Slashdot Mirror
Google Joins EU Antitrust Case Against Microsoft
gubm writes "Google said it wants to help the European Commission prove its antitrust charges against Microsoft regarding the bundling of the Internet Explorer browser with Windows."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Companies typically interest themselves with anything that weakens their competitors. Google must be losing confidence in their ability to compete on merits alone.
Well, I hear the hoofbeats of the four horsemen over MY shoulder.
I guess this is the start of Google's plan to take over the world beginning with the biggest kid on the playground.
>B2 Spirit, radar contact......
1. What does Google have to do with it?
2. The browser wars are basically over (the monopoly stage, that is). Everyone and their dog has heard about firefox by now, and how good it is.
Company's major competitor promises to do all it can to help in the case against the company.
is fair play in the corporate world. Be wise, Google.
I found a much better informative article. Even though the damn site won't let you see the printable version first since web browsers tell the NYT server you came from slashdot. ;)
This space is not for rent.
offer an installation screen that gives consumers a choice of which browser to install.
Will the masses still opt for IE?
What if the IE choice says "Choosing IE will give you a substandard browsing experience, plus your computer will be pwned by malware. Oh and also you are holding back the progress of all mankind you douche"
Bets please.
Macs come only with Safari...should there be a required option for Mac OS X too?
If the EU does this, then will they also force Apple to open the iPhone to other browsers? Will they force Google to allow other browsers to be shipped with android? Ok, these are not desktop platforms, but the same should apply.
Why is this such a big issue, do I get a choice of Browser on a Mac, does Opera come pre-installed in Linux???
Perhaps Ford should stop selling cars with Ford radios in them because it isn't fair to Alpine...
And now we will have a ton of posts that either bash or IE or stick up for IE. This isn't about IE and its merits. It wouldn't matter if Microsoft had THE best browser in the world. The EU doesn't care about that, do they? This isn't even about the consumer. This is just a political/corporate game.
And frankly, letting the EU play it (and Google, now) simply because *we* don't like IE is ridiculous. Next thing we know, they'll have to start bundling Notepad++, too, because Notepad has the market cornered ;)
Besides, so let's say they don't bundle IE... or say they have to bundle a competitor. Which competitor? Firefox? Why not K-Meleon? Safari? Opera? Seamonkey? And hey, what about all those other calculators out there? And what about bundling openoffice.org instead of an Office trial version? And what about ...
It's stupid. I use Firefox and really don't like IE at all, and I still think its stupid...
If windows didn't have IE, how would we download firefox
Well, there are a lot of ways to do that:
1.You can use FTP.
2.You can download Firefox installer on another PC and then transfer it using floppies, USB flash memory or some other sneakernet technology.
3.You can include the Firefox installer to your Windows install CD.
4.Microsoft may make a program that lets you choose between IE, Firefox, Opera and Chrome.
Anyway, how do you install network card drivers after installing Windows if your network card is not supported by the default Windows install?
"But Joe Sixpack will not know how to accomplish options #1-#3 and MS may not make option #4 available to him"
Well, there is a high probability that Joe also does not know how to install Windows. So he has two options:
1. Ask a friend to install Windows for him
2. Buy a PC with Windows already installed by an OEM.
In case of #1, the friend will also be able to install Firefox, in case of #2. the OEM will have installed a browser for him.
So much for that. Getting involved in the legal process to stab a competitor is far from evil (even if the target is evil themselves). How long until the EU starts an anti-trust case against Google and MS returns the favor?
Talk about the pot and fucking kettle...
Google just proved they have no real way to compete with Microsoft. Most of us already kind of knew that but at least Google has made it official.
isn't a little too late to do this? i mean c'mon...one browser can be installed in less than 5 minutes or 3 clicks on almoust every operating system, does every operating system let you choose a compeitior browser at install?..no ..it's a default option ..change it if you don't like it!
I don't get it. Microsoft makes a web browser and bundles it with their operating system. Big deal! Apple does the same thing with Safari. My iMac didn't come with FireFox or Opera, but I've since downloaded them. I have IE, Firefox, Opera, Chrome & Safari on my XP machine at work. Microsoft in no way prevented me from downloading these or installing them. If you went to download a FireFox or Chrome and IE threw up a 404 page or gave some sort of warning like "Use of this browser will compromise the security of your computer" I could see their point. Besides, aren't they kind of late to the game? If this was at the time when MS killed Netscape they may have had some true concern, but the market has been working this out, even if it isn't at the same pace as the fascists at the EU would like.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
1. Ask a friend to install Windows for him
2. Buy a PC with Windows already installed by an OEM.
In case of #1, the friend will also be able to install Firefox, in case of #2. the OEM will have installed a browser for him.
