Slashdot Mirror
EU Wants Multiple Browser Bundling On New PCs
An anonymous reader writes with a link to Ars Technica's report that "the EU is considering forcing Windows users to choose a browser to download and install before they can first browse the Internet, according to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required). While the latest Windows 7 builds let you uninstall IE8, 'third-party browser makers like Opera, Mozilla and Google are pushing for tough sanctions against Microsoft. The EU would rather have a "ballot screen" for users to choose which browsers to download and install as well as which one to set as default. The bundling requirement might end up becoming a responsibility for manufacturers.'"
You can't force them to support other browsers, hell, they could only support internet explorer if they wanted to.
Don't get me wrong - I don't love Microsoft and I don't even use IE. But aren't the browser wars pretty much dead? If you think that MS has an unfair monopoly in the OS world, is this really the most effective way to end that?
This is beginning to get out of hand.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
The bundling requirement might end up becoming a responsibility for manufacturers.
This is just as stupid as forcing Microsoft to bundle alternative browser binaries with Windows.
The solution to the problem is to force Microsoft to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers with Windows the same way they do anything else. Microsoft's dictating what software can be included with Windows is the real anti-competitive behavior here -- so fix it by removing that behavior. If Dell wants to include Firefox, let them. If Opera wants to sign a deal with HP to include its browser on all their machines, let them.
Don't force all OEMs to include all browsers. That's stupid and impractical.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Wont anybody think of the users. I dont want to have to make choices thats why I use Windows in the first place.
Which browser do you want?
[ ]IE
[ ]FireFox
[ ]Opera
[ ]Safari
Which image editor do you want?
[ ]MS Paint
[ ]GIMP
[ ]Paint.net
Which text editor do you want?
[ ]Notepad
[ ]Notepad2
[ ]vi
[ ]Emacs
and on and on...
Windows will become itself a linux-like distribution, with hundreds of included, tested, and secure packages of several alternative tools for the same purpose. Think like Kubuntu, that comes with the KDE desktop, Konqueror as default browser and several more "by default" applications, but where you can install with a command alternate browsers, office suites, entire desktops, and so on.
All that needs to be done is make IE8 removable. Like completely removable, not just a "hide the icon" sort of uninstall and give OEMs the right to put whatever browser they want on their systems.
Why bother fucking about with some sort of software that asks the user? There probably won't be any expectation of this ballot system giving the pros and cons of each browser so they'll just opt for the familiar IE they've always used.
EU proves to be ineffective by being too late on doing something about this problem and picking a poor solution.
Hang on a minute, browser bundling?
The EU would rather have a "ballot screen" for users to choose which browsers to download and install as well as which one to set as default
That's not really bundling now, is it? How do they server this list to the user? Must be a webpage, Shirley?
Also.. who chooses which browsers are included in the list? M$? What's to stop M$ putting theirs at the top of the list? I like the idea but it needs more thinking through. I read TFA (yes, I'm new here, etc.) and it was very light on detail.
I somehow sense this isn't the end of the matter..
So now I'm going to have to waste another 3 minutes of my life uninstalling more shit, just so my grandma can use her new computer. All hail the mighty crapware.
How long until they're forced to offer options of different operating systems at startup?
Are they required to pick popular browsers as alternatives?
Which browser would you like to use? Internet Explorer, Lynx, or xBrowser?
Advertising revenue. Look up how Mozilla Corporation makes money from partnerships with, possibly among others, Google.
those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE?
Maybe the makers of browsers which aren't free? It would at least let people know that alternatives exist and that the "blue E" isn't "the internet"
And, as Microsoft is so want to say: Free == bad, so IE must really suck.
1. google for this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124362706194767281.html 2. click on 1st link 3. no paywall if you come from google
The Mozilla Foundation makes many tens of millions of dollars from Google. If nobody installs Firefox, Google isn't going to be giving them that kind of money anymore.
Timothy, please next time consider the difference between the verb used in the title (EU Wants Multiple Browser Bundling On New PCs) and in TF summary (the EU is considering forcing Windows users to choose).
We don't need you to be a professional editor (even though you probably are paid for the job), but please just try not to work like a moron from a random tabloid.
. . . forcing Windows users to choose . . .
How about saying, or believing, "Free to Choose" . . . ?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
The problem here isn't (directly, at least) money, but choice. Most don't even know that they have one. You get a computer, you usually dont have a choice on what operating system it includes, and in that operating system you dont have a choice on browser (at least, no without further work/knowledge/etc). Also, you can consider all free, but that dont make them all equal.
Let me preface this tirade with a disclaimer: Yes, I realize Microsoft is a huge company, with enough resources and market share to constitute a monopoly, and is therefore deserving of governments' watchful eyes. I also realize that IE may not be the highest quality browser out there; and that Microsoft has been known to 'embrace and extinguish'. I'm also glad that Microsoft didn't get to design (for instance) the IMAP RFC. Please note I'm not making any _legal_ arguments, just "history-of-OS" type arguments.
HOWEVER, this knee-jerk reaction to the browser-wars is really fundamentally flawed. My argument is what we, the user, perceive as an operating system changes and grows over time. I think it's time we realize that a music jukebox, dvd player, web browser, and text editor have become integral parts of an OS (per my definition). I think it is in the same manner as a command shell, file browser (cd & ls), calendar, chat client, windowing system, network stack, etc. have become what we'd consider part of an OS.
Some companies and organizations are clamoring for inclusion of their pet projects by default... I say "rubbish. You might as well ask the user to choose different versions of the TCP stack, paint program, image libraries, and mouse drivers too." I can't make any analogies to car makers, nor do I care to. We can argue about "stifling innovation and choice" until we're blue in the face, but I still insist that a web browser is integral to the operating system. Go and get alternatives if you like, just as you're free to get another media player, paint program or ftp client.
I don't see noise directed against Apple or Linux or BSD, likely because they are {not monopolies | high enough in market share | something else that I can't grok}. This would suggest that the bundling of Safari on Mac, or Mozilla on Linux is not fundamentally wrong, and is also not wrong on Windows. I'm sure there are good arguments for the EU poking its nose, but since they're so caring, they should also ask nicely that MS provide users with choice of desktop clock widgets so that the poor makers of clock software aren't left out.
Perhaps this is unfair to the hapless (as far as tech goes) politicians, but they seem little more than shills for lobbyists, and don't seem to really understand the dangerous precedent they might be setting. That, I find really irritating.
Well that was insightful.
If firefox wasn't free, it wouldn't have had ANY chance against the monopolistic bundling of IE.
So if I make a spyware-based browser with malicious components, will Microsoft be obliged to offer my browser to the users? Just because I compete with IE?
Yep, I'd be complaining to EU if they didn't include my browser. That would be discrimination and abuse of monopoly.
Can it get any more silly?
...those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE?
I do, because I'd rather be able to develop to standards and I'd rather Web technologies could move forward again instead of being held back by one, dominant, least common denominator browser.
The anti-competitive behavior is not the bundling of IE itself, but rather the conditions Microsoft imposed upon OEMs who wished to install/default to other browsers. It has at times entirely disallowed other browsers and at others given a substantial discount for making IE the only/default browser on new systems.
I don't know to what extent this crap is still the case today.
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
I wonder whether as a result of this policy that IE6 becomes one of the many different browser options, just to keep happy those businesses with legacy code that wont work on anything else!
Now that really would cause Microsoft a headache - competing with its own lack of standards...
Not that many web designers will be happy with this though!
