People did and do make money from creating and providing browsers without an OS attached. People sell browsers as payware directly. That's a separate market under the law. It's not even a question at this point.
You're misunderstanding my point. The browsers sold (for money) are aftermarket 'enhancements' to an OS. The reverse is not true -- nobody provides Desktop OSes without browsers.
You're making an arbitrary distinction, but it's a technological one. One could argue that an OS without BIOS to run on is incomplete and unusable and argue that on technological grounds. Antitrust law is about insuring the integrity of the free market and as such applies not technologies, but markets. It's not about what works with what, but about who buys what (or more specifically profits from what).
How is that arbitrary? I called out numerous, common, and specific consumer scenarios that depend on having a browser present, and concluded from them that an OS sans browser is incomplete. I can call out a specific case to invalidate your scenario as well -- if you get machines sans BIOS -- and bundle the BIOS with the OS -- how do you load the BIOS into the ROM? Technical distinctions are important when talking about technology...
You can contend that all you want, but there isn't any evidence. In terms of the law, they are clearly in violation.
Look, you can repeat that line about the law all you want -- and the EU may well agree with you, fine MS 10 billion dollars, force them to strip IE etc. -- that doesn't mean it's correct. The law might say whatever it wants about monopolies -- that doesn't mean that browsers are a separate market. The EU might rule that browsers are a separate market -- that doesn't mean they are right.
The EU commissioners don't profit from this judgement in any way.
The EU stands to gain overall by reducing dependence on MS software. The EU stands to gain financially by fining MS. The EU commissioners are actors for the EU. You know this already -- I don't have to spell it out. Everyone in this debate looks at it with colored lenses depending on where they stand. The law, and rulings based on it are also colored by these lenses. You need to stop pretending that the law (and results of court cases) are always right/just/fair. You have to accept the law -- no question about that. But in a debate you can certainly call into question it's wisdom, and rulings based on it. In this case, I am calling into question any ruling that says browsers are a separate market -- if the EU commission does rule along those lines, MS has no option but to comply. No question. But they will feel hard-done, and I will agree with them, because the commission will have ruled wrongly, and it will be their conflict of interest that leads to such a ruling.
Well put. Installed base is a significant factor, but at the same time in the software world distribution and production barriers of the physical world don't apply the same way. Linux and OS-X at whatever low market share are worthy and serious competitors to MS -- and both have a price point of 'Free' on their browsers.
In fact, related to what I said in my reply to GP -- both Linux and OS-X accept the reality that a browser is an integral part of a desktop OS -- not a separate market by itself.
My problem with treating IE bundling as an antitrust issue is pretty simple -- I simply don't recognize browsers as being a separate market. They're more like an 'aftermarket accessory'.
Web applications are pretty pervasive these days. Social networking sites, online banking, web mail, Google docs, photo sharing sites, etc. are all examples thereof. In that context, a browser is merely another 'framework' on which applications run. An OS without this framework is an incomplete OS.
So I still contend that the EU is just trying to extract money in this case.
Beta 1 got a 17/100. The RC1 released TODAY got a 20/100.
Ah! My bad. Didn't read your comment properly -- I got the impression from TFA that RC1 wasn't generally available yet, so I just assumed you used IE8 Beta 2. As of now, I too am running IE8 RC1.
Opera/Safari nightlies did it in March. You can download a pre-release of the Opera version here and test it for yourself.
Not necessary -- I don't doubt the veracity of your claim.
The ACID tests focus on features that are useful in the marketplace, but have not been fully implemented. In result, attaining ACID compliance is a GOOD thing.
I don't doubt that ACID compliance is a good thing -- if they test any part of the standard at all, then by all means every single browser out there should aim to ACE the test. I'm just stating the obvious -- the HTML/CSS spec is gigantic -- 100 tests are an infinitesimal fraction of what you need to look at for compliance. Opera scoring 100/100 on Acid 3 gives the impression of Opera being 100% standards compliant -- which is not necessarily true. IE8 scoring 20/100 gives an impression of it being abysmably non-compliant -- which is also not necessarily true. When you put together a complete test suite, it's possible that both browsers score around the same -- just saying..
It's also possible (even likely) that a browser maker could give undue importance to Acid 3, at the cost of other test cases -- because Acid 3 is publicly visible, and sexy, and drives adoption, etc.
Besides, how would you define features that are 'useful in the marketplace'? In any normal test plan you would have priority zero test cases through priority 2 test cases (0 being the most important). It's very unlikely for a spec this size that you would have less than several thousand P0 test cases.
IE8 is BROKEN. Any web developer will hit a wall with its standards support in minutes. It is an indefensible piece of garbage considering where the market is today
That's a little strong, to say the least. It works, it's fast, it's feature rich, and it's secure.