And, the OEM will likely install IE. Joe Sixpack will have no idea that there are other options out there, and continue to use what he's given.
I have tried to get my wife to use something (anything) other than IE, but she won't. She knows how to use Windows (in a limited way) can get her email and the few websites she is interested in. She also uses Word to do her report cards 3 times a year - and she happy with that. I think she represents the vast majority of computer users out there who aren't interested in the latest and greatest.
The average /.er on the other hand.........
>B2 Spirit, radar contact......
In case #2, the OEM have been able to install what ever browser they want up to now. If you want Firefox to be put on by the OEM, ask them. Or get laws forcing the OEM's too do it.
I want to write a new browser. Now MS have to include my browser on their install program.
for when they have to reply to an anti-trust complaint.
Why does IE have the highest usage ranking?
Because it comes with Windows and has been tested in advance to work with Windows. So people have no reason to try the many options that are different. People don't want different, they want familiar. Another reason is because IE terminates normally and doesn't leave processes hanging like Firefox has done for the last 2 years. I love Firefox's interface and use its latest (on both XP and Vista) but am not blind to its faults and can't set my wife up to use it. I'd have to be her full time process killer.
And Google's quality in most of their applications lacks IMHO compared to Microsoft's (compare Gmail to Outlook).
'Google, Yahoo, IAC, AOL, and Lycos -- the major Internet search companies other than Microsoft -- on Wednesday filed a motion to compel the Software Rights Archive (SRA) to reveal who is behind its 2-year-old patent lawsuit against them'
'Microsoft today argued that US House and Senate Judiciary Committees that the proposed Google/Yahoo deal, claiming that Yahoo's agreement to support ads through a non-exclusive deal is anti-competitive and would allegedly hurt innovation'
And now we will have a ton of posts that either bash or IE or stick up for IE. This isn't about IE and its merits
That my friend, is correct.
The EU doesn't care about that, do they? This isn't even about the consumer.
This, my friend, is 10000% incorrect. Anti-trust is exactly about the consumer. For capitalism to work, competition must be preserved and consumers must have choice. MS is a convicted monopolist, and MS has been proven that it exercises it's OS market share to intimidate PC makers to only bundle IE, and because it gives away IE for free, it under cut Netscape who, at the time was switching to a pay model for it's web browser.
This is just a political/corporate game.
That's true, at least for Google and Microsoft, but don't try to lump the EU into that same category. I'm not saying any government, even the EU, is perfect, but I'm sick and tired of people who don't understand trust law not realizing that prosecuting a monopoly is a Good Thing.
And frankly, letting the EU play it (and Google, now) simply because *we* don't like IE is ridiculous. Next thing we know, they'll have to start bundling Notepad++, too, because Notepad has the market cornered ;)
Obviously a troll, but I'll bite. First, you say this has nothing to do with the quality of IE, which is absolutely true, so the first part of this sentence is invalidated by that. It's not about if we don't like it, it's about if Microsoft is abusing it's monopoly power. Remember, although the penalty phase was messed up, in the US, Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Second, your comment about notepad shows again you don't understand monopolies. The monopoly here is in the OS market with windows, and the abuses are using their OS dominance to gain dominance in another market, the web browsing market, which, despite Firefox, they still have a dominant share in. Besides... who's to say microsoft's licensing language doesn't prevent OEMs from installing notepad++? Notepad isn't a powerplayer here, but if the maker of notepad++ and dell wanted to enter into an agreement, and Microsoft said "if you do that I will jack up your licensing fees" then that's abuse of monopoly power. Dell has no choice, and that's a bad thing. That translates into no choice for the consumer.
Besides, so let's say they don't bundle IE... or say they have to bundle a competitor. Which competitor? Firefox? Why not K-Meleon? Safari? Opera? Seamonkey? And hey, what about all those other calculators out there? And what about bundling openoffice.org instead of an Office trial version? And what about ...