So "all other browsers" can demand to be on the list. What's to prevent "American Adware" and "Built By Boris" (from Russian Business Network) from showing up on the list?
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Your set of options sounds like doing a Linux install, save for including MS options. :)
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The last thing a consumer wants to do, when they turn on a computer, is to immediately be asked more questions. It's a pain in the rear. Sorry EU, but how about we start requiring that all cars imported from the EU to the USA have the option of being fitted with American V8s....
oh wait, that sounds like a good a idea.
Never mind.
This is my sig.
If you were literate, you might understand that no one is requiring Microsoft to support other browsers. Microsoft is being required to make options available. Maybe I'm being unfair, and you really are literate. Could be, in your native language "making available" and "support" are synonymous. Nanu Nanu, dude.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The real problem isn't the IE shell, it's the Microsoft HTML control, and even if you quote-remove-IE-unquote all that removes is the shell.
No, MS would say IE was paid for as part of the cost of Windows, so you paid for it.
No different really from those who say their Mac paid for part of the cost of OS X.
If I were MS I'd do it for them for free:
Just include a copy of lynx.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
This whole "browser war" nonsense has gone on long enough. Back when a browser was a novelty, perhaps even sold on the shelf at the store, maybe it made sense to worry about competition. However, now that the browser is essential to everyday computing and part of the platform, the demands being made entirely idiotic. It should not matter if people are given IE8 out of the gate or not. I do agree that they should be able to disable or uninstall it if they feel it's a security problem. However, forcing vendors to include other browsers is only slightly widening the selective controlled distribution and does not address any of the problems IE's dominance has caused in the first place.
Quite simply put, the reason IE is popular is because people do not care about which browser they use. A small percentage does, and it seem this site is popular with that group but at this point, a browser is part of a platform as a steering wheel is part of a car. Occasionally an enthusiast replaces his steering wheel but most people don't care about it.
But what does a steering wheel have in common with browsers besides being a platform staple? They support standards. The steering wheel is a standard interface, and while they do vary from car to car, they all support a common baseline of functionality and features.
So the real solution to this IE problem is not to force a company to support their competition. No I vehemently disagree with that, it's simply wrong to force a company to collude with their competition. Instead, the solution is to enforce IE's support of recognized standards. If you truly wish to neuter Microsoft's control of the WWW, then limit them to implementing standards compliant browsing only, let the community and the market decide what that means, and then let people continue to make their own choices about browsers.
Frankly if you look at all platforms, not just personal computer platforms, you will see that they all include their own browser choice, whether it be a Linux based OS that includes firefox, or a smartphone that includes a webkit based browser like Nokia's S60 platform. Macs include Safari, my Wii came with a free Opera download, my DSi came with a free opera download, and my PS3 includes a browser based on the same tech they use for their feature cell phones.
So targeting microsoft just because this mattered 10 years ago is pretty ridiculous, especially when you're failing to target the real problem in the first place.
I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
It's not fair that General Motors put only their own radio in my Malibu.
Worse, they tied my Chevy's radio to the operating system: the volume turns up when the car goes faster, and it knows which key fob I used to unlock the doors. This is anticompetitive and monopolist.
I demand that GM install multiple radios -- one each from Ford, Chrysler, Bosch, Blaupunkt, and Kraco, plus an open-source handwired crystal receiver from Heathkit -- and I demand that they print the wiring diagram on the hood (so I can design my own radio anytime I come down off the Percocet).
Every time I start the car, I should be presented with a menu allowing me to choose which will serve as the "default radio."
No. IE is not Explorer. I have an Nlited Windows XP, from which IE has been completely removed. Explorer works just fine without IE. Stop spreading FUD, please.
However - Explorer can be removed from XP along with IE, and replaced with some other shell. There are dozens of them available, many for free. The pretty icons, taskbar, systray, and start menus that you cite aren't even "part of the operating system", as you seem to imply.
My #1 favorite file browser is PowerDesk. I generally retain the Explorer shell, because the prettiest and best shells are proprietary, and I'm not willing to pay for them.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
And so you are killing ONE monopoly(IE) and strengthening another (Google). Does that make any sense? And it wasn't like it was hard to toss IE before. hell every new PC build I do here in the shop composes three steps when I have the desktop up. 1-plug in flash. 2-Install Firefox 3- Toss IE Icon in the trash and replace with Firefox Icon, which i load with ABP and Forecast Fox, which my customers really love.
To me this is just the EU being really fucking dumb, yet again. Anybody remember XP-N? For those that hadn't heard of it, the EU forced MSFT to make an sell a version of XP with no media player called XP-N. I'm sure there is a landfill in Eastern Europe filled with XP-N discs because the retailers said they couldn't give them away and it was more worthless than an AOL CD. And what if you don't have the Internet up yet,hmmm? Most routers require a browser to do the initial config. So if i am in the EU I have the choice of plugging my Windows machine straight into the net(and get boned) or not having the net at all because I can't set my router until i download a browser, which i can't do without setting my router. Gee, I wonder how many other ways this can go wrong? Dumb EU, just dumb.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Apple has not yet been convicted in multiple courts of being a monopoly, let alone an abusive monopoly. Personally, I think they ARE monopolistic, but haven't crossed the line into true monopoly land. If/when they are proven a monopoly IN COURT by competent jurists, then I suppose that the same sanctions being put into place against Microsoft might be used against Mac.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
But making the average Joe choose between Notepad and vim would certainly be a distaster for those that chose vim.
Why? Modern versions of Vim and Emacs have a traditional Windows-style menu bar (see Vim screenshot) to let the user copy and paste with less retraining than from Microsoft Office 2003 to Microsoft Office 2007.
The first thing that I want a brand new Windows installation to do is download the latest security patches. Downloading a web browser should come after that.
That's not really bundling now, is it? How do they server this list to the user? Must be a webpage, Shirley?
Gopher. Or a minimal web browser that can't resolve DNS outside browser.microsoft.com.
OEMs pick image organisers for their users: also fine
OEMs pick ISP software for their users: no problem
OEMs are given the opportunity to pick browsers for their users: *shitstorm*
To me this looks like the media trolling for attention; in the real world OEMs will either bundle IE or IE + firefox, and no end user will notice any difference...
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
So this is just going to confuse the end users more when they start the computer for the first time. I never understood how IE is such a big deal because it's included with Microsoft Windows. They don't forbid you from installing another browser, so what's the big deal? There are other reasons to hate MS.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
When Microsoft first included IE, it was nothing like basic functionality. Furthermore, MS internal discussions which you can read in the relevant court cases make it clear that they didn't believe it was basic functionality either. If they had believed that then their actions would not have been illegal. They included IE specifically in order to destroy Netscape. That is what made it illegal / evil and unpleasant. In the same way as a doctor giving you morphine to relieve pain is not illegal whilst the same doctor giving you a morphine overdose to murder you is. It's not just what you do; it's why you do it and how you do it.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Microsoft wasn't doing anything wrong bundling IE in the 90's and they're not doing anything wrong now.
Yeah, except for breaking antitrust law and undermining the operation of the free market in a way that almost certainly is responsible for the fact that Web technologies have almost completely stopped advancing for the last decade.
"Fascists were not doing anything wrong in the 30's and they are not doing anything wrong now. Yes Fascism sucks and is completely totalitarian, but their aim for the good will of the Nation, without needless democracy is _NOT_ evil or even slightly unpleasant."
