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.
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.
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...
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.
wget http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-3.0.6&os=win&lang=en-US
of course
And many linux desktops only come with Firefox or Konqueror, and many mobile platforms only come with Opera, and many consoles only come with their own half-baked browsers, unless you go out of your way to find an alternative. That's not the issue. The issue is that IE is bundled with a monopoly product, non-standard, has related development tools that encourage writing for just it, and the end result is that a monopoly is, by default, becoming more of a monopoly, when the intent is that, instead, competition and progress should be encouraged.
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?
Being remarkably less evil will help mitigate the potential harm of this.
Google has a lot less to lose from monopoly scrutiny.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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......
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'
We have to end the monopoly of wget included with windows! It's a damned near monopoly!
Macs come only with Safari...should there be a required option for Mac OS X too?
Not unless they become a monopoly and use that monopoly illegally, in which case the answer will be yes.
Free Martian Whores!
But you can't UNINSTALL the browser!
Microsoft entwines it so much with the OS that it's ALWAYS THERE.
It removes your choice and unfairly stifles competition!
Antitrust! Antitrust!
Fucking companies who can't compete need to gtfo. It's the coddling and "yes you can! everyone's special" attitude that has led to the massive failure we're seeing now.
Windows is almost always bundled with machines because that's what customers want, and that's what OEMs seek to deliver. OSX is bundled with macs because you have no choice.
IE is bundled with Windows because Joe Schmo can't be trusted to understand what a browser is, and can't be trusted to provide his own without an existing browser to get on the interwebs and download a different one. You can't (easily) remove IE because Joe Schmo can't be trusted to not remove it and then blame Bill Gates for not being able to read up on the latest Nascar news.
If you can't compete, too bad. Life isn't fair.
If you're stuck on the ass end of an interest-only payment scheme, fuck off and pack your bags.
If Billy is being a little shit in school, the teacher should beat his bare ass in front of the whole class.
-Google has no business in this case.
-The case has no merit. This shit was settled multiple times, ages ago but the EU just views MS as a piggybank they can fine whenever they want. I'd love to see MS just pull out of all business in the EU.
-Slashdot will mod me flamebait.
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"
Is Safari an integral part of the OS? Nope. Can you remove Safari? I think so but I haven't used a mac in ages.
Bored at work? Play Game!
"Windows is almost always bundled with machines because that's what customers want, and that's what OEMs seek to deliver. OSX is bundled with macs because you have no choice."
What a load of rubbish. Customers are generally ignorant of other options and the OEMs are more than happy to keep it that way.
1) Microsoft gives them good discounts if they do NOT use any other OS
2) third party companies pay the OEMs to install their trialware.
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.
I don't get it.
No you don't. Why don't you look up what antitrust law is and gain an understanding?
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?)
...and Galeon, and Dillo, and lynx, etc.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
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.
That isn't the issue. Microsoft are treated differently because they have a monopoly and they allegedly leverage it to gain further control.
It would only be the same thing if Apple were in Microsoft's position, a monopoly. In that case they would be under the same scrutiny, but they're not so they aren't. Likewise, if Microsoft were in Apple's position they wouldn't be facing this right now.
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?
and if anyone wants proof that the monopolistic way is a bad thing, if it wasn't for the competition from Firefox, we'd all still be using IE6.
Now we just need to see the same level of competition within the Windows monopoly for all other computing features and applications.
But you can't UNINSTALL the browser!
Actually it was proven in court that you can. However, take a Linux distribution that uses Gnome or KDE as the default installed desktop and try removing Nautilus or Konqueror (yes Nautilus is a web browser) and you'll find the package manager sticks gnome-desktop or kde-desktop in the list of packages that are also uninstalled.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
But you can't UNINSTALL the browser! Microsoft entwines it so much with the OS that it's ALWAYS THERE. It removes your choice and unfairly stifles competition!
Bullshit! People have to be getting this from somewhere if I just scrolled through pages of the same comment, but it's not true.
Because IE is included with the operating system, lots of first- and third-party programs use it for rendering web pages. It exports a nice COM interface and has .NET components. (In fact, you can make a "tabbed browser" in 3 clicks in C#.)
Removing IE doesn't break Windows - it breaks other programs. Any kind of F1 compiled help will die. Steam would die. Creative's "Update" application would die. So on and so forth.
So, the uninstaller just removes the icon. But, there's nothing stopping you from deleting c:\program files\Internet Explorer. For those of you following along on Vista, also try c:\program files (x86)\Internet Explorer.