All very valid points, and I simply reply by saying "yeah that's a good idea, why not?" For the browser at least, since it's essentially required software, install a bunch of different ones, and allow OEMs to create a program which says "hey, which browser do you want to try?" Or, allow OEMs to chose a browser other than IE. But there are other solutions as well. We don't have to worry about the specific solution here because the article makes no mention of a solution, so you just pulled that out of your ass. They haven't gotten to that stage yet.
See, in the old days, MS said to OEMs "You will bundle ONLY IE with windows or we will charge you outrageous licensing fees!" And it worked. IBM said no, and they found out they weren't the 800 lb gorilla any more and had to pay through the nose. Dell complied and they got some of the best prices. However, consumers complain to Dell, and want choice from Dell. Dell's hands are tied, and consumers suffer. Dell has no way to improve the experience for customers and evolve because Dell is bound by Microsoft who demands this. Dell I'm sure would like to offer another browser. Let Dell chose, and thus the consumer judge Dell it on it's own merits. Choice is stifled here, therefore the consumer loses. Microsoft may still be doing this to a degree, despite being a convicted monopolist, and the EU
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Microsoft and its monopoly has materially harmed the industry and consumers for so long, it has to stop.
For everyone that argues that Microsoft innovates or has created the computer market in the first place, I submit that you either don't know the history of the personal computer or choose to ignore it.
Thin client computers were killed by Microsoft. The "Are you my friend or are you Larry's" asked Bill Gates, and poof the DEC Shark was dead and so, eventually was DEC.
"Go" computers got killed when Toshiba pulled out of an agreement. The "rumor" was that Microsoft threatened them.
DRI's DRDOS, ConcurrentDOS, Gem Desktop, and the list can go on and on.
Many of these technologies were better than what Microsoft was offering and had a chance until Microsoft used its monopoly position to threaten suppliers and pay off retail outlets.
So, because of Microsoft's actions, we are STUCK with computers that come with Windows pre-installed. No one gets to choose. Its like a DVD player that only plays movies from Sony. That in itself isn't bad, but when that is the only practical DVD player choice, it kills everything else.
Well, if your wife bought a new PC and it only had Firefox browser, but no IE, she would either have to use it or learn how to get IE (well, she could ask you, but what if this happened to a person who is not married to a slashdotter?)
IE is the default browser, so MSN is the default search engine. Even though people go to Google automatically these days, I wouldn't be surprised if their new browser is just a cover story. If they work a deal with OEMs, they could have the default browser be Chrome, with the default search engine being Google. Or even if the OEM wants Firefox, Google could still be the default search engine via their past investments and agreements with Mozilla.
Getting IE off windows, or at least not as prominently featured, is probably seen as a key strategy in the fight for search/ad market.
phones aren't computers perhaps?
Probably not becasue they would ahve to deal with the EU if they only added IE.
This could be good for PC makers becasue they could charge a fee to be added to their build. .01 Cents per install.
So you want to be on a dell PC? pay
The fact that your wife can't do something as simple as use another browser for you speaks more towards your relationship then it does for the average user.
I explained why I don't like IE and my wife switched. It's not like there is much of a learning curve; even less now.
My wife is an avid volunteer at our kids's school, we PTA president. We don't use office, so when we would get a Doc in MS's ne format, we would request that the sender save it as a doc file, explain why we don't use office. People understood and a few that have since got a new PC have moved to openoffice.
This are very typical people, very few with a technical background.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And how does this fare against the earlier Slashdot article http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/26/1323211, where Lars Bak of Google states 'The web is becoming an integral part of the computer and the basic distinction between the OS and the browser doesn't matter very much any more', he says.
I'm no fan of M$, but this seems to fly in direct contradiction with the above statements - from a Google employee. Either it matters, or it doesn't. If it doesn't - then why continue antitrust issues against M$ for bundling a browser. His statement seems to indicate that a browser may well now be a necessary part of the distribution of an OS. Or the browser becomes the OS. Or Javascript becomes the OS. Or ....
This is getting out of control and any respectful and lawful judge would have thrown this out. Internet Explorer is no different then a Auto's Cup Holder. Do you see GM taking Honda to court because the cup holders in honda don't support 64' ounce big gush gas station fountian drinks? No. Internet Explorer provides functionality using code that it LEGALY licenses.
If I don't like the way windows handles Drivers or The GUI Explore Shell, should I have options to remove those also? This whole thing is a big joke.