Sorry, pal, but I've been so messed on politics that your argumentation just flashed like a mirror on my memories. I pushed up, a little bit, the arguments, but sincerly, it is almost the same wordings.
Have you forget the findings made by DoJ in the 90's?
I used a medical analogy where I should have used a car analogy. An immediate correction is required:
If a car mechanic adds water to your car so that your cooling system works, that's legal. If he adds water to your car so that your brake fluid doesn't work that would be illegal. When Microsoft designed their system so that even when a third party browser was installed, you couldn't remove IE and still ended up using IE for functionality like help browsing, they added the water to the brake fluid. It's not just what you do; it's why you do it and how you do it.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
No. IE is not Explorer. I have an Nlited Windows XP, from which IE has been completely removed. Explorer works just fine without IE.
I'm facepalming hard. Internet Explorer uses the same exact libraries as Explorer, and for you to say anything otherwise as though you know what you are talking about simply makes you an imbecil. IE being "removed completely" simply means that everything having solely to do with IE was removed... and maybe... have the libraries that were shared between iexplore.exe and explorer.exe be renamed so the EU thinks they were removed.
I would just LOVE to, when installing Windows, have to sit through a dozen screens asking me "hey which browser do you want, hey which text editor do you want, hey which music player do you want, hey which chat software do you want...". NOT. FUCK YOU EU, your whole court system is a bunch of money-grubbing morons.
I'll give PowerDesk a try to see if I like it better than Explorer.
*I'm not affiliated with SharpE in any way; just a satisfied user.*
A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
If you are looking for a really nice replacement shell, check out litestep. It's actually the only thing I miss from windows (I now use ubuntu). Well, that and being able to adjust my volume during a full-screen game...
The Mozilla Foundation makes many tens of millions of dollars from Google. If nobody installs Firefox, Google isn't going to be giving them that kind of money anymore.
Now that Google has its own platform in Chrome why does it need Mozilla?
those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE?? It's not like Firefox is a company and they are losing out on revenue.
You're right, people who care about things besides money are *hilarious*.
Property is theft.
my mod points when I need them? Someone mod the parent up a point or two please
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I think most of these routers from the ISP include a CD (so they can brand your browser etc.) But I may be wrong. With a region as large as the EU though, I don't think it would be that hard to get ISPs doing this consistently much like what was done when Windows 3.11 didn't have a built in browser either.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Ok, let's put one thing straight:
Microsoft has the full right to do what it wants with Windows.
If the wants to forbid anyone else to bundle, it can do it. If it wants to scrap it into the trashcan, be it.
What Microsoft has no right to do is to claim what Windows is not. They claim it is an Operating System. Cool, I have my little-pretty program here, I want to run it on Windows. No way? Then don't tell me you are selling an operating system. Call it whatever you want - a all-bundled system, an application complex, the bloat of the gloat or the gloat of the bloat...
But "Operating System" is something with a clear definition, with a definite purposefulness and for which Microsoft has no patents, trademarks or special privileges. Stop using it, stop using the OS definitions to describe Windows and be happy. Like Sony and other companies.
However Microsoft does no do it. Why?
Because it is afraid of loosing potential market?
It fears that someone may come with some new bright idea and they will not be able to surrepteously bundle it?
Because this may create independent systems upon which Microsoft will not have a hand on?
Because it will be much harder to asfixiate a concurrent?
And for how long such opportunism will continue? Until all creativism is crushed and the land barren?
I'm really, really, really, REALLY confused about why Slashdotters hate this idea so much. When people install Windows, they'll be asked which browser they want to use. What could be better than that? How did tortured objections like "but then they'll have to include Lynx Spyware Edition!" become so popular?
Property is theft.
bundle competing browsers. They didn't "pull" Windows from OEMs that did bundle them.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
OEMs with discounts for not bundling competing software. So the "power isn't left with them".
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Why exactly would an OEM want to do this?
It's not like bundling Firefox with their PC is going to increase their sales or profit. If Opera were going to pay them to bundle their browser, they would have done it by now (as someone has already pointed out, Microsoft doesn't prevent this).
In short, I really cannot see any OEM's bothering to do this - and so nothing will change.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Google is not a monopoly. Stop pretending it is one.
Having a choice as to what web browser to use is more important than you think. People will use the default one, which is a big part of how IE got such a large market share.
I do, because I'd rather be able to develop to standards and I'd rather Web technologies could move forward again instead of being held back by one, dominant, least common denominator browser.
Imagine that a company - call it Big G or Big M - releases a new browser -
or rather something much than a browser.
It gains traction in the market. The driving force behind its adoption is moving quickly, ruthlessly, in its quest for market share.
The standards committee is sullen, fragmented, slow to react. Riven by ideological divisions that have become increasingly arcane and incomprehensible even to their adherents.
Does any of this sound familiar?
The entrepreneur flies hypersonic. The committee takes the local out of Hampstead. The slow boat from China. The boat with the solar panels and the polyester sail - Linux controlled - that on good day can be driven to a blistering six knots.
"I'm facepalming hard."
Could be you are doing it wrong? Lose the palm, try the edge of the table. If you regain consciousness, you might want to explore nlite: http://www.box.net/shared/c1d4bd0az5#1:10768665:108618379 http://www.nliteos.com/guide/ Shared DLL's remain, of course. The DLL's are called "shared" for a reason. But, IE can be removed, not just disabled.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Which browser do you want?
I'll never understand how a geek could even - think - that allowing the EU bureaucrat to decide what can and cannot be included in a standard OS distribution was a good idea.
The political winds shift and Ubuntu is in his sights now.
People do have a choice. Stop pretending they don't.
If people really hated IE, they could switch. They just don't care enough to bother. That's not Microsoft's fault.
It is Microsoft's fault, because they are the ones who bundled IE, which made people not care, which is how we got into this mess.
Does ShDocVw.dll still exist? Check. Can I use it to embed an IE control into an application? Check.
It is still there.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Everyone knows that the reason the majority of (non-technical) users don't change their browser is that they never see a need to change from IE, or don't even understand what a browser is. (Then there's the millions of corporate machines still running IE6, but we won't go there). This leaves a (thankfully shrinking) majority of net users using the least standards compliant browser, which probably would have less users than Opera if it wasn't bundled with Windows.
A pop-up box that lets you choose between IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari will massively increase the market share of the other players, and the average user will soon learn that IE is really not that great. Hopefully, the real achievement of this scheme will be to force MSFT to create a solid, standards compliant browser. To their credit, they're already starting to move in this direction, but it'll take some actual free market competition to really push this along. I can't wait.
So by your logic, if two programs share any libraries then the two programs are actually the same?
"Everything having solely to do with IE" is what IE is. IE is to Explorer like an extension is to Firefox. If you remove the extension, it's gone. That fact that what it was built on top of remains does not change the fact that it is gone.
Freedom is assumed. Then they try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.
Netscape failed because it was poorly engineered. People who hate MS like to attribute it to monopolistic practices, but that really wasn't it. Netscape Communicator was a great browser with tons of features, but it didn't follow any software engineering best-practices, which made it a beast to update. The releases became slower and slower, until the code was such a mess that it was simply unworkable. At that point, they had to scrap everything at start over in the late 90s. They never recovered from that.
That's what killed Netscape. Microsoft had already been giving them some rough competition, and were ready to charge in and take over the market as soon as Netscape imploded.
Netscape really is the ultimate cautionary tale for would be software engineers.