Now, if the Mozilla devs would also export a nice, shiny COM interface or a .NET assembly, all of this would be moot. They could even make a redistributable version of Firefox so interested parties could include it with their installer.
Until that day, the alternative to assuming IE exists on every machine is every program even remotely related to the internets writing their own browser.
DATABASE WOW WOW
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.
But you can't UNINSTALL the browser! Microsoft entwines it so much with the OS that it's ALWAYS THERE. It removes your choice and unfairly stifles competition!
I think grand-parent poster was being sarcastic if you look at this phrase compared to the tone of the rest of his post...
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
...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();
"However, take a Linux distribution that uses Gnome or KDE as the default installed desktop and try removing Nautilus or Konqueror (yes Nautilus is a web browser) and you'll find the package manager sticks gnome-desktop or kde-desktop in the list of packages that are also uninstalled."
Bzzzzz, sorry just tried this on Ubuntu 8.04 and you're wrong. konqueror can be removed with a few of its add ons without having any effect on the KDE desktop.
Try again.
And?
Consumers like it.
If they're ignorant, it's because no one else has bothered to advertise.
Apple is great at advertising and wooing the pleebs.
Why can't Linux do the same? (Because Linux isn't represented by any single group, has no money behind it, and can't organize itself for crap. That's not the fault of MS, OEMs, or the consumer.)
OEMs HAVE experimented with selling computers without an OS, or with a free OS such as Ubuntu.
Demand was shit. Linux fans make up a small minority. Accept it or change it. Whining about how it's unfair is retarded pussy bullshit.
I think this is the actual issue, not the fact that it comes bundled. It's that there's no way to get rid of it. One might argue that there are parts of WebKit built into OS X that stick around even if you get rid of Safari, but you can definitely remove Safari and have the OS still function.
... and the EU will say, "The King has spoken. So be it, Microsoft!"
weinersmith
Except Apple makes the whole device.
That is the critical difference.
If Apple opened up their OS to run on any PC they would be subject to the same thing one there market share got to a certain size.
The market has NOT been working this out, MS keeps taking steps to make sure people have to use IE.
There system updates needs it, and they integrate it into the OS. From a modern kernel development stand point, there is no reason at all to do that, and it is poor design. SO either MS doesn't to make IE mandatory, OR they don't know jack about even the most fundamental kernel development architecture. Sure, the second one is the easy joke, but somehow I don't think that's the answer.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
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 didn't get caught trying to run Safari competitors out of the market. Apple didn't successful run Safari competitors out and then promptly decide to cease development on Safari. Apple hasn't specifically avoided implementing web standards for the purpose of creating vendor lock-in. Apple isn't trying to leverage an OS monopoly to gain a browser monopoly so that they can use the browser monopoly to gain a search-engine monopoly.
They may be late to the game, but since Microsoft hasn't quit playing that game yet, I can't blame others for playing too.
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...
I know you can.
I was mocking the typical slashtard.
Wow dude.
The top lines were mocking the typical slashtard.
Fix your sarcasm meter, please.
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.
You can delete Safari from Mac OS X. It's easy, you just drag the application to the trash and then empty the trash. It doesn't "come back" later like with Windows. A lot of the libraries that Safari uses are used by the operating system, but those are system libraries and are used by other things as well (e.g., quicktime), and the application itself is removable. THAT is the problem with what Microsoft has done, it's not just that they've included a default browser or that they are a monopoly, it's that they've made it so that you can't remove the default browser and they've used their monopoly status to leverage that. They purposely built the explorer and the internet explorer into the same program so that you can't remove the browser functionality without borking the whole operating system. On the Mac, if I change my default browser to Firefox, if I then click on a system-wide internet link (like the "learn more" button on the .mac preference pane), it will open with the default browser not safari. On Windows, it often ignores your default browser for web-related tasks and uses IE.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
"Except Apple makes the whole device.
That is the critical difference."
Actually, making the whole device would make a potential monopoly stronger, not weaker.
If Apple goes to Walmart and says, "if you want to sell the iPod, you cannot carry the Zune" or if Apple goes to Walmart and says, "if you do not carry the Zune, you will get an additional $10 off each iPod you sell", then that would be illegal. I also believe that if they sold the iPods at a loss once they had a majority share in the market to put competitors out of business, that this would also be illegal. Being a monopoly, by itself, is not illegal.
Well, good old FTP also still exists.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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.
Can I install, for nothing, simply and easily any browser I want - yes (Good)
Can I uninstall IE, and stop automatic updates asking to reinstall it - No!