The thing that most people don't seem to get is that it isn't a problem with bundling the software with the OS, it's the fact that the software they're bundling uses proprietary deviation from standards to create a lock in. Windows has majority market share -> IE has majority market share -> web devs tailor sites to IE quirks -> alternate web browsers that are standards compliant have difficulty competing. This is why IE is picked out rather than WMP or Notepad. If .wmv files became rampant due to software monopoly & bundling, and could not be played with any other media player, then WMP would be included in the issue.
Even if OSX or Ubuntu had a monopoly, there wouldn't be a problem with bundling Firefox or Safari assuming that they adhere to standards and don't abuse the monopoly by making their own rules to keep competing browsers out.
...that alone proves to me Windows coming with IE by default doesn't elbow any other browser off the desktop.
I don't even use IE myself for most sites, but this seems rather like the competition seeing a chance to bash Microsoft and taking full advantage.
throw new NoSignatureException();
... and the EU will say, "The King has spoken. So be it, Microsoft!"
weinersmith
4.Microsoft may make a program that lets you choose between IE, Firefox, Opera and Chrome.
Yeah, it really doesn't seem this hard to me. Microsoft could write a simple application that would present you with a choice of browsers and download the proper browser from that browser's website. I'm sure Google and Mozilla would be willing to provide Microsoft with a static link that would always point to the most recent version of the browser. If you're worried about security, they can even use signatures from the SSL certs to verify that the download was good.
The amount of resources it would take for Microsoft to write/distribute such an application would be negligible. This whole, "How do you download a browser unless you already have a browser?" is a red herring.
More important than Google's browser is their web services. Google wants to use new web technologies and wants faster javascript, IE has neither.
For example, "In order to make Google Maps work in IE, Google had to develop ExCanvasâ"a complex library that implements many of the Canvas element's features with VML, Microsoft's proprietary alternative to SVG."(Article)
In fact, most people seem to agree that Chrome is more intended to push adoption of newer technologies than as an actual end product.
This slashdot story has Google saying; "This is because Internet Explorer is tied to Microsoft's dominant computer operating system, giving it an unfair advantage over other browsers."
While this slashdot story about Chrome on the same front page; http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/26/1323211 , has them saying; "The web is becoming an integral part of the computer and the basic distinction between the OS and the browser doesn't matter very much any more" and "I think since the download is just one click away it's not that big a deal."
So which one is it? Either the browser should or shouldn't be part of the OS. You can't have it both ways.
Are Microsoft being punished for being too successful ? I guess thats the only way you can operate a monopoly...
Why is it that Lars Bak, who heads up development of Google Chrome's cornerstone javascript engine says, "The web is becoming an integral part of the computer and the basic distinction between the OS and the browser doesn't matter very much any more," and at the same time Google say they are interested in helping the EU prove their antitrust case against Microsoft for bundling IE with Windows.
This seems counter productive to me. If you want the browser and the OS to become one, surely you wouldn't help those sewing someone else for bundling them together.
Conservation of angular momentum makes the world go round.
So if Microsoft unbundled there internet software from their own operating system. It would be up to the manufacture on what software they include on there machine? Which would then go to the highest bidder, which will probably be Microsoft. So really its just a matter have Microsoft laying more money out, so the ridiculous lawsuits stop popping up. But then again If they did that I think Apple and other OS suppliers should be forced to remove their browsers from its OS. Thus giving Microsoft the opportunity to have an apple based Explorer pre-installed on their OS as well. And once All these ridiculous company's get their way, they'll realize they just gave the whole market to Microsoft.
Or maybe Microsoft should just stop selling their software to PC Manufactures, create their own systems, and let people fend for themselves. Especially with all the deviations of Linux out there, and let it bombard all the open-source programmers with the chaos, and with almost no capital what so ever. But once again Microsoft would be the bad guy.
(Side note Google wouldn't be where it was today with out Microsoft existence, so deal with it, Chromes not that great anyway)
There is zero reason to prevent Microsoft from including a browser with their operating system. A survey of any number of other operating systems will show they all include browsers, some of them even developed in-house. Nor is there sufficient cause to force Microsoft to include other browsers, as that wouldn't really prevent any problems, and would really cause more than it's worth. How do you select the other browsers? What about security exploits? No thanks. That doesn't help me the user.
As long as there's nothing stopping OEMs from adding a browser to their systems, and nothing stopping individuals from using a browser of their choice, I really don't see a problem. You want to install Chrome or Opera? Go right ahead.