It is not Microsoft's fault if people don't care enough to switch browsers and that isn't how we got into this mess. They dictated what the OEM could put on the machine BEFORE it was given to the customer, not which browser could be used after.
I can't help but feel that this isn't so much about fairness and more about penalising Microsoft. When you look at Apple, which not only bundles the browser with the OS, but the hardware, and has it against the T&Cs that you can't install the OS on anything else, Microsoft's browser bundling really seems like a bit of a non-issue.
How exactly is the user going to be able to select and download a browser if there's not a default browser already installed on the computer?
I really don't see why the browser should be such a priority, it is easier to install Firefox than another OS and Windows is more dominant in the OS market than MSIE in the browser market.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
This has been taken far enough. I mean, seriously, a ballot screen? Once you apply this system to web browsers, it sets a precedent that could be applied uniformly, i.e. choose every single piece of software individually. Thing is, there's already something that fits this description: it's called Gentoo.
So it's the EU's job to police browsers for reasons other than monopolistic advantages? I picture you with kool aid stained lips and a tin foil hat.
If Microsoft has a monopoly, why are they spending so much money to compete against Apple?
The fact is that operating system is not complete without a browser, the same as a car is not complete without a radio. Microsoft has every right to include a browser, and they have the right to build it themselves.
If you don't like it, and you clearly don't, fix it yourself when you get your PC home... or buy a Mac, or get a pile of parts and duct-tape some flavor of Linux to them.
To me this is just the EU being really fucking dumb, yet again. Anybody remember XP-N? For those that hadn't heard of it, the EU forced MSFT to make an sell a version of XP with no media player called XP-N. I'm sure there is a landfill in Eastern Europe filled with XP-N discs because the retailers said they couldn't give them away and it was more worthless than an AOL CD.
To be fair, Microsoft made that situation way worse than it had to be. They completely stripped out compatibility with windows media videos, when they didn't have to(Proof: nLite), with the argument that they had to. (which was bullshit)
And instead of offering choices of which media player to use, they offered... nothing. They torpedoed the EU's demands on purpose to make them look bad. Very childish, although I suppose if I were being sued by them for hundreds of millions of dollars, I may have done the same. :P
Microsoft - Windows is the "gloat of the bloat and bloat of the gloat"
User - What is this moat of the goat or...
Microsoft - It is a complex of programs to feel a unique experience on digital information.
User - Can I put something into your?..
Microsoft - No way. Verbotten! It's pure proprietary, closed source, use it or drop it.
Now laws are being broken here. And it's not a question wether this works on PCs or not. It is clear black on white.
Now if...
Microsoft - Windows is an Operating System!
User - Can I put my program?
Microsoft - Eh, uh... No. Use ours or drop dead.
That IS a violation of law. More it is an antitrust violation because in the OS market you have a privileged position and you are misleading everyone AND using that "mislead" to kick out the alternatives.
Google is not a monopoly. Stop pretending it is one.
They're just so big and well funded from their advertising revenue that they can afford to give away everything.
Good luck in competing with that -- at any level.
You seem to think I ride with the crowd that is complaining that IE is still there when you remove it. Sorry that I didn't properly express my opinion on the matter. My take is that you can't remove IE from Windows because there is so much that relies on the same libraries that IE relies on, and that Internet Explorer in itself is primarily just a shell for those libraries that happens to surf the internet instead of your filesystem. Therefore, the "removal" of Internet Explorer isn't actually a removal of Internet Explorer, because complete removal of all things Internet Explorer would break basic functionality of the Operating System without some sort of replacement of those libraries (like how Runaway1956 talked about third-party shells).
Gnome works exactly the same. The problem is not my lack of media buttons. The buttons (volume, pause, next, etc) all work perfectly fine during web browsing, full screen movies, etc. It's only fullscreen games that mess it up. For some reason the games like to "steal" the buttons, preventing them from even firing off the event in the first place.
If the concern is standards, then it makes more sense for the EU to require IE to adopt standards than to enforce bundling.
I don't know about anybody else's router, but the single jack box that I got from Cox Cable came with a CD that called IE. So if I didn't have IE I wouldn't have been able to get on the Net to toss IE. I of course used it for a whole three days until my $10 Trendnet 4 port router could show up(If you need a cheap reliable router I have been giving them to customers for awhile and they are rock solid) which of course also needed a browser for first config, but at least was nice enough to call whichever browser I had set as default.
Then there was my school's website-No IE no worky, half the Intranets I've had to deal with, etc. There is enough of legacy crap floating in the bowels that even on my Xandros laptop partition I keep a copy of IE 6 in Crossover Office. I'm sure the folks in the EU will be happy when they pick "wrong" and run into these legacy sites and find they are boned.
And considering the fact that even my 67 year old dad now considers a PC "broken" and makes me do an onsite "repair" when he finds he doesn't have Firefox, I think we can safely say that like all things touched by the incompetent Ballmer monkey IE is going down the shitter without any need for the EU to muck things up. All of my customers are universal in their HATRED of IE7 & IE8, and are quite happy to try a replacement. I have everything from 14 year old girls to 75 year old retired engineers on FF3 with ABP and Forecast fox(which is the best selling points for a browser ever. No ads and the weather right there at the top of the browser. Nice) and all are quite happy. Like Vista, if you leave MSFT alone with Ballmer in charge he needs no help to fail. He is quite good at failure all by himself, thank you very much.
And if they really want a change, leave IE on. Just have a link on the desktop by the OEMs that says "Free Stuff!" that opens a page with not just free browsers like FF3 and Opera, but also has nice screenshots and download buttons for Gimp, Oxygen Office, GnuCash, Songbird, etc. This IMHO will do more to bust up the monopolies than just boning the EU customers yet again. I still think this is just another justification for an EU cash grab though. Because if they really wanted change and free market choice surely somebody in the bunch could think of better alternatives than XP-N and a MSFT OS without IE. Hell you could have used my "Free Stuff!" idea in BOTH cases and affected the market a whole hell of a lot more, and it took me a whole 10 seconds to think that up. Surely the guys at the EU can't be so stupid as to not come up with an idea like that, can they?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Microsoft IE is not a monopoly. Stop pretending it is one.
Having a choice as to what search engine to use is more important than you think. People will use the default one which is a big part of how Google got such a large market share.
(Seriusly, have you seen how many things set Google as your homepage/search now? Anything from Adobe to Winzip).
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
And so you are killing ONE monopoly(IE) and strengthening another (Google). Does that make any sense? And it wasn't like it was hard to toss IE before. hell every new PC build I do here in the shop composes three steps when I have the desktop up. 1-plug in flash. 2-Install Firefox 3- Toss IE Icon in the trash and replace with Firefox Icon, which i load with ABP and Forecast Fox, which my customers really love.
Two things...
1) No law against being a monopoly. Only against abusing your monopoly status to gain undue influence in other markets.
So Microsoft, Intel, Google or anybody else is not now and never has been punished for being a monopoly. Google is close, but not yet a monopoly, and they have been given a few warnings from the EU and other organisations already to play nice or else, and have unlike MS, chosen to avoid the "or else" bit.
2) If that is your idea of "tossing" IE, then Please let me know where you work, so I can avoid getting a computer that you built. You do not fill me with confidence about the quality of your work.
To me this is just the EU being really fucking dumb, yet again. Anybody remember XP-N? For those that hadn't heard of it, the EU forced MSFT to make an sell a version of XP with no media player called XP-N. I'm sure there is a landfill in Eastern Europe filled with XP-N discs because the retailers said they couldn't give them away and it was more worthless than an AOL CD.
