/*It's market share is less than what you would expect without bundling.
Oh? And you have research or something to prove this? Or you're just assuming it?*/
you can't argue fact. If *all* windows user have IE included, FF means always to abandon IE in favour of FF. So it is no equal start position.
Everyone who uses FF does it as his deliberate choice. So 20% of all webbrowser users explicitly chose another browser. No one needs to make a choice explicit for IE because it comes prepackaged.
A problem emerges when commercial intersts come into play, e.g. in the case of the Open XML article that tends to converge back to a Microsoft advertisement through edit warfare.
The problem is the echochamber nonsense. That somethin is a "reputable source" doesn't mean it is right. A positivism trap is dangerous, in particular when you deal with technocratic conditions.
"So why is FF gaining market share then? If it were a barrier to trade, FF could not be able to gain significant market share."
It's market share is less than what you would expect without bundling. Imagine Microsoft bundled Zunes with Notebooks powered by Windows. They would surpass Apple in market share. But honestly no one buys Zune and less people would take IE if it wasn't preinstalled.
This is all about an equal start position for the competition. No tying doping for IE.
Re:OP is a condescending asshole, and it shows...
on
I'm a PC and I'm 4-1/2
·
· Score: 1
I was shocked. I think it is totally irresponsible to use minors for advertisement in favour of a product for a company as Microsoft.
Whoever was responsible for that at Microsoft should be fired. I am expecting her to become a furious against the company once she realises what her parents and the Redmond company abused her to do.
It is a pervert idea.
And if it was so easy for minors to post stuff you should better watch for pedophiles asking them to submit pictures.
Ohm looks like to an invitation to reboot the legal system and smash the bugs. Rule of law vs. rules of lawyers. As an alternative you can leave the nation and go abroad.
That is the power of competition and the Competition authority wants to get you even more competition, so Microsoft will have to adhere better to standards and competition between solution providers gets stimulated. Competition drives innovation and choice. The choice can be to take IE because it is the best browserr.
And the website only breaks for those that aren't using what almost everyone else is using.
Bingo!
That is called a technical barrier to trade. A competitor as opera has less possibilities to sell his product because it breaks when it adheres to standards and IE as the dominant browser does not adhere to the standard.
When only IE renders websites I cannot simply switch to Linux and browse the web. With FF we can.
OEMs should be able to do this now. That's what the whole antitrust case was about. Do you have any evidence that OEMs aren't bundling FF because MS is telling them not to TODAY?
I am sure the Commission has additional hard evidence in their drawers. Basically there is no need to argue. The Commission would possibly just enforce choice of OEMs or find another remedy. Unbundling is the most simple solution to an objective violation of antitrust laws.
"What does that have to do with the users being "lazy?" If they are happy, who are you to force them to make a choice they don't want to?"
The problem is that through the lazyness of users it leads to less competition, less innovation and more websites that breaks. Competition laws do not aim to change consumers and their behaviour (norm. individualism).
Users do not have to make the choice. OEM A bundles windows with FF, OEM B bundles windows with Opera, OEM C bundles windows with IE.
This is exactly the problem Opera has and that would be fixed with a more even distribution of market shares: standard conformance and browsers could compete on their merits.
The only problem I have with FF is the download. I often have files I want to save in a specific directory and I also do not want to open them with an application.
Otherwise IE once was the better browser, these days are gone. The reason why people still use IE is because it comes preinstalled and preinstallation doesn't cause great efforts.
As of the quality matter my government advises me not to use IE for security reasons.
Honestly would can preference for IE over FF exlain the IE market share? All of the Windows users who use FF explicitly decided against IE because that browser came preinstalled. There are very few people who run IE though FF came preinstalled. There are even less persons who want to use IE with Wine on Linux.
Tying is illegal under antitrust law for a monopolist. Looks quite simple to me. I just wonder why Microsoft lawyers didn't explain them the law. It is not the European Commission that declared it illegal. It is more like the police arrests someone who broke a speed limit because someone else called the police. And you find people arguing that all driver should be free to break speed limits, essentially speed limits are anti-constitutional and driving is fun bla. Bullshit.
German Beamtenschaft is actually a technocratic class of its own. They are not just employees of the government.
The funny thing in the US is that people really do hate administration and still they have fat administration, their federalism is a mess, etc.
"So basically you're proposing that the civil servants in Germany are so much better than those in the USA, that they can actually keep something like that a secret if it actually happened?"
Yes, but they possibly wouldn't do it in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
cool
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/01/29/michael_dell_0_vladimir_putin_1/
I don't know if you read what Putin told Michael Dell in Davos?
You are probably also aware of the plans in Russia and Uzbekistan for a National Operating System. Cuba now joins the club.
The same market allocation is impossible.
Either you understand simple economics or you don't.
If it leads to the same allocation, fine, then why make fuzz. But the fact is that tying works.
/*It's market share is less than what you would expect without bundling.
Oh? And you have research or something to prove this? Or you're just assuming it?*/
you can't argue fact. If *all* windows user have IE included, FF means always to abandon IE in favour of FF. So it is no equal start position.
