I guess that in a young and forward-thinking environment there is a certain amount of hostility towards stale, old, semi-fascist thoughts and attitudes, yes.
"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field."
Never mind Google's free advertising for Firefox all over the place. What do you think any other browser vendor would have had to pay for that kind of advertising, which Mozilla got for free? Hundreds of millions of dollars?
Would you also like to enforce that AOL charge for all versions of winamp? How about apple charging for all version of QuickTime? How about that open source VideoLan? I suppose the cost for developing that was $0, right?
The price of WMP is part of the cost when you buy Windows. QuickTime, VLC, etc. are funded in other ways. But someone bears the development cost, you can count on that.
I'm guessing that you've got a double standard that you are refusing to fess up to.
No, it is you who have an extremely poor grasp of the law. There is something called antitrust law. Monopolies do not have the same freedoms as other companies to do as they please (within the boundaries of other laws, that is). When you mention other companies or applications you are showing that you don't even understand how monopolies work.
The fact is that people want a media player in the box. They also want a browser in the box.
Good for them. OEMs can easily preinstall those things.
So I will ask again, if firefox was bundled with windows instead of internet explorer, would you cry foul? Answer the question or do not respond. Your failure to answer while quoting the question is evidence that you do not like your own answer.
You started blabbering on about "evil" and nonsense like that. You basically started with the typical MS shill method of asking a leading question which implied that I was a "Microsoft hater" for pointing out the fact that Microsoft broke the law. If you want an aswer, ask an honest question rather than a dishonest, leading one. It's like when someone opposes censorship of the internet, and some irrational fool cries "why oh why do you wish to place our children at risk by not censoring the internet?"
Answering either of these questions would mean that I agree with the claim dishonestly being hidden in there. You need to learn some manners or you will never get any answers for your questions.
You apparently didn't even like the answer that 'no browser should be bundled' because you obviously realize that in todays world thats just silly.
Where on earth are you getting these nonsensical ideas from. OEMs will bundle a browser. Problem solved.
Haven't the consumers harmed the market as well, by choosing to enable a monopoly?
No, they are not a business. But you didn't answer the question. Are you saying that you are opposed to all antitrust laws? That even if it can be demonstrated that a company has harmed the market, to the detriment of competition and consumers, no action should be taken?
AGAIN, whether it was legal or not is beside the point. Every anti-competitive tactic MS used required consumers on the other end accepting it.
It is not beside the point. Blaming consumer for MS breaking the law? Rich. Are you saying that you are opposed to all antitrust laws? That even if it can be demonstrated that a company has harmed the market, to the detriment of competition and consumers, no action should be taken?
I'd like to see you quantify those statements.
Microsoft hasn't even implemented extremely old standards properly. They have also used stalling tactics to hold back CSS progress, and they killed ECMAScript 4 because it was a threat to Silverlight.
Regardless, nobody has a right to "faster" technology
That's not the point. The point is that Microsoft's illegal actions are holding back the market. It is preventing competition. Competition inevitably leads to better products. Microsoft left IE to rot for many years, during which the web didn't move forward at all.
Firefox, Opera, etc are so easy to obtain--through IE, no less--that you're point is moot. Browsers are essentially being given away for free. Linux is given away for free! Sounds like pretty good competition to me. You just gotta convince people to switch.
No, that's not it. You didn't even address what I wrote. IE as a dominant player destroyed competition and held web progress back. This is a fact. Just look at ECMAScript 4.
That you can download Firefox or install Linux is irrelevant. Many sites still require IE, and many documents/services require Windows. You can't convince people to switch if what you are switching to is locked out because of anti-competitive practices.
Allowing Microsoft to weasel their way out of this again by making two separate versions is a terrible idea. I hope the EU forces Microsoft to make this change in the standard Windows package.
Yeah, and blacks were once told to drink at other water fountains, because "it's the law". I'm not comparing this to the civil rights struggle, only that "it's the law!" is never a good excuse for bad law or misapplication of the law.
So are you saying that you are opposed to all antitrust laws? That even if it can be demonstrated that a company has harmed the market, to the detriment of competition and consumers, no action should be taken?
People label including IE as "anticompetitive" but the real issue is that people are just too lazy to switch
No, the real issue is that Microsoft undermined the competition with illegal methods. If IE was the dominant browser just because people didn't care, that would have been fine. But Microsoft has also used its embrace, extend and extinguish tactic to remove competition because they were afraif of the web as a competing platform for Windows. This was all in the US antitrust trial, so I'm surprised that you were unaware of this. It was a conscious tactic by Microsoft to destroy the competition to ensure that Windows remained dominant. They did it to Java too.
There's a difference between telling people what to do because you want someone to stick it to microsoft or someone else because you don't like them, and protecting someone from being harmed, which is what law is supposed to be (although never really was).