The dumb bit was letting MS sell Windows in something other than the N version. It was pointless then, and it is pointless now. They have however learned from this mistake, and are not being so gullible when dealing with MS these days.
And what if you don't have the Internet up yet,hmmm? Most routers require a browser to do the initial config. So if i am in the EU I have the choice of plugging my Windows machine straight into the net(and get boned) or not having the net at all because I can't set my router until i download a browser, which i can't do without setting my router. Gee, I wonder how many other ways this can go wrong? Dumb EU, just dumb.
If most routers require a browser for config, they can use the browser that the user installed during configuration of the PC, the browser that comes on the hard disk or on a CD with a selection of others from the OEM, or use any of a selection of browsers on the router CD, or a magazine cover disk. Not too hard is it? And as all PC browsers are freeware, no problem distributing them on the disk. Or are you worried about the fraction of a penny that it will add to the cost of the router to redo the master disk? And before you mention it, Joe Average doesn't set up a router himself.
In the instruction manual of the router..
Step 1) insert the router installation CD.
Step 2) choose the preferred browser from this list. Check can be made to bring up the default browser if present. and press install.
Step 3) Type (supplied ip address for router in the address box of your chosen browser)
Step 4) Enter user name and password in the Router start page (default user name and password usually written on base of router or the box)
Step others.. ) do what you need to to get it working, varies according to router.
Pretty simple hmmmm? Works just like it used to a few years ago.
My first router even came with a browser free install app. Although the instruction pamphlet did detail the manual configuration method too.
Not so long ago, a browser was an optional app. Not installed in every copy of Windows. Scary I know, but back in those days, when you inserted the ISP setup disk or an disk from a magazine cover, there was the option to install the browser of your choice. Back then, it was IE 3/4/Netscape. There even used to be Windows update patches and demo virus scanners before the net connection was pretty much assumed. That was where I got most of my software in those days.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
If you paid attention, you'd see that Microsoft is making major headway in bringing IE up to the standard a browser should be. It finally doesn't choke on valid XHTML/CSS, and even Slashdot looks decent in it!
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
they are the ones who bundled IE, which made people not care, which is how we got into this mess.
Speak for yourself. If you're in a mess, then fine, say so. I'm not. We have had altermatives to both IE and Windows for years, for those who care. If people don't care, you can't make them care.
Yeah, by eliminating the hassle of installing a browser.
Yeah, just like AT&T eliminated the hassle of you having to buy a telephone to go with your land line.
It's not like they make it difficult for the consumer to download a new browser. There is nothing in Vista's code that says "If simpleton installs thisandthis.exe, break his legs".
Which has jack and shit to do with antitrust laws. How can you argue against them being enforced when you don't even know what their purpose is?
And you are not even modded insightful. Most people here have no clue what is this all about. (lol)
There is nothing in Vista's code that says "If simpleton installs thisandthis.exe, break his legs".
Yeah. In Vista, that piece of code gives a message that reads more like this:
"Simpleton has installed thisandthis.exe. System is trying to break simpleton's legs. Cancel or allow?"
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
This isn't really a surprise. The EU got exactly what they asked for. Why would MS leave part of the media player system installed if they were legally required to remove Media Player?
I believe the phrase that applies here is "Be careful what you wish for... you just might get it."
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
"IE damages web standards."
There's a long history of browsers breaking or extending standards. Javascript, AJAX, and other capabilities would not exist if standards had been religiously followed. Standards work when they codify existing practice - they're not an effective means of planning for the future.
With about 66% of the world using IE, it is the de facto standard whether or not it's a good one. The WC3 has it's own agenda and it's not an organization who's decisions are inherently superior to those of browser makers.
The problem is the EU doesn't really want MS to comply, they just want to fine them. So they don't really specify what MS is supposed to do because if they did, MS might do it.
Yes, you can. You can remove IE, but Trident is left behind. Same as if you remove Safari from Mac OS X (by dragging it to the trash), WebKit remains behind for other programs to use. Internet Explorer is not Trident.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
It's not an IE control. It's a TRIDENT control. That's like saying embedding Gecko is embedding Firefox.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
...forcing Linux distros bundling Internet Explorer?
Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse delendam.
Just ask yourself, why Chrome. What on earth would google do with their own browser? Just one thing and one thing only, try to FORCE all other browsers to increase their capabilities.
If you are involved with the web, then MS/IE is the ISA bus. It is the 8 bit application that still got to be supported. It is keeping the whole web back.
I could right now design a web app that will blow the socks of anything available, and it can never be commercial because it won't run on IE6/IE7 or even IE8. Google is pushing like mad to develop javascript libraries to code around IE so that stuff other browsers properly support can be made to work under IE as well, but the performance impact is a killer. IE is already by far the slowest browser, adding extra javascript to make it more capable is hardly going to help with web-apps.
MS doesn't want web-apps, because it can't control them. More over, their IE team either has secret orders or just isn't competent. You got to wonder what the reason is Opera, Apple, KDE, Mozilla and some others can implement the standards with speed and MS just can't. Lack of resources, hidden agenda or just plain incompetence. Take PNG encoding, MS still hasn't got it right. The official message is they want to support it, so why can't their coders do something everyone else has been doing for years?
So the browser wars are still very much on. But this time it ain't a battle for who sells the most browsers. It is a battle for the internet itself. Their is Google on one side, that wants to have web-based apps and MS which doesn't. As long as IE is the dominant browser, web-apps will have to be either crippled or limit themselves to certain browsers which is economic suicide.
MS doesn't care about standards or even market share, it just wants the web to die and go away. Lets not forget that MS looses money to the web, their encarta offering had to be killed because Wikipedia killed it. Do you really think MS wants to risk fully HTML5 capable browsers killing its office line? google docs is good enough for me and if google docs could ditch IE support it would be even better. That is what MS fears.
The browser wars are over, the battle for the internet has just started.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In the EU monopolies and market dominant companies are controlled by regulation agencies. These agencies ensure that the market still works even if a company gained dominance. They do this in the telecommunication sector, so big telcos like Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom have to open their nets. The same applies to electricity companies and of course to Microsoft, as they have a dominant position in the software sector.
In a function market situation, there would be no need to regulate MS. However, today they can corner the market. You either play by their rules or you don' t play. This dominance eradicates the positive effects of a market based economy. Therefore the EU has to act and regulate them.
Force MS to remove IE from windows, and then let OEMs bundle whatever browser they want...
99% of users receive windows preinstalled with a hardware purchase anyway, and most oems already bundle all kinds of stuff with their installs.
And before you bring up linux, this is exactly how linux works, Linus only distributes a kernel and it is up to third parties to bundle it together with other apps.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
As far as I am concerned, this is pretty much a non-issue. If the EU intends to on creating a true-choice landscape (which wouldn't be a bad thing) they'd go for the OEM's by requiring them to have blank computers as default. If Windows is desired by the customer, they should ship an extra-cost retail copy of it (which would also take care of the recovery disk BS). Likewise for any other OS (Linux could be shipped on a simple CD if no retail box exists). This would offer true choices as well in regards to wants and needs of the customer, capabilities of the OS and the true cost associated with said choice.
