it may well come up in the DOJ vs Microsoft trial, during the re-evaluation.
Using a monopoly in one area to create a monopoly in another is a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law.
How is this relevent to plug-in technology? Actually, that's surprisingly simple. Dropping the API is not the important part. That's just the mechanism. The important part is that they are "conforming" to this patent only in part. That part being dropping compatiability, which is the entire point of a =world= wide web.
What is happening is that they are generating negative press for competitors, at the same time as making it difficult to impossible for users to use any products other than Microsoft's.
If it were a case of needing an API wrapper, to use Apple's, Netscape's or Sun's plug-ins, there would be no problem. No such wrapper exists, and I very much doubt that sufficient documentation exists for anybody to write such a wrapper.
If you remember, when Microsoft dropped Java support, people voiced the opinion that all people would have to do is download the Sun Java plug-in. It now turns out that Microsoft won't let you.
So. No 3rd-party plug-ins from ANY source Microsoft doesn't approve of. That's a monopoly. Or, to use "real english", that is a Feudal state. THIS is the "real issue", not whether the API is alive, dead, or both. Schrodinger's Cat it is not.
To sum up, the allegation reduces to this: Microsoft is running an operation bordering on the paramilitary, in an effort to conquer and plunder territory, in a manner that is more rememiscient of a feudal war-lord than a civilised corporation in the 21st century in a country based on freedoms and democratic principles.
I don't know about you, but I don't give a damn what runs in what. =I= don't want Napoleon Bonepart running the tech industry at gun-point.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Microsoft has exactly as much right as anyone else to promote a standard.
Actually, as a confirmed monopoly, they most definitely do not have the same rights as any other company. And until/unless the supreme court overturns the unanimous opinion of the circuit court, that's exactly what they are.
Nope, no sig
True, and I know the Microsoft KB article says to switch to ActiveX, but Cringly said ActiveX infringes on the Patent, and I can't see where he's wrong on that point (without looking at the patent, and even then IANAL).
On the other hand, Cringly says .Net is the "solution", but I'm not sure .Net won't violate the patent, either. Well, .Net may not violate it, but .Net won't be able to "embed program objects or applets in the browser", or implement "dynamic, bi-directional communications between Web browsers and external applications" (i.e., .Net apps running on a server). I'm not sure how .Net is supposed to get around this patent.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
It appears that the plug-in support has changed because Microsoft is wanting to use Active-X to handle content. In one way the change makes sense as they want IE to be more integrated with the desktop. In theory, with Active X any program can act as an embedded media viewer.
On the other hand wasn't active-x meant to be one of the gapping security holes in IE? I often find active-x allowing websites to install software on my computer without even asking me.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
- Netscape plug ins run on three platforms. (Unix, Mac, Windows)
- Many of the plug in's are important (Flash, QuickTime, RealOddeeo, etc.)
- Some major web sites use these plug ins
By changing these plugins to ActiveX, it increases the possibility that these plugins will stop being supported on non-Windows platforms.So non-windows platforms end up being second-class (or worse) citizens when it comes to the browser.
Since the only business model MS knows is the leverage and maintenance of monopoly power, it makes sense for MS to do everything they can to make IE the standard, and make it incompatible with everything else. This helps them effectively steal open standards and turn them into proprietary standards by leveraging their monopoly on the desktop. By making other browsers second-class, it helps them maintain their monopoloy on the desktop. Nobody wants to use a desktop with a second class browser.
Both leveraging and maintaining a monopoly is what got them in trouble in the first place.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
Only problem: most web developers write HTML with IE in mind, and NS is an afterthought (thorn) that is worked out in the testing process. Besides, most people use IE, so if your page didn't load, your site visitors are going to assume you are a dumb webmaster.
:)
Hammer of Truth
Microsoft is getting sued by Eolas for patent infringment. Microsoft (while also litigating with Eolas) is also removing the infringing code from their product. It just happens to be (according to the article) support for the APPLET and EMBED tags. So it seems that Quicktime needs EMBED tags to function. I'm sure someone will find a way to write a plug-in to fix that.
By changing these plugins to ActiveX, it increases the possibility that these plugins will stop being supported on non-Windows platforms. [...] blah blah monopoly blah blah open standards blah blah
So what you're saying is that Microsoft should have to support someone else's proprietary standard (i.e., Netscape) rather than being able to use their own standard. That's absurd.
One again it must be said: Microsoft has exactly as much right as anyone else to promote a standard. If you are worried about other platforms, then put in support for ActiveX controls.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
This last sentence pretty much says it all.