Microsoft's actions have indeed harmed people. It has made web technology slower, more expensive, and impacted security in a bad way. People have paid billions of dollars for Microsoft's anti-competitive practices.
IE prevents competition, which makes things more expensive and of worse quality. The state of the web today is abysmal, since MS with its dominance has resisted change for the better. For example, they ruined ECMAScript 4 because it threatened Silverlight.
HTML was not born out of formal standards. Multiple parties have been independently evolving browser technology for better or worse without a central body (i.e. from ActiveX to JavaScript to AJAX and Flash). W3C represents an attempt to define standards well after the implementation.
That may have been the case ten years ago, but today, HTML 4.01, CSS1 and CSS2 have been defined a long time ago. IE has yet to support even these old "standards" correctly. And when it comes to HTML5, CSS3, etc. they are being developed by browser vendors, designers, and others with an interest in future web technologies. And what is Microsoft doing? It's trying to stall the process. They even managed to kill ECMAScript 4 because it would be a threat to Silverlight.
It is not yet widely deployed technology for computer/human interface (native rich clients and dumb terminals still dominate) and I personally hope it never will be.
What is the application you spend the most time in front of on your computer? Most people use a browser most of the time. None of my less-techy friends even use a normal e-mail client. They all use webmail.
It is a terrible interface, both for engineers to develop and people to use and these observations have nothing to do with the implementation, but with the actual underlying architecture powering HTML/HTTP.
No, it has everything to do with the fact that Microsoft made web technologies stall for many years. And they are still stalling (see ECMAScript 4).
I find Apple's bundling to be completely retarded, but Apple has not broken the law. Apple is not even a monopoly. Microsoft is a monopoly, and they broke the law. That's the difference. As I said.
Oh, please. IE doesn't "prevent" competition from Firefox. It's a user education issue. I have no problem switching people from IE to Firefox. I do it almost everyday. Somehow, I manage to do it despite IE's existence in Windows.
It is a fact that Microsoft used its dominance in the desktop market to destroy the competition in the browser market. That you can install Firefox for other people is irrelevant to the question of whether MS broke the law or not by abusing their monopoly power.
Uhhh.... You DO know that WinNT is from 1993 [wikipedia.org],right? And that the justice case was 1998 [wikipedia.org], right? So it is a little difficult to blame them for violating an anti trust order when the charges hadn't even been filed.
That's irrelevant to what I was saying, which is that they got a slap on the wrist for the tight integration, and all these years they've willfully ignored it and kept integrating it even more tightly? Wow, that's some respect for the law right there...
If they had any common sense they would order that other choices BESIDES WMP and IE come with the OS so the customers could have options.
I don't think that's a good idea. Instead, the OEM should decide. The OEM could certainly allow its customer to make the choice, but this should be the OEM deciding whether it offers one or more browsers. Microsoft should not be allowed to choose at all since they broke the law, and breaking the law has consequences.
id you expect them to make up a non-market price for WMP when the current market price for all popular media players
(not just WMP) is exactly $0?
So you are saying that developing WMP cost Microsoft $0? That licensing codecs and stuff like that was $0 as well?
I wonder if Microsoft said "screw it" and bundled Firefox with Windows 7 instead of Internet Explorer, would all your Microsoft haters have any complaints at all? My guess is that no, no you wouldn't. You wouldn't for at least 4 or 5 years, until such time that you decide that Firefox was evil.
It's not about "evil". It is about whether MS broke the law or not, which they did. You are just trying to label those whose arguments you cannot refute in order to avoid having to reply to their arguments.
Yeah, a terrible thing that. Favoritism towards a fair, free and open market rather than markets locked down by monopolies. Terrible, terrible things. Fair, free and open markets should not be the subject of favoritism!
No, they CAN, but other people tell them what to do, because other people want the world to be a certain way and want to tell individuals, groups, and businesses how to act so the world is more shaped, more in-tune to their liking.
It's called "the law". You know, the thing which says that you can't steal from other people, and that you cannot engage in anti-competitive practices.
Yeah, damn laws. Should abolish all of them. Who needs them, right? Telling people how to behave. How wude!
Although I suspect the EU is just trying to milk money out of MS like they did in the past.
The EU only milked money out of MS because MS refused to abide by the laws. If MS had followed the law, no milking would have taken place. If Microsoft had done what they were told, there would be no fines.
Where do you draw the line at what should and should not be bundled? Is the TCP/IP stack an antitrust concern for example? R.I.P. trumpet software.
Do you agree that the browser is perhaps the most important application in the world today? That most applications are developed for browsers rather than traditional operating systems? Do you agree that a web browser needs to interpret the same code as different web browsers on different devices? Do you agree that if one web browser is dominant and locks people to that specific web browser on one specific platform, that is a huge problem because the WWW is supposed to be available for everyone?