Further a compatibility test suite should be developed, by which all OS' and their preinstalled applications should be subjected to. For example, the installed browsers (I really don't care which one) need to comply in full to a set of published web standards. The current test result status of the various offerings can easily be displayed on some web site for reference. Office Suites need to be *fully* compatible in regards to some base formats (OpenDocument lends itself nicely, as well as PDF) and rigorous testing needs to take place. If they fail to read/write/import a document from another standards-compliant suite without farking everything up, it should be tossed out as a possible default installation for OEM's and if installed anyway, the OEM sanctioned. Ditto for e-mail etc.
Only such enforced base-line measures could possibly make a real difference by requiring inter-operability standards regardless of OS and application and get rid of the mess we're in with monopoly abuses and vendor-lock-in etc..
I really don't know how your comment can be considered insightful
1) This is just a proposal so its very hard to criticise right now, however many people have recommended similar plans.
2) The whole point is to remove MS form the equation, let Manufacturers decide what to install as they are not invested in the software business.
3) So your only real hope is to convince HP, Dell or whoever, that your browser creates some added value and therefore they will get more sales, Google, Mozilla and Opera are betting that they can win this argument. You have the right to do the same.
Goodness knows why anyone would tag your comment insightful.
Nobody is suggesting that your browser should be included with MS.
Read the article again and try to understand what it says. If it isn't your first language, get someone to help you. Make sure you're sobered up first though.
Litestep is based on Afterstep, which you can easily installed on Ubuntu...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Euh... but:
1. opera is in business to make money
2. mozilla is in business to spread open web standards and forge innovation, IE/Microsoft is not helping in that department
New things are always on the horizon
No, no, no, there really are a lot of people out there who don't know there is a choice. A lot of people think Windows is always part of a computer, they come together. They probably don't even know you could install a different version of Windows, let alone something else.
New things are always on the horizon
If they did, they should have fined them more, much more, that way they might actually get both, they'll get even more money and maybe they would actually comply and fix the problem.
New things are always on the horizon
This isn't really a surprise. The EU got exactly what they asked for. Why would MS leave part of the media player system installed if they were legally required to remove Media Player?
I believe the phrase that applies here is "Be careful what you wish for... you just might get it."
Media Player != codec.
It would be like removing all the email and IM programs too, just because they got told to remove IE. (web browsers can email and IM) They are closely related software, but they are distinct, and there's no reason to cripple other functionality when complying with the request.
But if you judge by past actions, it'd be just like Microsoft to strip out ALL of IE... including the rendering engine... and any programs that depend on it.
My point is merely that they didn't/don't have to. It's a choice, on their part.
the EU has an entire subset of the law which applies only to monopolies, and especially non-complying monopoly-abusers.
New things are always on the horizon
The best solution to all this madness would be to disallow Microsoft to have lock-in technologies in their bundled browser, media player and so on. Bundle Windows Media Player all you want, as long as all Microsoft format it plays are open... Then anyone can create a competing player knowing they also can implement the same formats. Same logic goes for IE8.
Dvorak on Doomtech
That's right: you _still_ cannot actually remove Internet Explorer, only the latest versions overlaid on toop of the older ones. So even a manufacturer or environment where IE is considered a major security problem (which it is, historically), is stuck with it on every machine.
And don't forget that Microsoft Update tools _only_ work with Internet Explorer. Not using IE makes keeping your Windows machine up to date with security patches particularly awkward, at least for people without the very expensive and awkward to maintain centralized patch management technologies.
I see it differently. Microsoft has a history of abusing its monopoly powers. Abusing monopoly powers is against the law. The extra screens are a punishment to Microsoft because the abused their monopoly powers; they cannot play nice, so competition is forced upon them.
If I were you I would be angry at Microsoft: its conduct causes your extra effort when installing Windows. Then again, geing angry at Microsoft is not likely to change anything, since you are not their main customer and are not even in the group of main customers. Dell, HP, Acer, etc. are.
Being angry at the EU on this point is like being angry at gravity because it broke a vase when someone slipped that vase from his fingers.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
So they should be fined MORE for OBEYING the court order? Please put down the foaming hatred, okay? The EU said "remove WMP" and that is what they did. The EU did NOT say "Remove WMP but leave all the WMP codecs on there".
If MSFT would have left the WMP codecs on there they could have been fined even worse for failure to comply. But it is posts like yours that make me think the only right answer to the question is "Fuck MSFT hard and take their money". The XP-N proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the PEOPLE of the EU, the ones that the courts are supposed to be serving? Yeah, they don't want Windows without WMP. They probably won't want it without IE either. But between this and WMP how big of a check has the EU courts got to cash from MSFT?
Which is why until I see proof otherwise I am going to call this a cash grab. because as I showed with my earlier post it would be trivial to change the market if the EU really wanted competition. All the would have to do is require all OEMs have a link on the desktop that says "FREE STUFF!". That free stuff link would take you to a page with free browser and media players, free planning software and office suites, etc. Overnight the landscape would change. I know this is true because I sell Windows PCs for a living.
The reason I am doing well is because all my customers get "free stuff". When they get a PC from me it has free antivirus and antispyware, it has Oxygen Office and Gimp, it has GnuCash and some freeware I found for making invoices, it has Songbird and Klite, it has FF3 with ABP and Forecast Fox set to their zip etc. When they start the PC they are ready to go out of the box. And it is all "free" which is why they are happy. And all my customers are happily using "free stuff" and I'm doing my little part to change the landscape. With the power of the courts the EU could change the landscape by giving the customers CHOICE instead of taking it away by decree. My customers could use WMP instead of MPC Home Cinema and Songbird, they could use IE8 instead of FF3. but because it is "free stuff" they try it out, most really like it(in fact about 1/3rd of my customers are referrals that say "can I have the same thing that you gave to (insert customer)?") and stick with it. But they are free to use whatever they desire. That is the nice thing about choice. The EU seems to only want to snatch cash and take choice away from its citizens. Two things I am never "for" in a government, and you shouldn't be either, no matter how much you hate MSFT.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
For the vast majority of users, that lack the technical aptitude you have, the choice is between:
1. Doing what the manufacturer meant you to do.
2. Putting something strange into your computer that isn't supposed to be there, possibly resulting in all sorts of trouble.
Think of it like putting custom engine parts some friend gave you into your new and shiny BMW. Would you take the risk? And this is only if they actually realise that there even is a choice.
Obviously their fears are mostly unwarranted, but this is how most people see it. And it is hardly surprising. If you have something that is extremely complicated that you don't understand, but works well enough when you use it, you usually wouldn't mess with it. Even if someone tells you this flamy fox thing is better.
It's still far behind, but Mozilla/Apple and Opera with the EU and later Chrome have really forced Microsoft to 'innovate' (atleast try to not fall even farther behind)
New things are always on the horizon
IMHO Your example is pure nonsense. It would be (closer to) a good example if:
- The car-manufacturer had a market share of >90% of all cars sold as well as of all radios sold and made their own radio's.
- The radios would require radio studios to implement extra technology because these radios would not be standard-compliant as all other brands were and not recieve standard broadcasts well.
- The other radio brands would not be able to recieve the broadcasts made with the car manufacturer's technology well.
I might have missed a few points, but I think this is a more comparable situation. (Insofar as compatibility is involved here)
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
The XP-N proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the PEOPLE of the EU, the ones that the courts are supposed to be serving? Yeah, they don't want Windows without WMP.
In case this comes out as a surprise; if the stores don't order XP-N, people will never get it. And why should stores order lesser product, particularly as it was priced the same as "better" version of the same OS? Sure, you can request it to be ordered, but Microsoft never went out of the way to mention that the whole version even existed. So the demand wasn't really there. Please don't draw EU citizens into this. We didn't go around shouting that Americans hate Bush and want him out of power. Please offer us the same courtesy, particularly as the courts here do ok job.