The whole pissing match between Sun, MS, and every other fscking co. does nothing but insure that we all have software and hardware that sucks. Isn't about time that these a-holes start showing concern for their customers by working on making decent products instead of worrying about their stock prices, IP, and market dominance.
I digress....
/*drunk.. fix later*/
Netscape plugins aren't proprietary; the API is fully documented.
Microsoft does not have a right to ditch support of a de facto, platform-neutral standard for one which only works on Windows machines. They lost that right when they were declared a monopoly.
If Microsoft ditched support for RFC 822 and started using their own email, would you argue that it's their perrogative?
Scary shit!
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
I guess it's a good thing you didn't pay a lot of money for MSIE, did you?
The reason IE was free all along was that it always was a tool to help cement Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop.
By giving away a browser on a monopoly platform, you make that browser the standard. Once that browser is the predominant standard, then you begin changing things so that everything else is incompatible, and therefore "non-standard". (i.e. Konqueror wants to use these "non-standard" netscape plugins to view Real Video.)
Once IE is utterly the uncontested king, and there are no other browsers to compete, you can bet it will not remain free. Someday it will be unbundled, amidst a bunch of marketing manure, stating how this provides the best value for customers and other such bullshit.
Monopolies never give away something for free, unless it is to maintain market share. There is always one thing reflected in the actions of any monopoly: they will do anything legal, or illegal, even at a loss, to maintain that all important market share. Nothing is more important than market share. Even if you loose your shirt in the short term. Even if you are found guilty and have to pay fines. Once you have everyone bent over a barrel, you can make it up to them.
Too bad MS probably never really expected the legal route to go so far as a breakup. Even if you are found guilty and pay a stiff fine -- you're still a monopoly!
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
Oh wait, Microsoft makes one.....go figure.
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
"The problem is this: Java isn't just a web page scripting language any more."
Um, Java didn't start out as a web scripting language. JSP and servlets didn't come out until Java had been out and buzzworthy for quite a while, and they've never been the dominant form of Java expression. If you think that Java Applets are at all the same as 'scripting languages' then I'd question the rest of your conclusions as well...
From where I sit, most coding development, be it Java, C++, or C# is written based on the context of where it will be used. If it's an enterprise solution, the enterprise can mandate the technology and install Java on XP machines. If it serves a global audience, then shooting itself in the foot or not, Microsoft's decision to axe Java from XP means the developer will have to use another solution.
Kevin Fox
The feeling I'm getting from Microsoft is something along the lines of "doesn't work or play well with others."
I mean, sure, "It's their product and they can limit it as much as they want... they can choose to not include Java support... ad nauseum" But if you view the Microsoft present in combination with their past, it's easy to make the conclusion that their purpose for dropping support for various APIs and languages (Java and more) is more motivated to damaging the ubiquity of the market than anything else.
So first, they earn market share by embracing the standards in a way that makes the consumer comfortable. Next, they kill the competition. finally, they drop the "standards" they used to attract people with in the first place! Now since they own the market (effectively removed consumer choice) they can drop support for the things people wanted most.
Following the time line from beginning to end shows the pattern clearly. So while it is "their choice" to support this feature or that, especially when it isn't theirs to begin with, I have to question the motivation behind it. Further, it would seem like a clear example of further monopoly power abuse. The move seems rather deliberate and further, it also feels as if Microsoft's "true" goals are coming to fruition.
"Microsoft Conspiracy?" Well, yeah, maybe...
It's one of the classic blunders. Like trying to win a land war in Asia. ;)
Good reference.
I fear that you're a bit optimistic. MS still controls the desktop in corporate America. Where I spend my days the idea of considering migration of desktops away from MS is not seriously considered.
I'd love to see us dump MS like a bad habit.
Let's get an equivalent to VB (with an accurate interpreter), a clear direction and single object model for X, and solve the font translation/printing issues and move forward with kicking their butts out of the workplace!
I'd love to sign up for this, but we're not close enough yet. To succeed, we must do what AMD does - be better and cheaper. We're more reliable, and we're cheaper, but MS has got us at point blank range when it comes to ease-of-use.
Try things like macros, or resolving printing issues, or clip art, or add-on programs like browser plugins, or killing applications through the GUI.
Once we deal with this type of thing, we'll be truly competetive. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer.
Let's find more geeks who find it interesting to do the coding necessary to make our GUI environment more AOL-like, or more MS-like - then the masses can easily move to our platform!
Regards,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I'm not asking for you to cut them some slack. I'm asking for you to cut me and everyone else who mentions Microsoft some slack, and not go assuming we're mindless sycophants. Your reply is a case-in-poiint. You didn't respond the the fact that I didn't say anything pro- or anti-microsoft, but just went off on how you deserve to be cynical...
Kevin Fox