I have seen a few complaints that certain programs continue to use IE. There's a reason for this, because they have some need to display text, and the IE engine provides that feature to them. It's really no different than DirectX when you think about it. It provides a standard interface, and apparently that's something desirable.
Who knew?
Are you going to force other software developers to not use IE? Seems unfair to me.
You figure out the why.
This was that I was going to post. It's what I thought everytime this Google/EU/Antitrust story has been mentioned.
Maybe that's why Google is going the other way around. If they billed a browser and then put an OS underneath it...maybe the fire that's different enough to not be the same as making an OS and bundling a browser.
--Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
I don't get it. Microsoft makes a web browser and bundles it with their operating system. Big deal! Apple does the same thing with Safari.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on desktop operating systems - and you can't abuse a monopoly if you don't have one to abuse.
Microsoft in no way prevented me from downloading these or installing them.
The problem is not that you can't install an alternative, but that if you do, you will find your choice of content seriously curtailed, because providers will target the quirks and proprietary features of the browser that 90% of customers use by default.
Now, back in 1994, an operating system let your computer start up and load programs, provided the GUI and API, and maybe some trivial "starter" applications like Notepad and Paint. Applications like web browsers, email clients etc. were a new-ish emerging market (certainly outside of universities and the military). Microsoft, coming late to the game, decimated that market by bundling IE with Windows. However, if the powers that be were going to stop that, they should have nipped it in the bid then.
Fast forward to 2009 what we understand by "operating system" has changed and we expect any OS to do many things that, previously, would have been third party apps, including a web browser, email client, CD burning, media player, basic video capture/editing... and, in some cases, for these to be integrated into the API. Now, partly, that is due to Microsoft's influence, but OS X and Linux have followed suit or gone even further (e.g. OS X and Linux have PDF creation and manipulation, most Linux distros now include Open Office).
The EU need to concentrate on the standards issue - its hard to "fix" the MS monopoly without access to a gun and a time machine, but promoting/mandating open standards and preventing standards lock-ins of the past will do a lot to level the playing field. Quixotic attempts to micromanage what Microsoft bundles with Windows are just going to waste time and money.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Chrome is not integrated into the OS, Firefox is not Integrated into the OS ...
The distinction between the Browser and the OS is blurred not because they are merging but because it does not matter which OS you are using
Running Google apps in Firefox on Windows/Linux/OSX work the same, the operating system (mostly) does not matter ...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
I suspect that the EU wouldn't accept that. I don't think they want any solution that doesn't keep MS on the hot seat.
Why are you modded a troll? I think that is a valid point. You must has pissed off all the OSS developers with the basic browser statement. When the general population is presented with one option (IE) they will not typically go shopping around until someone shows them the shiny new toy, or they have a disparate need for something that IE does not provide.
Troll? I'd say a smart troll at least.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
If I had mod points today -- you would be getting them.
Uhhh...what are those 'floppies' thingies you refer to?
If you're on Facebook, there is a new group in support of the EC's case against Microsoft. -- Please join and invite your friends!
I believe this term is being misused by companies that fail to gain popularity with their product (in this case we are referring to 'web browsers').
In this case there are two companies competing at giving something away for free. The real root of the argument is that Microsoft has a distribution platform for their free software that is built-in to one of their main not-free products (OS) of which Google has no competing product/platform.
Suppose IE was truly cross-platform and had linux source/binaries. Now suppose every linux distribution included a copy of the most popular web browsers. Based on /. attitude the result would be no distributions including IE because "it sucks."
Would Microsoft have the right to sue linux distributions for not bundling IE in that case?
Google Knows that its probably the next on the antitrust chopping block. It wants to get buddy buddy with the eu commission before it starts to have to link to Cuil results along with its own.
Dell will ask you what browser you want installed in the checkout process.
It would be very ironic if MSFT used the courts to force linux distros to include copies of IE, since they will most likely be forced to include FF in the windows install.
Ideally, you'd be sent to an app-store and be shown what browsers are available for you to install with a couple of clicks. I can't believe this doesn't exist yet. I can't see something like Aptitude working on Windows, but an app-store like the iPhone one would work fine.
Follow me
Just to keep Google honest
it is losing market share month by month. And browsers which didn't exist 2 years ago are gaining.