You seem awfully exited of some foreign court order from five years ago. I suggest you go around and check what your local judges are up to, and let us Europeans work with our legal system, all right? After all, you seem to be raging because Microsoft gets fined and asked to do some stuff that ended up not working. You seem to mistake that just because Slashdot only reports EU/Microsoft court news, there are no other news. I can assure you that most of the "milking" comes from local companies.
Chronologically late.
With ISP's ? I remember when you had to delete AOL, MSN, etc off the desktops. That was really effective, wasn't it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
the EU has an entire subset of the law which applies only to Microsoft
Yes, that subset has to do with them having a monopoly or something. Oh, and that subset applies to Intel too.
This is bad. Let;s extend the same principle to everything then. How about forcing car manufacturers to include an option to put a competitor's engine in the car. E.g. Mercedes must provide an option where the user can put a BMW engine in the car. In my opinion it makes not sense.
Visit http://www.kaizenlog.com
Why is everyone going to realize that "bundling" in not the crux of the matter.
It is COMMINGLING THE CODE that is the problem.
MS has been doing that all along.
Do you need networking? No fine. Yes which one, Novell, MS, etc.
Do you need a brower? No, fine. Yes which one, MS, Firefox, Opera, [and 100 others]
This should be part of the install or desktop icons.
All of MS website should be W3 standards compliant and not rely on Exploder. There is a monopoly violation, since I use Firefox.
REMOVE ALL code that is not essential to devices and presentation and let the customer decide what to have.
January 2010. OK, so I take my new Windows 7 laptop back to my Paris hotel. Too bad I accidently dropped the old one in the Seine. I start it up and select a browser to download. Oops, hard stop. The hotel, like many, requires a web browser present in order to authenticate and establish an Internet connection. No web browser, no connection, no browser download. Thanks, EU competition bureaucracy, for making it impossible to fulfill the EU-mandated requirements. (Unless the EU is going to put always-on Internet access ports in all public places. Not.)
Explain to me why it matters that customers who don't care about their browser and don't give a shit enough to go find another one are massively helped by then confusing them with options they don't give a rat's ass about anyway?
When I build my grandma's computer next month, I'm going to tell her she can choose from 50 Linux distributions, 3-4 versions of Windows, and various special purpose OS's I could install for her. When she looks at me and asks me what on earth I'm talking about and tells me she just wants to check her yahoo mail, I'm going to punch her in the face and make her choose.
Breaking antitrust law, huh? Can you show me the specific law which prevents anything MS did? Of course you can't, the "law" isn't a law but an excuse to go on a fishing expedition. The government and regulatory bodies can decide, after the fact, that some action falls afoul of "the law" based purely on subjective interpretation of very loose guidelines. More accurately, there is no way for a corporation to know at the time it does something whether its actions will be deemed, ex post facto, illegal at a later date.
Breaking antitrust law, huh? Can you show me the specific law which prevents anything MS did?
It's article 82 of the EU competition laws. You can't leverage overwhelming market share in one market to influence another... but you should know that already because I've already explained it to you numerous times. You just refuse to listen to facts that might cause problems for your preconceived opinions.
The default install in most linux distributions usually includes one browser (and one office suite, and one desktop environment, and so on). But you can have the option to install additional programs, and dig between the options to see that there are more around in each area, and are good and safe enough to be included there.
Windows does something like that already, you can install everything, the default or choose between some alternatives (all from microsoft, and except very few exceptions, like picking between write and notepad, only one choice for category). What if you expand those not obligatory options giving alternatives from other vendors?
EU is more like FU, or Fascist Union. Enjoy your involuntary freedom and unified choice.
And so you are killing ONE monopoly(IE) and strengthening another (Google).
Lets assume for the sake of argument that Google has sufficient influence in the online search market to constitute a monopoly. The same antitrust laws apply to them and to Microsoft who has been ruled to have a monopoly in the desktop OS market (not the Web browser market). Neither company can leverage their monopoly influence into a separate, preexisting market. Microsoft is leveraging their monopoly to promote their Web browser via the classic method of bundling, the most common form of illegal tying. Google is not leveraging their influence illegally in any way I know of but, if every time you used Google's search service it installed Chrome as a bundle, the courts would intervene as well.
Does that make any sense?
Not really since you failed to understand what the monopoly in question or the illegal and objectionable act being regulated is.
The anti-competitive behavior is not the bundling of IE itself...
It's sad when a comment which is probably an honest one, but which is 100% incorrect, is modded +5 Informative.
See, you yourself say that IE is "primarily just a shell". So how is removing that IE shell not removing IE? Those shared libraries left behind are most definitely not IE.
Freedom is assumed. Then they try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.
Without EU regulations there would be no serious attempt to have a level playing field for all the country members (things are bad as they are, no regulation would make them worse).
Normally the tabloid media name the regulations out of context, in which they seem ridiculous, further scrutiny very often reveals that there are very good reasons for arriving to certain rulings.
Granted, the EU will get some things monumentally wrong, but that does not mean that all what they do is useless and that regulation is uncalled for (banks gave us a shinning example of why we need regulation).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Please refer us to the official MS document that will tell us how to do this.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Don't embarrass yourself missing that obvious point.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What is your problem with that exactly?
Let companies get it right, but let the EU in this case force them to make sure they are offering choice.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Oh yeah, never. That was much better.
There is such a thing as reputation, if anything this is yet another proof to show people about the kind of company they are dealing with when allowing Windows in their machines....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Have you been asleep the last couple of years or what?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
How many years do you need for something *not* to be a knee jerk reaction?
One hundred?
One glacial age?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Authorities in general don't get to clean the mess left behind by people or entities braking the law.
They impose remediation that in many instances may not be 100% satisfactory, but they may be doing the best of a bad job.
MS is the one that created this mess, don't blame the EU if it is difficult to come with a clean solution.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That is a great way of approach problems you have got there: brake the law in a way that makes life convenient, sit down and relax basking in your success since there will be people willing to vouch for you overlooking your illegal or unethical activities.
How can serious people advocate this?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Actually, it was. Microsoft basically destroyed the browser market for many years. It took a non-profit relying on donations and free labor to put a dent in Microsoft's clamp-down on the browser market, and only after many years. If Microsoft hadn't destroyed the browser market, there could have been many more quality browsers around by now, and web technology could have moved much faster. And Microsoft had a conscious strategy to destroy the browser market, as US court documents show.
Clever signature text goes here.
You talk about short memories, and yet you seem to have forgotten about Microsoft's business practices?
Exactly. It took a non-profit relying on donations and free labor to even make a dent in Microsoft's illegal grip on the market. If Microsoft hadn't broken the law, the browser market could have been much bigger by now, and the web much more mature.
Actually, in case you didn't notice, we are moving towards the browser. Most applications people use today are used through the browser.
A futile effort to enforce their own laws? Right. "The robberer will be dead in 30 years, so why bother throwing him in jail?"
Clever signature text goes here.
Car analogies are fun if used with some degree of wit
Car analogies are not always pertinent, this is such a case.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You don't have to own 100% of the market in order to be considered to have monopolistic influence in that market.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Who gets to decide on the list?
People that sell and/or manufacture computers. The problem has been MS dictating what these companies can install, and thus, favouring their own browser.