If you disagree on any of these, I will be surprised.
IE violates standards, and this is an actual strategy for Microsoft. Does the TCP/IP stack in Windows violate the standard to block other people from using TCP/IP? Not that I am aware of.
Surely you see the difference here? With IE, Microsoft illegally used its desktop dominance to lock in the web.
Sounds like you are setting up a straw man. Apple and Linux are not convicted monopolists. Microsoft is, so it has to play by different rules. It's the law.
Windows is a monopoly, according to the definition set in the law. You may claim that it isn't, but both the US and EU disagree with you. Who's right, you or their armies of lawyers?
What next, is the convicted thief doing to have to drink from different water fountains than the "normal" people? Is he going to have to wear a "THIEF" badge on his shirt every time he shows his face in public?
Microsoft broke the law. Breaking the law has consequences. Why breaking the law have consequences for everyone except Microsoft?
Read this comment. IE prevents competition, which makes things more expensice and of worse quality. The state of the web today is abysmal, since MS with its dominance has resisted change for the better. For example, they ruined ECMAScript 4 because it threatened Silverlight.
Does the FTP client illegally prevent competition? Or is it standards compliant and doesn't attempt to lock people into only using it? It's pretty basic anyway. Like WordPad. WP doesn't really prevent anyone from competing because it's so basic, and the output can be read by other RTF editors anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that in a young and forward-thinking environment there is a certain amount of hostility towards stale, old, semi-fascist thoughts and attitudes, yes.
So you are surprised that there is hostility towards the old liar here on Slashdot?
Asa Dotzler of Mozilla disagrees strongly:
"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field."
Never mind Google's free advertising for Firefox all over the place. What do you think any other browser vendor would have had to pay for that kind of advertising, which Mozilla got for free? Hundreds of millions of dollars?
Really? What is your source for this claim?
The price of WMP is part of the cost when you buy Windows. QuickTime, VLC, etc. are funded in other ways. But someone bears the development cost, you can count on that.
No, it is you who have an extremely poor grasp of the law. There is something called antitrust law. Monopolies do not have the same freedoms as other companies to do as they please (within the boundaries of other laws, that is). When you mention other companies or applications you are showing that you don't even understand how monopolies work.
Good for them. OEMs can easily preinstall those things.
You started blabbering on about "evil" and nonsense like that. You basically started with the typical MS shill method of asking a leading question which implied that I was a "Microsoft hater" for pointing out the fact that Microsoft broke the law. If you want an aswer, ask an honest question rather than a dishonest, leading one. It's like when someone opposes censorship of the internet, and some irrational fool cries "why oh why do you wish to place our children at risk by not censoring the internet?"
Answering either of these questions would mean that I agree with the claim dishonestly being hidden in there. You need to learn some manners or you will never get any answers for your questions.
Where on earth are you getting these nonsensical ideas from. OEMs will bundle a browser. Problem solved.
No, they are not a business. But you didn't answer the question. Are you saying that you are opposed to all antitrust laws? That even if it can be demonstrated that a company has harmed the market, to the detriment of competition and consumers, no action should be taken?
It is not beside the point. Blaming consumer for MS breaking the law? Rich. Are you saying that you are opposed to all antitrust laws? That even if it can be demonstrated that a company has harmed the market, to the detriment of competition and consumers, no action should be taken?
Microsoft hasn't even implemented extremely old standards properly. They have also used stalling tactics to hold back CSS progress, and they killed ECMAScript 4 because it was a threat to Silverlight.
That's not the point. The point is that Microsoft's illegal actions are holding back the market. It is preventing competition. Competition inevitably leads to better products. Microsoft left IE to rot for many years, during which the web didn't move forward at all.
No, that's not it. You didn't even address what I wrote. IE as a dominant player destroyed competition and held web progress back. This is a fact. Just look at ECMAScript 4.
That you can download Firefox or install Linux is irrelevant. Many sites still require IE, and many documents/services require Windows. You can't convince people to switch if what you are switching to is locked out because of anti-competitive practices.
Allowing Microsoft to weasel their way out of this again by making two separate versions is a terrible idea. I hope the EU forces Microsoft to make this change in the standard Windows package.
That was because Opera forced them to, not because they wanted to look like nice guys. They just didn't want more fines.
Sounds great. By the time it's finished I hope it will become even slimmer with some nasty software removed ;-)
So are you saying that you are opposed to all antitrust laws? That even if it can be demonstrated that a company has harmed the market, to the detriment of competition and consumers, no action should be taken?