Everyone who uses FF does it as his deliberate choice. So 20% of all webbrowser users explicitly chose another browser. No one needs to make a choice explicit for IE because it comes prepackaged.
A problem emerges when commercial intersts come into play, e.g. in the case of the Open XML article that tends to converge back to a Microsoft advertisement through edit warfare.
The problem is the echochamber nonsense. That somethin is a "reputable source" doesn't mean it is right. A positivism trap is dangerous, in particular when you deal with technocratic conditions.
"So why is FF gaining market share then? If it were a barrier to trade, FF could not be able to gain significant market share."
It's market share is less than what you would expect without bundling. Imagine Microsoft bundled Zunes with Notebooks powered by Windows. They would surpass Apple in market share. But honestly no one buys Zune and less people would take IE if it wasn't preinstalled.
This is all about an equal start position for the competition. No tying doping for IE.
I was shocked. I think it is totally irresponsible to use minors for advertisement in favour of a product for a company as Microsoft.
Whoever was responsible for that at Microsoft should be fired. I am expecting her to become a furious against the company once she realises what her parents and the Redmond company abused her to do.
It is a pervert idea.
And if it was so easy for minors to post stuff you should better watch for pedophiles asking them to submit pictures.
Kids and sex, this is really low school.
Ohm looks like to an invitation to reboot the legal system and smash the bugs. Rule of law vs. rules of lawyers. As an alternative you can leave the nation and go abroad.
Doesn't always work e.g. when you download from a document register and it is not the direct link to a file.
For getting a file I prefer wget.
That is the power of competition and the Competition authority wants to get you even more competition, so Microsoft will have to adhere better to standards and competition between solution providers gets stimulated. Competition drives innovation and choice. The choice can be to take IE because it is the best browserr.
And the website only breaks for those that aren't using what almost everyone else is using.
Bingo!
That is called a technical barrier to trade. A competitor as opera has less possibilities to sell his product because it breaks when it adheres to standards and IE as the dominant browser does not adhere to the standard.
When only IE renders websites I cannot simply switch to Linux and browse the web. With FF we can.
OEMs should be able to do this now. That's what the whole antitrust case was about. Do you have any evidence that OEMs aren't bundling FF because MS is telling them not to TODAY?
I am sure the Commission has additional hard evidence in their drawers. Basically there is no need to argue. The Commission would possibly just enforce choice of OEMs or find another remedy. Unbundling is the most simple solution to an objective violation of antitrust laws.
You also should not forget that IE was never made available for Linux. So the web monopoly was also blocking desktop competition.
"What does that have to do with the users being "lazy?" If they are happy, who are you to force them to make a choice they don't want to?"
The problem is that through the lazyness of users it leads to less competition, less innovation and more websites that breaks. Competition laws do not aim to change consumers and their behaviour (norm. individualism).
Users do not have to make the choice. OEM A bundles windows with FF, OEM B bundles windows with Opera, OEM C bundles windows with IE.
This is exactly the problem Opera has and that would be fixed with a more even distribution of market shares: standard conformance and browsers could compete on their merits.
The only problem I have with FF is the download. I often have files I want to save in a specific directory and I also do not want to open them with an application.
Otherwise IE once was the better browser, these days are gone. The reason why people still use IE is because it comes preinstalled and preinstallation doesn't cause great efforts.
As of the quality matter my government advises me not to use IE for security reasons.
Honestly would can preference for IE over FF exlain the IE market share? All of the Windows users who use FF explicitly decided against IE because that browser came preinstalled. There are very few people who run IE though FF came preinstalled. There are even less persons who want to use IE with Wine on Linux.
Tying is illegal under antitrust law for a monopolist. Looks quite simple to me. I just wonder why Microsoft lawyers didn't explain them the law. It is not the European Commission that declared it illegal. It is more like the police arrests someone who broke a speed limit because someone else called the police. And you find people arguing that all driver should be free to break speed limits, essentially speed limits are anti-constitutional and driving is fun bla. Bullshit.
Well, Mike Connor is the Mozilla troll who got us Iceweasel. The remarks he made about tying are a good reason to kick him out.
Any government. A single one is sufficient. That it the real value of the approach, the whole domino effect notion.
I would not buy into that propaganda.
He is no simple scientist.
Reichswehr
Wehrmacht
Bundeswehr / Nationale Volksarmee
Bundeswehr
Armed Forces. Means literally "Federal Defense"
German Beamtenschaft is actually a technocratic class of its own. They are not just employees of the government.
The funny thing in the US is that people really do hate administration and still they have fat administration, their federalism is a mess, etc.
"So basically you're proposing that the civil servants in Germany are so much better than those in the USA, that they can actually keep something like that a secret if it actually happened?"
Yes, but they possibly wouldn't do it in the first place.
I didn't hear Andrej Holm complain except that his wife made a agitprop case of it.
The "Federal Trojan" is a political troll.
What the whole debate revealed was that the inner security agencies were apparently unable so far to hack computers to get information.