So the barrier to entry in the browser market must not be so compelling as to prevent another entrant. Nor is the barrier to success.
And customers/consumers have (and had) multiple choices and are taking advantage of them.
So why the case?
1.You can use FTP.
2.You can download Firefox installer on another PC and then transfer it using floppies, USB flash memory or some other sneakernet technology.
For vast majority of users today, this is an unacceptable inconvenience.
3.You can include the Firefox installer to your Windows install CD.
4.Microsoft may make a program that lets you choose between IE, Firefox, Opera and Chrome.
These two are even worse. Who decides which browsers get to be bundled on Windows install CD and which aren't? Who decides which browsers go on the list of browsers available to install?
I have tried to get my wife to use something (anything) other than IE, but she won't.
The funny thing there is, IE7+ is actually simply good enough for average browsing needs. It's a royal pain for the web developer to deal with it, sure, but the end users don't really care how badly it misinterprets CSS2, or how slow its JS engine is. So long as it opens their homepage and YouTube, they couldn't care less.
You're overly broad statement is attempting to say that anti-trust actions are from the government, and the government is bad, therefore anti-trust actions are bad.
First, you've failed to prove that government is inherently bad just because it's a government. Modern government is made of the people, and is good or bad, depending on the will of the people and the institutions set up by the people to ensure the common good. A government can be very good if good people are willing to invest time in getting elected and do good things, and good people are willing to vote for them.
Second, a government could be, in general, rather bad, but do something good. The US Government gave us roads, the internet, social security, universal primary education for all people, police, firefighters, to name a few things. I think that's rather good. Nowhere in the constitution did it say the government had to do any of that, but they are all universally good things that benefit Americans.
Third, you've completely failed to address the anti-trust action on it's own merits, which have been gone over and over and over in thousands of slashdot articles. Only the ignorant, and blind stubborn libertarians who cling to a warped sense of reality and stupid think that "poor little microsoft should be left alone by the big evil government!"
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
My option #3 was that you could burn a Windows CD with Firefox already included, the same way that you can include Service Packs and Drivers - using nlite.
I don't think that users who can do that on their own need any clues to be able to disable IE on their system and install any other browser. The problem is with people who bought their first PC and brought it home.
Those, who cannot use nlite probably do not know ho to install Windows too, so they will either ask a friend to install Windows (and a browser) for them, or will buy a PC with Windows and a browser installed by the OEM.
Those, who cannot use nlite probably do not know ho to install Windows too, so they will either ask a friend to install Windows (and a browser) for them, or will buy a PC with Windows and a browser installed by the OEM.
Precisely. So, in my opinion, all that is really needed to be required of MS is that OEMs can remove IE from the default install and install any other browser (it is technically possible through normal means already, but there may be some OEM licensing restrictions that forbid this - those needs to be made illegal and removed). Requiring to bundle some other browsers alongside IE does not solve the problem at all, and raises a whole lot of new inconvenient questions.
...err, what was that again?
First you say it's bullshit, then you spend the rest of your post explaining how it is tied into just about everything aspect of the OS.What is it, a web browser or a DLL?
The point is that Firefox is a web browser and you can delete it with no ill effects to the OS. Not so IE, for the reasons you helpfully explained.
Sheesh, talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
And that's why it worries me that Google is more than willing to wage war on the desktop just to get a few more viewers for their ads. If they've got problems with standards compliance, fine. Doesn't everyone. But this talk of how Microsoft needs to unbundle IE just so Google can slam Chrome on some OEMs to get more ad views... not good.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Actually, an app store wouldn't work. You've have bastards like Installshield in there in seconds complaining that Microsoft's monopoly on install technologies is putting them out of business.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
So, we are in agreement: let the OEMs chose which browser to install. EU wants that either MS removes IE or includes other browsers with it. While including other browsers may not be the best solution, it requires the least amount of work from MS (because removing IE may be difficult since it is so entangled in the OS).
That horrible crash you just heard was Bill Stallmer launching EVERY SINGLE CHAIR in the city of Redmond, Oregon, with a catapult.
I'd argue the main reason they'd be going out of business is falling behind the times. Central repositories of apps that are easy to find and just take a couple of clicks to install is where we're at.
Do you think there's no way InstallShield can embrace this? Perhaps they should be looking into ways to make it work for them if they want to be around by the time Windows 7's successor is released.