If standards compliance is your main goal, it seems that IE8 is working hard to achieve it. I'm referring to the fact that IE 8 renders pages in strict mode by default, and only reverts to quirks mode when you click the "compatibility view" icon (right of the address bar). That's bound to cause IE users some pain (and consequently reduce it's adoption) because of poorly written sites that will render like crap. But considering IE's market share, this decision will have the largest impact on site designers to get them to author standards compliant sites -- much more than any other browser can have.
So basically, considering where the market is today, wouldn't you agree that IE8 stands the best chance of improving where the market will be tomorrow?
Is a comparison between a relatively old beta build of IE 8 and the most recent nightly build of WebKit / Opera really fair?
Also -- are there just 100 test cases (Acid 3) that indicate standards compliance?
Is it possible that there are actually several thousand test cases needed, and acing Acid 3 is just a question of public perception? (like tuning your software to ace a particular benchmark)?
Do we know that these 100 test cases Acid 3 has chosen (out of the many thousands) are the most important 100 test cases of W3C's spec -- or is it possible that we give Acid tests more importance than they are worth?
I get your larger point, but I don't know if I would call Linux or Netbooks disruptive innovation. I mean, the Linux effort has been ongoing for about 15 years now, and the quest for compactness has existed for as long as laptops themselves have existed - so these are evolutionary changes rather than disruptive changes.
Regarding Netbooks -- at the moment Windows doesn't have much of a handle in that market but it would be premature to think of the netbook market as excluding Windows. There are two key barriers to Windows on Netbooks -- performance and price. If they sense that their core business is at risk, MS will find ways to remove both blockers. All indications are that they have already addressed netbook performance with Win7 (i.e. they have already identified the risk to their core business and are in containment mode). SSD space might have been a blocker in some configs, but that limitation will be rendered obsolete fairly soon if it hasn't already.
Hey man - good luck with the interview should you choose to go for it. I hope you do -- even 6 to 9 months of employment is positive cash flow while you look for a better job. It also makes a better impression to be currently employed while you're searching -- i.e. it gives the impression that you're applying for the job because it's a good fit for you, it's what you want to be doing, etc. (all the right reasons), as opposed to being desperate and willing to take anything (the wrong reason).
Having said that, your views on H1B employees are at least somewhat misplaced. Cutting-edge tech companies have high recruiting standards and need to turn to H1B MS and PhD grads very often. They hire college grads at salaries anywhere between 75k to 100k -- that's hardly a cost-cutting measure. They have a hard time coming by good talent and sometimes have job openings that stay open for quite long while they look for someone suitable.
Now in one of my previous jobs, I've actually seen some 'contractors' being hired from some fairly sketchy body shops -- people who really didn't have the skills they claimed to, and were simply unfit for the stuff they were contracted to do. These random body-shop type companies are the ones that abuse the H1B program and need to be investigated / reigned in. They give H1B workers a bad name, and they do affect our job market negatively. But it's important to make a distinction between these sorts of body shops and tech blue chips that hire top talent.
In fact, as those articles will show you -- they've done so much more that they are now recognized as one of the leaders in developing secure software. I think you're basing your opinions on slightly old data. Your views are valid for MS products released 3/4 years ago or older.
Why does MS need to provide options? Nothing today prevents OEMs from say, installing FF, and hiding the IE icons from the desktop and quick launch toolbar.
Actually, several things do......... All of these are concerns for OEMs.
All the costs you point out are valid costs. They are not valid reasons for moving the burden of bundling browsers on MS. MS will have those same costs -- why should MS bear these costs for products that aren't theirs? Note, MS already does compatibility testing to ensure new windows versions don't break existing apps -- they also invite ISVs to use their facilities for testing their apps (example thereof). This still doesn't mean that MS should take responsibility for the quality of other companies' products, and it certainly doesn't mean these costs should be forced on them. That would increase the cost of windows for all users -- when most users are happy with just one browser. Also note -- Opera themselves could approach OEMs and convince them to offer such a choice -- and offer to supply test suites etc. -- basically work with them to get the deal done..
Again - why does MS need to provide options? Nothing today prevents OEMs from offering choice of browsers on first boot.
Because legally, that isn't good enough. MS broke the law and the market is trashed. Claiming that now, a decade later OEMs should have to put in additional effort and expense and that will somehow make the market a level playing field is simply absurd.
Online applications are a fundamental part of computer use today (email, photo sharing, banking, much more). This means, the web browser is required to 'run' common apps these days. This means, the browser is an integral part of the OS today -- the classical computer science definition cannot be applied to the market. i.e. MS is absolutely within its rights to bundle a browser with it's OS -- without that, it's OS is incomplete. So MS broke no law.
Also note -- I didn't say OEMs should put in the effort/costs to offer choices. I merely pointed out that they have always had the option. The decision of taking the costs will depend on whether they think it will win them more customers. So far, OEMs don't think it will, or they have not been innovative enough to try it, or customers have not been clamoring for it, or some combination thereof. None of this is in MS's control, nor is it their responsibility. They are not standing in the way, and that's all that matters. FF did a great job of realizing the reality of it's position as an 'aftermarket' add-on, and figuring out a business model. Opera did not.