Why browsers, but not other basic programs?
Because MS went out of its way in order to obliterate competition in the browser market when it was on its infancy. They subsidized a product and arm forced hardware manufacturers in order to make sure no other company could get access to a computer's desktop.
Won't people look at the screen, confused for a moment, and then click the familiar blue e?
They may, but that is not the point. Just ensuring people know there are choices would be good enough.
Why even bother doing this, since the people who care can easily get a new browser?
Because is people not caring whoul should be made aware about the state of affairs.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
For somebody deriding others about their short memories, I have to say yours is pretty selective, to say the least.
Netscape may have sucked, I think that is now firmly established, but that is not the reason they collapsed so spectacularly.
The reason was that Microsoft used their controlling position in the operating system market in order to try to corner the Internet by means of their browser.
Unlike your amnesiac account of facts, I remember when Bill Gates wrote "The Road Ahead", its "visionary" book in which the Internet was hardly mentioned, if at all. This was 1995, when the Internet was firmly established as a medium to be reckoned with.
Once Gates & Co realized their short sightedness they refocused the company to the Internet, so they found themselves all of the sudden needing to refocus on the internet but without any control of the main application used to access it: the web browser.
So they did what many monopolists have done before: dumping. They subsidized IE in order to put Netscape out of business. The fact that Netscape sucked made it easier for Microsoft to succeed, but that does not excuse them of their responsibility of abuse of their monopolistic position.
Part 2 of their master plan was to get hold of the infrastructure. They really believed that the MSN (MS Network!) would beat the Internet, but understandably the administrators behind all those relatively new websites stuck with open, free standards instead of allowing the famous MS embrace to take place.
That is what is being punished. It may not be a timely punishment, but at least is something that may have some teeth ( we are still accessing the Internet using web browsers, unless you guys are using gopher or FTP), so I fail to see how this is not a useful measure.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
With many places having up to 25% of Firefox users, I think OEMs should wisen up to the fact that people are looking for options.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Stop being a complete idiot. Several people have explained this to your ignorant and dishonest ass several times. So why do you keep asking the same question over and over and over again?
Clever signature text goes here.
The Mozilla Corporation is in it to make money, actually. It's all funneled back to the foundation, but the corporation is a commercial entity in it for the green ones.
Clever signature text goes here.
This is a straw man. This is not about "entitlement", this is about ensuring competition in the market.
Yes. Many sites still require IE.
Nope. Microsoft broke the law. Breaking the law has consequences. Mozilla did not break the law. A thief loses his right to walk the streets freely, remember. Restrictions are applied and freedoms taken away if you break the law.
It's their responsibility that they broke the law.
So you are opposed to the free market?
They are, and the fact that Microsoft willfully violates them is just another thing that makes their bundling illegal.
Yes, enforcing the law is "a bunch of crying". Indeed.
Clever signature text goes here.
It's interesting that everyone else manages to move standards forwards, then. Standards processes take longer than knee-jerk "this must be a good idea, so let's do it!" because it takes longer to get things right. Microsoft's knee-jerk actions caused security nightmares and cost the market billions of dollars, remember? Better go with standards.
Clever signature text goes here.
By the way, Google, Mozilla, Adobe, and many other companies joined the complaint.
Clever signature text goes here.
Clue about what?
Clever signature text goes here.
Strawman. IE's main functionality isn't to send email or IMs. Playing media is the primary functionality of Windows Media Player. Media Player does this through a number of codecs that Microsoft wrote or contracted, for which they also pay licenses to other companies (including Ligos Corp and Fraunhofer IIS).
What the EU wanted was for the media player executable to be removed. What MS did is remove the codecs as well, which makes sense from a business standpoint, as they then don't have to pay royalties on said codecs. Microsoft wasn't stopping anyone else from implementing their own codecs, particularly since MS's media player codecs were run as DirectX components (DirectShow).
More to the point with IE is that the EU right now is demanding the latter, as the former already exists in Windows 7. The removal of mshtml.dll also kills a number of programs, including but not limited to: Windows Help, Microsoft Visual Studio, All Symantec product lines, Valve's Steam content delivery system, Sony Online Entertainment's MMOs, iWin.com's offline games...
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Microsoft IE is not a monopoly.
No, but Windows is, and IE is Win-only, that was how IE itself nearly became one, by piggy-backing on the real monopoly.
Having a choice as to what search engine to use is more important than you think. People will use the default one
Google will work on any OS running almost any web browser, but where is the initial "default" for a search engine set? Oh, that's right, its in the *browser*.
(Seriusly, have you seen how many things set Google as your homepage/search now?
How about IE? :)
Moral of the story: Google gained its dominance by providing something a lot of people liked/wanted but without any other advantages, whereas IE got to where it did by leveraging the Windows monopoly.
Yes, a lot of people simply accept the "default", whatever it is, and this is *exactly* what MS counts on. Half the battle for any company wanting to establish a monopoly is to reach the point where most sheeple accept their product as the "default", if for no other reason than they don't know any better... and that brings us right to the idea of providing alternative browsers *with* Windows, so they will know (at least something) better.
Whether it works or not is another matter, but claiming IE==Google definitely doesn't work.
The browser /was/ basic functionality at the time. Microsoft saw this, and decided to integrate it. When you are using IE as a help browser, the end user just sees it as a help browser, and doesn't care if the back-end is a bunch of hypertext. A help browser is basic functionality. Hypertext is a basic part of any GUI, and has been at least since the invention of the mouse, if you recall the patent flames about hyperlinks.
People got mad because Microsoft didn't provide an easy way to break one's computer. They made a web browser, allowed it to be used as part of the regular shell, then removed the redundancy and confusion which would have been caused by having two of the same thing, meaning the whole lot was required for the system to run. Who cares, right? It's free anyway, and you can still use other web browsers the same way you always could, doesn't get in anyone's way.
Then an evil company which decided it didn't want someone else edging in on their monopoly said "How dare they! They've made their product more convenient than we possibly could! That's not fair!"
Well, maybe it's not fair, but it's not "unfair competition". Microsoft has done plenty of "unfair competition"- like writing into contracts that hardware manufacturers need to charge for Windows even if it isn't installed, or that they're required to install Windows on every PC they ship, or they get no Windows to install on any PC they ship.
- But including a crappy web-browser / file browser was NOT anti-competitive.
I'd bring up how RealNetworks tried to force Microsoft to include their product with windows when nobody bought it in the first place (Nobody's buying our piece of shit? Inconceivable! It must be because of an evil monopoly!), but a lot of people don't see the obviousness of "not selling your competitor's product for them" not being the same as "forcing your competitor out of business".
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
"Fascists were not doing anything wrong regarding their platform on train schedules in the 30's and they are not doing anything wrong with respect to that now. Yes Fascism sucks and is completely totalitarian, but their train scheduling platform is entirely unrelated to the things which for which they are normally despised, is _NOT_ evil or even slightly unpleasant."
There, I fixed that to make it remotely relevant to what I said.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
So the villains are the ones reporting the crime, not the person breaking the law?
By the way, Google, Mozilla, Adobe, and many other companies joined the complaint.
Laws aren't necessarily just.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
You're not in a mess? Fine, I am. I use Firefox and Chrome interchangeably, but whenever I fire up a text editor to write HTML/CSS , I have to deal with the fact that my customers want their sites to be viewable in IE6 still. You can't make people care, but you can push and prod until you reach critical mass for decent standards support, so we can just move on and ignore IE6's quirks.