Follow me
Well, if your wife bought a new PC and it only had Firefox browser, but no IE, she would either have to use it or learn how to get IE (well, she could ask you, but what if this happened to a person who is not married to a slashdotter?)
She absolutely WOULD learn in that case - she's just familiar with IE - so in her mind 'why change - it works'.
As for the other one - I guess you fumble around until you get it or ask a friend.
In reality, I don't think its much of a learning curve to migrate from IE to any of the other browsers - they pretty much operate the same way with the same commands - one just has more features or is more efficient than the other.
>B2 Spirit, radar contact......
Someone should make a skin for Firefox or opera that makes it look and behave like IE (except for the rendering). This should make it easier for people to go from IE to FF or Opera.
Is there an equal position for Microsoft and OpenSource community in the court ? - Definitely not ! OpenSource community should ask in the court to review Microsoft's initial position which is not fair ! Opensource has their source open to the entire world, so even Microsoft can sneak for possible "patent breaks", but Microsoft has CLOSED source code, so nobody knows - are there any patent breaks or not. Is this equal position: if one player play with open cards, but another has rights to play with closed cards and asks judge to look closer only that player with open cards ? At least at the court both parties should be equal and should come up with source code just because of there are no other options.
90% of people useD IE... in 2004. Now the usage share of IE is 60-70% and this year may be less than 60%. People want to change in spite of MS efforts to avoid it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
Last week's chat with a friend:
Friend: "My internet is broken"
Me: "No, it isn't" (after checking connectivity from the command line in Windows, argh she is hot).
Friend: "Yes, it is" (opens IE, which is infected with some virus that stops all browsing activity"
Me "Uhm, er, uhmmm" (never seen such a thing. I use Linux, have never faced these problems, so proceed to download Opera in my Ubuntu machine while lovingly staring at her, and install it on the infected Windows machine, then with Opera unaffected proceed to download new antivirus software, etc. Although I know machine is compromised and it would be better to do a reinstall at least they can do some work).
Friend "What is that Opera icon?"
Me "I can explain it over dinner..."
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Shopkeepers often testify against shoplifters because they have been harmed by it, not because they can't compete against the shop next door that didn't get robbed.
and many more restrictions (probably quite a few along the lines of "you cannot write a competing product").
Which isn't really access. You're paying for access by not being able to talk about what you saw, restriction in your business and so on.
See BitKeeper for how such anti-competitive licenses hurt legitimate users.
Because all that is needed is that your browser can be installed by an OEM or bundled with an AOL Setup CD or whatever without MS interfering with the business practices between you and the OEM/AOL business centre.
At the moment, MS *does* interfere. And in the past, they interfered in monstrous ways: refusing to license a volume OEM key if the OEM wanted to install something other than IE.
Such as no alpha channel. Insecurity by design. And all for an HTML renderer that you already have in a different product.
MS did for a long time have a plugin achitecture that allowed ANY HTML renderer to be the one called by any HTML rendering program.
This was when they hadn't killed Netscape and still had to compete with a competitor.
Now they don't have competitors and the API has disappeared.
Getting rid of the front end doesn't matter: you still have the IE expoloits. Even if you don't need ANY IE functionality.
They have been jerks lately. They have laid people off and are being bigger jerks than ever. Lay the boots to them! If the Goog could shut them down completely for 6 months, I would grin the whole time!
Step 1: Claim that Firefox and Chrome are destroying Internet Explorer in market share, celebrate record downloads of Firefox.
Step 2: Claim that Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer somehow makes everyone too stupid to know that other browsers exist.
Step 3: Somehow believe these two claims don't conflict with each other.
Dear Anti-Microsoft crowd, Please pick one or the other.
It is a financially cheap move to annoy a competitor that fights Google very dirty and the Commission case is pretty solid. Little to losw.
" the end users don't really care how badly it misinterprets CSS2, or how slow its JS engine is."
They would care if the MS monopoly hadn't made it into a de-facto standard whose idiosyncrasies have to catered for by every mass-market web site.
"So long as it opens their homepage and YouTube, they couldn't care less."
Which of course it wouldn't do if it hadn't gained such an enormous installed base by being the only browser that's allowed to be bundled with OEM Windows, because web designers would only code to the published standards that it can't render properly, so those end users wouldn't be able to use YouTube, their bank's site, FaceBook and its ilk, Amazon, EBay, web-based EMAIL, etc., etc,, etc.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.