A browser a fundamental end user requirement - MS has to ship one with their OS.
No they don't. They can ship one or they can obey the law and let OEMs pick one and install it. Why can't they let OEMs install whichever one they choose? Is that too onerous? It wouldn't be if MS weren't using it as a way to stifle competition.
Like I said -- the OEMs have always been/and still are free to install a different browser. MS is still well within it's rights to ship a browser in their OS -- it's a fundamental requirement of any consumer OS because of online apps such as webmail, social networking, banking, photo sharing etc. I don't understand your question about it being too onerous -- they want to ship a complete solution -- it's unfair to them, to force them to remove such a key feature.
And then why did the US charge and convict MS of the same crime?
The US DOJ actually accepted the bundling of IE. Do you know of any windows version for sale in the US that is stripped of IE?
Look, I understand the points you are making, but I still think you're reaching the wrong conclusion from those points.
Standards compliance is the result that realizes your goals -- not removing IE. Applications are moving to the web (email, social networking, photo albums, more, for example). This means, from the consumer perspective, the browser has become a fundamental part of the OS. The OEM/user choices I pointed out do exist, and are all the fair choice necessary. It's not fair to MS to cripple windows by stripping a browser from it -- including a browser in windows is a natural/obvious choice. It's a core requirement -- like having a TCP/IP stack. It is valid if you want to take MS to task on standards compliance. I will argue that the 'standards compliance/subversion pie' has a lot of fingers in it (consider Netscape's font tag as one example) -- so it's not just MS that's guilty here -- but that's a whole discussion by itself. Bundling the browser is not limiting choice. It does hurt Opera (and others) financially, but it doesn't limit customer choice -- which is what matters (again -- this is because of the OEM/user options I pointed out earlier) -- so stripping the browser is not the answer. Removing IE just hurts users (I can list a bunch of reasons if you wish).
On standards compliance -- like I said, there's plenty of blame to assign to many parties, and plenty of arguments to consider. I won't claim that MS is completely clean in the matter -- but I will contend that there are mitigating factors. It's a whole topic by itself. One thing worth mentioning is IE7 and IE8's improvements -- indicating that MS is taking stds. compliance seriously -- though Opera/EU would argue that it's a case of "too little too late", and they'd have a point.
Opera is availible for Windows, MacOS, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, QNX, OS/2 and BeOS.
My bad.. doesn't really affect the logic of the case though. How do Opera's sales on OS-X get affected by the lack of choice on that platform? The fact that OEMs can install Opera as the default, or offer a choice to the user -- this can't even be done on OS-X. Why is this non-lockout an offense at 90% market share but true lockout is not an offense at 10% market share?
I'd be pretty pissed of if I could buy a car with exactly one upholstery color and shape and if the seats would be deliberately made incompatible with third-party upholstery.
Bad analogy. IE is customizable (toolbars, default search engine, favorites, homepage etc.). Consider those your color and shape. The basic analogy was good -- you're stretching it too far now.
Besides, I expect to be able to choose what upholstery I want before I buy a car, not after
Bad analogy again. You can only make that choice once in a car. Whatever is customizable, you can change it any time you want. See what I mean about taking an analogy too far?
And if my only choice is to put my upholstery above the one that is provided, it would piss me off to.
Bad analogy again. It makes no tangible difference if IE is still on the machine, if you never have to use it. It makes a tangible difference in the upholstery case.
Instead of splitting hairs over the analogy -- how about dealing with the actual issue at hand? And simply acknowledging that choice already exists.
Really, would you say that a drug dealer/drug rehabilitation center owner is a successful business? You are failing to understand then, what is "anti-trust law" and why it is there.
Please explain your analogy. How does MS relate to the drug dealer, and how does it relate to the drug rehabilitation center, and how is antitrust law linked to drug dealers and drug rehab center?
You probably should learn about free market economics.
From your comment, I see how well you understand it.
Knowing about something is not the same as accepting it to be true/sensible/fair/desiarable/whatever. I'm not an economist, but I've done more than my fair share of research on antitrust/competition/monopoly etc.. I don't accept something I read if it doesn't make sense. On slashdot itself, countless people have argued over the wisdom/fairness/whatever of all kinds of laws relating to censorship, freedom, privacy, intellectual property etc. The only law everyone here likes to stand behind unquestioningly is antitrust law. And only because it hurts MS -- so it must have been written by people wiser than us -- who are we to question it?
Well in EU there is NO gray area. Anti-trust law applies when a company can leverage it's, lawful, dominance in one market to dominate another market.
There is nothing but grey area. Let me paint a few shades:
1. What is the market Opera is vying for? Is it the 'Windows PC' browser market? Is it the 'PC' browser market? Is it just the 'browser market' (OS/Architecture be damned)?
2. What is the definition of an Operating System? Is it the classical computer science definition? Or is it based on a consumer's expectations of what they should get when they buy an OS?