No, the real issue is that Microsoft undermined the competition with illegal methods. If IE was the dominant browser just because people didn't care, that would have been fine. But Microsoft has also used its embrace, extend and extinguish tactic to remove competition because they were afraif of the web as a competing platform for Windows. This was all in the US antitrust trial, so I'm surprised that you were unaware of this. It was a conscious tactic by Microsoft to destroy the competition to ensure that Windows remained dominant. They did it to Java too.
Microsoft's actions have indeed harmed people. It has made web technology slower, more expensive, and impacted security in a bad way. People have paid billions of dollars for Microsoft's anti-competitive practices.
IE prevents competition, which makes things more expensive and of worse quality. The state of the web today is abysmal, since MS with its dominance has resisted change for the better. For example, they ruined ECMAScript 4 because it threatened Silverlight.
What, specifically, and why?
That may have been the case ten years ago, but today, HTML 4.01, CSS1 and CSS2 have been defined a long time ago. IE has yet to support even these old "standards" correctly. And when it comes to HTML5, CSS3, etc. they are being developed by browser vendors, designers, and others with an interest in future web technologies. And what is Microsoft doing? It's trying to stall the process. They even managed to kill ECMAScript 4 because it would be a threat to Silverlight.
What is the application you spend the most time in front of on your computer? Most people use a browser most of the time. None of my less-techy friends even use a normal e-mail client. They all use webmail.
No, it has everything to do with the fact that Microsoft made web technologies stall for many years. And they are still stalling (see ECMAScript 4).
I find Apple's bundling to be completely retarded, but Apple has not broken the law. Apple is not even a monopoly. Microsoft is a monopoly, and they broke the law. That's the difference. As I said.
It is a fact that Microsoft used its dominance in the desktop market to destroy the competition in the browser market. That you can install Firefox for other people is irrelevant to the question of whether MS broke the law or not by abusing their monopoly power.
That's irrelevant to what I was saying, which is that they got a slap on the wrist for the tight integration, and all these years they've willfully ignored it and kept integrating it even more tightly? Wow, that's some respect for the law right there...
I don't think that's a good idea. Instead, the OEM should decide. The OEM could certainly allow its customer to make the choice, but this should be the OEM deciding whether it offers one or more browsers. Microsoft should not be allowed to choose at all since they broke the law, and breaking the law has consequences.
So you are saying that developing WMP cost Microsoft $0? That licensing codecs and stuff like that was $0 as well?
It's not about "evil". It is about whether MS broke the law or not, which they did. You are just trying to label those whose arguments you cannot refute in order to avoid having to reply to their arguments.
Yeah, a terrible thing that. Favoritism towards a fair, free and open market rather than markets locked down by monopolies. Terrible, terrible things. Fair, free and open markets should not be the subject of favoritism!
It's called "the law". You know, the thing which says that you can't steal from other people, and that you cannot engage in anti-competitive practices.
Yeah, damn laws. Should abolish all of them. Who needs them, right? Telling people how to behave. How wude!
The EU only milked money out of MS because MS refused to abide by the laws. If MS had followed the law, no milking would have taken place. If Microsoft had done what they were told, there would be no fines.
Do you agree that the browser is perhaps the most important application in the world today? That most applications are developed for browsers rather than traditional operating systems? Do you agree that a web browser needs to interpret the same code as different web browsers on different devices? Do you agree that if one web browser is dominant and locks people to that specific web browser on one specific platform, that is a huge problem because the WWW is supposed to be available for everyone?
If you disagree on any of these, I will be surprised.
IE violates standards, and this is an actual strategy for Microsoft. Does the TCP/IP stack in Windows violate the standard to block other people from using TCP/IP? Not that I am aware of.
Surely you see the difference here? With IE, Microsoft illegally used its desktop dominance to lock in the web.
Sounds like you are setting up a straw man. Apple and Linux are not convicted monopolists. Microsoft is, so it has to play by different rules. It's the law.
Windows is a monopoly, according to the definition set in the law. You may claim that it isn't, but both the US and EU disagree with you. Who's right, you or their armies of lawyers?
It is, according to law. Maybe not in the "has 100% of the market" sense, but definitions in law are not necessarily the same as most people use.
Correction: Why should breaking the law have consequences for everyone except Microsoft?
Microsoft broke the law. Breaking the law has consequences. Why breaking the law have consequences for everyone except Microsoft?
Read this comment. IE prevents competition, which makes things more expensice and of worse quality. The state of the web today is abysmal, since MS with its dominance has resisted change for the better. For example, they ruined ECMAScript 4 because it threatened Silverlight.
Does the FTP client illegally prevent competition? Or is it standards compliant and doesn't attempt to lock people into only using it? It's pretty basic anyway. Like WordPad. WP doesn't really prevent anyone from competing because it's so basic, and the output can be read by other RTF editors anyway.