I call that monopolistic practice ...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
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.
"...It exports a nice COM interface and has .NET components. (In fact, you can make a "tabbed browser" in 3 clicks in C#.)" ..... wow!
You can ask IE (A tabbed browser) to make a tabbed browser
"Removing IE doesn't break Windows - it breaks other programs. " ...!
Like :
Windows Update
CHM Help Files
and other "3rd Party" programs
So because it is preinstalled people use it because it is assumed to be there .... so it is a monopoly and should be stopped ....
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Interesting, I'd be interested to find out if this actually holds true; unfortunately for this experiment, I have no windows machine that I could try it on.
HOWEVER:
How should the Mozilla devs be able to create a fully working, compliant (compliant with IE's behaviour and necessities, that is) and secure COM implementation if the documentation for said COM interface is... well... pants. I have been following the wine development lists for a few years and I think it is safe to say that Microsoft's documentation on their own internal interfaces is... shall we say... lacking. To put it mildly.
And why should Microsoft document this anyway? They already have something in place that does the job _and_ it is under their control. It is in no way in Microsoft's interest to document these things _precisely because_ they do not want people to develop alternatives that they do not control, and it is for precisely this reason that the EU is craking down on them.
Posting obviously for anonymous reasons.
That's a nice misleading argument if I've ever seen one. It smells a lot like prepared PR material, in fact.
Removing IE doesn't break Windows - it breaks other programs.
Some of those "other programs" are part of windos. In fact, about the only part that doesn't break is the kernel itself.
But, there's nothing stopping you from deleting c:\program files\Internet Explorer.
Which removes something that's hardly more than a launcher anyways (iexplore.exe is 93184 bytes). The actual "IE" code has long since been moved into libraries that are scattered all over the system, include other vital code parts as well, and can not be removed without either major effort or making your windos unusable. In fact:
. It exports a nice COM interface and has .NET components. (In fact, you can make a "tabbed browser" in 3 clicks in C#.)
That is exactly why you can do that - because IE isn't contained in "Internet Explorer.exe", it is contained in those components. Your "tabbed browser in C#" is nothing but an alternative launcher for the IE core code.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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?
That is exactly why you can do that - because IE isn't contained in "Internet Explorer.exe", it is contained in those components. Your "tabbed browser in C#" is nothing but an alternative launcher for the IE core code.
True, and that was kind of my point. Any application developer is going to be following the three-click method.
Also true that most of IE's routines hide in ie*.dll files in system32, or probably other places, too. But, if you just want to remove the browser killing iexplore.exe is sufficient. I can't imagine why you'd want to break any Windows program that uses a hyperlink, but it would be interesting to unregister all of those files and watch what breaks.
I can see where bundling iexplore.exe causes all sorts of anti-trust problems. Not that I agree, but it's a reasonable argument, and iexplore could easily be replaced with Firefox or Chrome or whatever other browser. However, I'm pretty sure that no browser other than IE extends the same support for an embedded browser without you having to include that browser itself, in its entirety, with your program. Hating IE is one thing, but there's not really an alternative for developers wanting simple HTML rendering in an application.
DATABASE WOW WOW
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!
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!
Now, if the Mozilla devs would also export a nice, shiny COM interface or a .NET assembly, all of this would be moot. They could even make a redistributable version of Firefox so interested parties could include it with their installer.
They do, it's called gluezilla, and it's why those same .NET calls work under Mono on Linux.
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.
The COM interface and .NET interfaces are documented very well. That's how all the software authors are able to use them.
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
To clear this up a bit...
IE is the browser
MSHTML is the rendering engine
Many apps use the rendering engine. The browser is a fairly simple program that hosts one or more MSHTML controls. There is no reason that we should be unable to remove that program.
Equally, I can remove Safari from my Mac, but the Webkit rendering engine is still there, since many other things use it (iTunes, Adobe Air...).
Why on earth would people want to remove a shared component that the OS and 3rd party apps rely on?
Removing the browser breaks nothing on either platform. Removing DLLs and shared objects from system folders does.
Follow me
Yes but that's the whole point isn't it ?
I can quite happily go into Program Files and delete iexplore.exe ... so Internet Explorer doesn't run anymore. I can even delete the icon from my desktop, shortcut bar, or wherever. But any other applications that use the underlying rendering engine contained in mshtml.dll WILL still work.
Please stop speading FUD, it's not big, and it's not clever.
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"
Historically however, government agencies have been rather vague about what exactly MS would have to do to comply with an order to remove IE.