Opera (on the desktop) is only available for windows. So I could argue that Opera is in the 'Windows PC' browser market. Any player in this market stands to lose if MS bundles IE, but gain if MS is not allowed to. For them to gain, however, you have to penalize MS in the OS market -- because now they have been forced to sell an incomplete product. I could also argue that the 'Windows PC' browser market is, by definition, an aftermarket.
<obligatory car analogy>
You expect any car you buy to have upholstered seats. This does mean that custom car upholstry people lose business. But you can't rule that car companies have to stop providing upholstry -- even though there is undeniable proof that this hurts the aftermarket upholstry people. Even if there was one car company with 90% market control such a ruling would have no basis.
</obligatory car analogy>
You're correct, however, in that there is to my knowledge no publicly available proof that such a clause is currently in those contracts.
Exactly!
Yet everybody on/. and on this thread posts as if this is a truism. There's simply nothing for the EU to act on here. They're just making an ATM withdrawal - plain and simple.
Put aside antitrust law for a minute and then tell me what law MS has broken
Put murder aside for a second and what law did Jeffrey Dahmer break?
???
I'm not saying "don't apply the law equally to everyone". I'm making an argument for the law being flawed. All economists do not all see eye to eye on antitrust issues, you should know. There is room for legitimage disagreement, as unpopular as that opinion might be.
You don't need antitrust law for a free market.
Well, that is why you are wrong. When you have a monopoly, especially one like Microsoft, you don't have a free market
No, you're wrong. You don't have an efficient free market with a monopoly.
What do you mean by "especially one like Microsoft"? What other monopolies are you so experienced with that you have some special considerations you want to apply to MS?
The biggest flaw in EU's case -- they fail to account for the expanding role of the OS over the last decade plus. Video/Picture viewers, music players, web browsers are simply part of the OS these days. The classical computer science definition is not the same as the consumer's definition.
MS can not help itself BUT be unethical. It is not just what they know; it is what they are based on.
Huh?
If MS is broken up, I think that we will see true innovation come from at least one of the groups assuming that they create multiple companies with each having initial duplicate code.
Huh??
How do they all get duplicate code? The online services company would get the code for MSN, Live Services, etc. The windows company would get the windows code. The server and tools company would get the SQL and visual studio code. The consumer electronics company would get the Xbox and Zune code etc.
That is, of course, the Bill Gates argument. "I'm successful, so let me be successful." Al Capone was successful as well. Standard Oil was successful too.
Not at all. I'm saying, punish them for their offenses -- not for their success.
Microsoft is successful because of its illegal and unethical actions. Its "success" is at the expense of the consumer and the industry. That sort of "success" denies a functioning market place of greater success.
Put aside antitrust law for a minute and then tell me what law MS has broken. If you think it was bundling browsers, pass a law saying "OS makers cannot bundle browsers" and apply it to everyone. If you think it was locking out other OS vendors, pass a law saying "exclusivity clauses cannot be applied to OS sales" and apply it to everyone. If you think it overcharged for licensing it's IP or something, pass a law saying "patents can only be licensed for x % of revenue" and apply it to everyone. If you think it hid internal APIs/protocols/documentation - pass a law saying "you cannot hide your internal APIs/protocols/documentation" - but apply it to everyone. By all means, along the way, fine MS for these breaches as well.
Note that you don't need antitrust concepts for these corrective actions. Also note that this way you get clear laws that apply to the entire industry. Right now you're getting stuff that just applies to one player, but allows the bit player do anything they please. Eventually one of the bit players will become the new monopoly (because the old monopoly was so fucked-over by antitrust regulations). And when that happens we'll need to go through a whole new antitrust song and dance with this new monopoly over all the same damn issues.
You don't need antitrust law for a free market. There are too many grey areas - at exactly what point does it come into effect, and what does it apply to? Does a company have a way of knowing what (previously legal) action became illegal on crossing this invisible threshold, or does it have to just wait for a DOJ investigation to find out? The measures enacted are too specific. The process takes too long to bring relief to the aggrieved party if any. Antitrust law is absolute and utter bullshit -- and instead of protecting free markets it actually biases it against any player that had the 'misfortune' of becomming too successful.
I just know that in my experience, the technology is there and it works pretty well.
I guess we've just had different experiences then. I use QuickMark for QR/Datamatrix codes and the MS tag scanner for MS Tags (obv.) -- on my phone I was getting mixed results with some QR codes (like the ones I pointed out), but much better results with MS tags. The hardware is common in this case.
I could probably be accused of being anti-MS, paranoid about privacy concerns, or a number of other things, but NIH is not really one of them in this case. I'm proposing using the already existing technologies instead of needlessly inventing new alternatives that I don't see as adding anything significant.
Why is it ok to have QRs + Datamatrix + others, but not ok to have the same mix + MS tags then? That's the reason I was talking about reverse NIH -- it's not that I think you're being particularly anti-MS or anything -- its just that one yardstick of redundancy applied to all existing formats, but when MS's format enters the game (and it's the only one that brings anything different to the table, IMHO), it's "needlessly inventing new alternatives"?
It has a long history of pushing for H1B visa increases intended to reduce the average wage of skilled tech workers.
MS pays on the 67th percentile (so top one-third) of companies in it's industry. Seattle is not as expensive as say Silicon Valley/NYC/the bay area, so 67th percentile is pretty decent. Second -- MS has super-rigorous interviewing standards, and fires under-performers quickly. They're not looking for H1Bs to cut costs. To be among the best in the world, you gotta hire from among the best in the world. It's illogical to think that the best programmers in the world are only Americans.
There are many companies that do abuse H1B guidelines to lower payroll costs. MS (Apple/Google/etc.) are not among them. In case you aren't aware, these companies are always on the lookout for talent -- they poach talent from each other all the time. The bidding war on talent is always on.
Why when there are so many people out of work are they STILL pushing H1B visas?
Because people working on J2EE/Ruby/whatever web technology are probably not qualified to work on the next version of Visual Studio/SQL Server/Windows.
Also, Microsoft is an abnormally profitable company. That comes from somewhere. For every dollar that Microsoft makes in profit, that could have been $0.25 ~~ $0.30 to a normally profitable company. Which means, because of Microsoft's monopoly, we have one business employing fewer people instead of 3 or 4 business of roughly the same size employing 3 or 4 times that number of people. Microsoft should be broken up by the government as an anti-competitive monopoly.
You've actually nailed everything that's wrong with antitrust law!
Your suggestion is basically this: MS is really successful. Like, really really successful. If we were to just give a little bit of that success to other companies, many other companies would be successful as well. To achieve this distribution of success, we should break up Microsoft. Basically, you're advocating punishing success!
So nobody is saying Microsoft can't bundle a browser - they just have to provide options. Make it so you can choose your browser on install, make it so the OEM can choose a browser to bundle with default installs, whatever. Some sort of choice. You can bundle fifty browsers if you want. Just don't bundle your own and only your own.
I don't agree with you at all:
Why does MS need to provide options? Nothing today prevents OEMs from say, installing FF, and hiding the IE icons from the desktop and quick launch toolbar.
Again - why does MS need to provide options? Nothing today prevents OEMs from offering choice of browsers on first boot.
How does MS bundling more than one browser solve the problem? If MS were to bundle say, IE + FF - then Opera would be at an even bigger disadvantage than it is today. If they were to bundle IE + FF + Opera, then some other random browser maker will sue claiming they are at a disadvantage. And the disadvantage will generally last for one windows version -- which is at least 3 years on average.
So the root of all 3 questions above -- why is it incumbent upon MS to provide a browser option, when the OEMs are already free to do that?
A browser a fundamental end user requirement - MS has to ship one with their OS. Obviously they choose to ship their browser. In terms of different defaults or offering choices to the end-user, OEMs have always had the ability to do that. The EU simply has no business getting involved here. They're just making another withdrawal from their personal ATM - that's all it is.
Slashdot Mirror
People did and do make money from creating and providing browsers without an OS attached. People sell browsers as payware directly. That's a separate market under the law. It's not even a question at this point.
You're misunderstanding my point. The browsers sold (for money) are aftermarket 'enhancements' to an OS. The reverse is not true -- nobody provides Desktop OSes without browsers.
You're making an arbitrary distinction, but it's a technological one. One could argue that an OS without BIOS to run on is incomplete and unusable and argue that on technological grounds. Antitrust law is about insuring the integrity of the free market and as such applies not technologies, but markets. It's not about what works with what, but about who buys what (or more specifically profits from what).
How is that arbitrary? I called out numerous, common, and specific consumer scenarios that depend on having a browser present, and concluded from them that an OS sans browser is incomplete. I can call out a specific case to invalidate your scenario as well -- if you get machines sans BIOS -- and bundle the BIOS with the OS -- how do you load the BIOS into the ROM? Technical distinctions are important when talking about technology...
You can contend that all you want, but there isn't any evidence. In terms of the law, they are clearly in violation.
Look, you can repeat that line about the law all you want -- and the EU may well agree with you, fine MS 10 billion dollars, force them to strip IE etc. -- that doesn't mean it's correct. The law might say whatever it wants about monopolies -- that doesn't mean that browsers are a separate market. The EU might rule that browsers are a separate market -- that doesn't mean they are right.
The EU commissioners don't profit from this judgement in any way.
The EU stands to gain overall by reducing dependence on MS software. The EU stands to gain financially by fining MS. The EU commissioners are actors for the EU. You know this already -- I don't have to spell it out. Everyone in this debate looks at it with colored lenses depending on where they stand. The law, and rulings based on it are also colored by these lenses. You need to stop pretending that the law (and results of court cases) are always right/just/fair. You have to accept the law -- no question about that. But in a debate you can certainly call into question it's wisdom, and rulings based on it. In this case, I am calling into question any ruling that says browsers are a separate market -- if the EU commission does rule along those lines, MS has no option but to comply. No question. But they will feel hard-done, and I will agree with them, because the commission will have ruled wrongly, and it will be their conflict of interest that leads to such a ruling.