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.
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".
That's not true, actually. Windows honours your default browser preference too for every task I know of (from Vista upwards - XP still needs IE for Windows Update). Just as importantly, Microsoft hasn't tied Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer together at all, they tied Trident and Windows Explorer. Trident doesn't need IE to run - and I'd not disagree with you that you shouldn't have to have IE just so you can have Trident. (Before you comment, equate Trident with those "system libraries" you referred to that come with Safari that you can't remove).
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I should hope not. You seem to be in violent agreement with me, for the most part.
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".
I disagree that they have less to lose. Google has CONSIDERABLY more to lose from someone looking at their Search/Ads tie-in than Microsoft does from someone looking at the Windows/IE tie-in.
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).
Actually, the GP made the typical mistake of equating Trident with IE. You can delete the IE files without any negative effects, because Trident is still there. Just as on OSX you can delete Safari without issue, because WebKit is still there.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Please shut up and stop pimping that link every 30 comments.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
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......
Linux, as we all know, is a command line OS and therefore the only choices for browsers are: links, lynx, and emacs.
Oh, and telnet. But you have to imagine the page being rendered.
</tongue-in-cheek>
I am anarch of all I survey.
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.
You are a real cut up. You can't argue based on your own thinking so just constantly appeal to authority.
Anytime I see your asinine posts I know exactly what I'm in for.
OK, let's start slow trying to unprogram you.
Simple question: Do you think it was a valid technical decision, when the web was first gaining popularity, to decide to provide a common web browser layer in the OS and use it to provide things like help files, embedded web browsers, etc.. using a common API any developer can assume will be in the OS? Do you feel such a facility would benefit customers of and developers for this OS?
Answer that question honestly and your whole silly house of cards tumbles.
Are you on crack.
Apple's ipod monopoly is most definately trying to run competitors out of the browser market. itunes update stealth-installs multiple programs. Everything from safari to some stupid thing called "bonjour". They are using their monopoly position in one market to gain unfair advantages in others.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
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.
You are a real cut up. You can't argue based on your own thinking so just constantly appeal to authority.
Asking people to know the basics of what the hell they're talking about isn't an appeal to authority. The previous person asked a question clearly demonstrating they don't even know the definition of "antitrust" while discussing enforcement of an antitrust law.
Anytime I see your asinine posts I know exactly what I'm in for.
Every time I see your posts I know what I'm in for too, ad hominem attacks, and arguments from someone who made up their mind long before they had any clue what they were talking about and who refuses to find out because it might make them change their mind which would threaten their fragile ego.
Simple question: Do you think it was a valid technical decision, when the web was first gaining popularity, to decide to provide a common web browser layer in the OS and use it to provide things like help files, embedded web browsers, etc.. using a common API any developer can assume will be in the OS?
Sure it is. But it's also a valid technical decision to remove the catalytic converter when designing a car and ignore emissions entirely. What does that have to do with if it causes harm to society or is illegal?
Do you feel such a facility would benefit customers of and developers for this OS?
Maybe in the short term, maybe not. Certainly not in the long term, especially if it is as part of illegal antitrust abuse.
Answer that question honestly and your whole silly house of cards tumbles.
It's just sad. You insist the only consideration is technical and refuse to even consider why these laws exist or what they say... and you think you can make a valid argument from such a perspective.
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.
I guess the Commission is perfectly fine when they abandon IE.exe tying.
" 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.
Until that day, the alternative to assuming IE exists on every machine is every program even remotely related to the internets writing their own browser.
It's not like there are any LGPL rendering engines available for HTML they could just link in for free on all platforms, right? Oh, wait . . .
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
I can see where bundling iexplore.exe causes all sorts of anti-trust problems. Not that I agree, but it's a reasonable argument, and iexplore could easily be replaced with Firefox or Chrome or whatever other browser. However, I'm pretty sure that no browser other than IE extends the same support for an embedded browser without you having to include that browser itself, in its entirety, with your program. Hating IE is one thing, but there's not really an alternative for developers wanting simple HTML rendering in an application.
And that, exactly, is what this is all about.
MS being a monopoly leveraged its monopoly to put its own rendering engine in as the de-facto standard. There never was any competition, never was any chance for the free market to work and pick out the best offering, never was any opportunity to weed out the crap.
And that's illegal. Simple as that. It's illegal because while yes, it's great for developers to have easy access to a rendering engine, it would be much better for them if there had been choice about which engine that is, according to the laws of free market. See above.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org