Well put. Installed base is a significant factor, but at the same time in the software world distribution and production barriers of the physical world don't apply the same way. Linux and OS-X at whatever low market share are worthy and serious competitors to MS -- and both have a price point of 'Free' on their browsers.
In fact, related to what I said in my reply to GP -- both Linux and OS-X accept the reality that a browser is an integral part of a desktop OS -- not a separate market by itself.
My problem with treating IE bundling as an antitrust issue is pretty simple -- I simply don't recognize browsers as being a separate market. They're more like an 'aftermarket accessory'.
Web applications are pretty pervasive these days. Social networking sites, online banking, web mail, Google docs, photo sharing sites, etc. are all examples thereof. In that context, a browser is merely another 'framework' on which applications run. An OS without this framework is an incomplete OS.
So I still contend that the EU is just trying to extract money in this case.
I get your point -- that's a lot of very specific and very valid complaints that you have there.
Beta 1 got a 17/100. The RC1 released TODAY got a 20/100.
Ah! My bad. Didn't read your comment properly -- I got the impression from TFA that RC1 wasn't generally available yet, so I just assumed you used IE8 Beta 2. As of now, I too am running IE8 RC1.
Opera/Safari nightlies did it in March. You can download a pre-release of the Opera version here and test it for yourself.
Not necessary -- I don't doubt the veracity of your claim.
The ACID tests focus on features that are useful in the marketplace, but have not been fully implemented. In result, attaining ACID compliance is a GOOD thing.
I don't doubt that ACID compliance is a good thing -- if they test any part of the standard at all, then by all means every single browser out there should aim to ACE the test. I'm just stating the obvious -- the HTML/CSS spec is gigantic -- 100 tests are an infinitesimal fraction of what you need to look at for compliance. Opera scoring 100/100 on Acid 3 gives the impression of Opera being 100% standards compliant -- which is not necessarily true. IE8 scoring 20/100 gives an impression of it being abysmably non-compliant -- which is also not necessarily true. When you put together a complete test suite, it's possible that both browsers score around the same -- just saying..
It's also possible (even likely) that a browser maker could give undue importance to Acid 3, at the cost of other test cases -- because Acid 3 is publicly visible, and sexy, and drives adoption, etc.
Besides, how would you define features that are 'useful in the marketplace'? In any normal test plan you would have priority zero test cases through priority 2 test cases (0 being the most important). It's very unlikely for a spec this size that you would have less than several thousand P0 test cases.
IE8 is BROKEN. Any web developer will hit a wall with its standards support in minutes. It is an indefensible piece of garbage considering where the market is today
That's a little strong, to say the least. It works, it's fast, it's feature rich, and it's secure.
If standards compliance is your main goal, it seems that IE8 is working hard to achieve it. I'm referring to the fact that IE 8 renders pages in strict mode by default, and only reverts to quirks mode when you click the "compatibility view" icon (right of the address bar). That's bound to cause IE users some pain (and consequently reduce it's adoption) because of poorly written sites that will render like crap. But considering IE's market share, this decision will have the largest impact on site designers to get them to author standards compliant sites -- much more than any other browser can have. So basically, considering where the market is today, wouldn't you agree that IE8 stands the best chance of improving where the market will be tomorrow?
Is a comparison between a relatively old beta build of IE 8 and the most recent nightly build of WebKit / Opera really fair? Also -- are there just 100 test cases (Acid 3) that indicate standards compliance? Is it possible that there are actually several thousand test cases needed, and acing Acid 3 is just a question of public perception? (like tuning your software to ace a particular benchmark)? Do we know that these 100 test cases Acid 3 has chosen (out of the many thousands) are the most important 100 test cases of W3C's spec -- or is it possible that we give Acid tests more importance than they are worth?
I get your larger point, but I don't know if I would call Linux or Netbooks disruptive innovation. I mean, the Linux effort has been ongoing for about 15 years now, and the quest for compactness has existed for as long as laptops themselves have existed - so these are evolutionary changes rather than disruptive changes.
Regarding Netbooks -- at the moment Windows doesn't have much of a handle in that market but it would be premature to think of the netbook market as excluding Windows. There are two key barriers to Windows on Netbooks -- performance and price. If they sense that their core business is at risk, MS will find ways to remove both blockers. All indications are that they have already addressed netbook performance with Win7 (i.e. they have already identified the risk to their core business and are in containment mode). SSD space might have been a blocker in some configs, but that limitation will be rendered obsolete fairly soon if it hasn't already.
Well said!
Hey man - good luck with the interview should you choose to go for it. I hope you do -- even 6 to 9 months of employment is positive cash flow while you look for a better job. It also makes a better impression to be currently employed while you're searching -- i.e. it gives the impression that you're applying for the job because it's a good fit for you, it's what you want to be doing, etc. (all the right reasons), as opposed to being desperate and willing to take anything (the wrong reason).
Having said that, your views on H1B employees are at least somewhat misplaced. Cutting-edge tech companies have high recruiting standards and need to turn to H1B MS and PhD grads very often. They hire college grads at salaries anywhere between 75k to 100k -- that's hardly a cost-cutting measure. They have a hard time coming by good talent and sometimes have job openings that stay open for quite long while they look for someone suitable.
Now in one of my previous jobs, I've actually seen some 'contractors' being hired from some fairly sketchy body shops -- people who really didn't have the skills they claimed to, and were simply unfit for the stuff they were contracted to do. These random body-shop type companies are the ones that abuse the H1B program and need to be investigated / reigned in. They give H1B workers a bad name, and they do affect our job market negatively. But it's important to make a distinction between these sorts of body shops and tech blue chips that hire top talent.
Microsoft becomes high priest of secure software development
Microsoft looks to spread secure software expertise
In fact, as those articles will show you -- they've done so much more that they are now recognized as one of the leaders in developing secure software. I think you're basing your opinions on slightly old data. Your views are valid for MS products released 3/4 years ago or older.
Why does MS need to provide options? Nothing today prevents OEMs from say, installing FF, and hiding the IE icons from the desktop and quick launch toolbar.
Actually, several things do ... ... ... All of these are concerns for OEMs.
All the costs you point out are valid costs. They are not valid reasons for moving the burden of bundling browsers on MS. MS will have those same costs -- why should MS bear these costs for products that aren't theirs? Note, MS already does compatibility testing to ensure new windows versions don't break existing apps -- they also invite ISVs to use their facilities for testing their apps (example thereof). This still doesn't mean that MS should take responsibility for the quality of other companies' products, and it certainly doesn't mean these costs should be forced on them. That would increase the cost of windows for all users -- when most users are happy with just one browser. Also note -- Opera themselves could approach OEMs and convince them to offer such a choice -- and offer to supply test suites etc. -- basically work with them to get the deal done..
Again - why does MS need to provide options? Nothing today prevents OEMs from offering choice of browsers on first boot.
Because legally, that isn't good enough. MS broke the law and the market is trashed. Claiming that now, a decade later OEMs should have to put in additional effort and expense and that will somehow make the market a level playing field is simply absurd.
Online applications are a fundamental part of computer use today (email, photo sharing, banking, much more). This means, the web browser is required to 'run' common apps these days. This means, the browser is an integral part of the OS today -- the classical computer science definition cannot be applied to the market. i.e. MS is absolutely within its rights to bundle a browser with it's OS -- without that, it's OS is incomplete. So MS broke no law.
Also note -- I didn't say OEMs should put in the effort/costs to offer choices. I merely pointed out that they have always had the option. The decision of taking the costs will depend on whether they think it will win them more customers. So far, OEMs don't think it will, or they have not been innovative enough to try it, or customers have not been clamoring for it, or some combination thereof. None of this is in MS's control, nor is it their responsibility. They are not standing in the way, and that's all that matters. FF did a great job of realizing the reality of it's position as an 'aftermarket' add-on, and figuring out a business model. Opera did not.
A browser a fundamental end user requirement - MS has to ship one with their OS.
No they don't. They can ship one or they can obey the law and let OEMs pick one and install it. Why can't they let OEMs install whichever one they choose? Is that too onerous? It wouldn't be if MS weren't using it as a way to stifle competition.
Like I said -- the OEMs have always been/and still are free to install a different browser. MS is still well within it's rights to ship a browser in their OS -- it's a fundamental requirement of any consumer OS because of online apps such as webmail, social networking, banking, photo sharing etc. I don't understand your question about it being too onerous -- they want to ship a complete solution -- it's unfair to them, to force them to remove such a key feature.
And then why did the US charge and convict MS of the same crime?
The US DOJ actually accepted the bundling of IE. Do you know of any windows version for sale in the US that is stripped of IE?
Look, I understand the points you are making, but I still think you're reaching the wrong conclusion from those points.
Standards compliance is the result that realizes your goals -- not removing IE. Applications are moving to the web (email, social networking, photo albums, more, for example). This means, from the consumer perspective, the browser has become a fundamental part of the OS. The OEM/user choices I pointed out do exist, and are all the fair choice necessary. It's not fair to MS to cripple windows by stripping a browser from it -- including a browser in windows is a natural/obvious choice. It's a core requirement -- like having a TCP/IP stack. It is valid if you want to take MS to task on standards compliance. I will argue that the 'standards compliance/subversion pie' has a lot of fingers in it (consider Netscape's font tag as one example) -- so it's not just MS that's guilty here -- but that's a whole discussion by itself. Bundling the browser is not limiting choice. It does hurt Opera (and others) financially, but it doesn't limit customer choice -- which is what matters (again -- this is because of the OEM/user options I pointed out earlier) -- so stripping the browser is not the answer. Removing IE just hurts users (I can list a bunch of reasons if you wish).
On standards compliance -- like I said, there's plenty of blame to assign to many parties, and plenty of arguments to consider. I won't claim that MS is completely clean in the matter -- but I will contend that there are mitigating factors. It's a whole topic by itself. One thing worth mentioning is IE7 and IE8's improvements -- indicating that MS is taking stds. compliance seriously -- though Opera/EU would argue that it's a case of "too little too late", and they'd have a point.
Opera is availible for Windows, MacOS, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, QNX, OS/2 and BeOS.
My bad.. doesn't really affect the logic of the case though. How do Opera's sales on OS-X get affected by the lack of choice on that platform? The fact that OEMs can install Opera as the default, or offer a choice to the user -- this can't even be done on OS-X. Why is this non-lockout an offense at 90% market share but true lockout is not an offense at 10% market share?
I'd be pretty pissed of if I could buy a car with exactly one upholstery color and shape and if the seats would be deliberately made incompatible with third-party upholstery.
Bad analogy. IE is customizable (toolbars, default search engine, favorites, homepage etc.). Consider those your color and shape. The basic analogy was good -- you're stretching it too far now.
Besides, I expect to be able to choose what upholstery I want before I buy a car, not after
Bad analogy again. You can only make that choice once in a car. Whatever is customizable, you can change it any time you want. See what I mean about taking an analogy too far?
And if my only choice is to put my upholstery above the one that is provided, it would piss me off to.
Bad analogy again. It makes no tangible difference if IE is still on the machine, if you never have to use it. It makes a tangible difference in the upholstery case.
Instead of splitting hairs over the analogy -- how about dealing with the actual issue at hand? And simply acknowledging that choice already exists.
Fair enough..
I just can't wait for these formats to catch on a bit more in the US - it's frustrating the way we're always lagging in mobile stuff..
Really, would you say that a drug dealer/drug rehabilitation center owner is a successful business? You are failing to understand then, what is "anti-trust law" and why it is there.
Please explain your analogy. How does MS relate to the drug dealer, and how does it relate to the drug rehabilitation center, and how is antitrust law linked to drug dealers and drug rehab center?
You probably should learn about free market economics.
From your comment, I see how well you understand it.
Knowing about something is not the same as accepting it to be true/sensible/fair/desiarable/whatever. I'm not an economist, but I've done more than my fair share of research on antitrust/competition/monopoly etc.. I don't accept something I read if it doesn't make sense. On slashdot itself, countless people have argued over the wisdom/fairness/whatever of all kinds of laws relating to censorship, freedom, privacy, intellectual property etc. The only law everyone here likes to stand behind unquestioningly is antitrust law. And only because it hurts MS -- so it must have been written by people wiser than us -- who are we to question it?
Well in EU there is NO gray area. Anti-trust law applies when a company can leverage it's, lawful, dominance in one market to dominate another market.
There is nothing but grey area . Let me paint a few shades:
1. What is the market Opera is vying for? Is it the 'Windows PC' browser market? Is it the 'PC' browser market? Is it just the 'browser market' (OS/Architecture be damned)?
2. What is the definition of an Operating System? Is it the classical computer science definition? Or is it based on a consumer's expectations of what they should get when they buy an OS?
Opera (on the desktop) is only available for windows. So I could argue that Opera is in the 'Windows PC' browser market. Any player in this market stands to lose if MS bundles IE, but gain if MS is not allowed to. For them to gain, however, you have to penalize MS in the OS market -- because now they have been forced to sell an incomplete product. I could also argue that the 'Windows PC' browser market is, by definition, an aftermarket.
<obligatory car analogy>
You expect any car you buy to have upholstered seats. This does mean that custom car upholstry people lose business. But you can't rule that car companies have to stop providing upholstry -- even though there is undeniable proof that this hurts the aftermarket upholstry people. Even if there was one car company with 90% market control such a ruling would have no basis.
</obligatory car analogy>
You're correct, however, in that there is to my knowledge no publicly available proof that such a clause is currently in those contracts.
Exactly!
Yet everybody on /. and on this thread posts as if this is a truism. There's simply nothing for the EU to act on here. They're just making an ATM withdrawal - plain and simple.
Put aside antitrust law for a minute and then tell me what law MS has broken
Put murder aside for a second and what law did Jeffrey Dahmer break?
??? I'm not saying "don't apply the law equally to everyone". I'm making an argument for the law being flawed. All economists do not all see eye to eye on antitrust issues, you should know. There is room for legitimage disagreement, as unpopular as that opinion might be.
You don't need antitrust law for a free market.
Well, that is why you are wrong. When you have a monopoly, especially one like Microsoft, you don't have a free market
No, you're wrong. You don't have an efficient free market with a monopoly.
What do you mean by "especially one like Microsoft"? What other monopolies are you so experienced with that you have some special considerations you want to apply to MS?
The biggest flaw in EU's case -- they fail to account for the expanding role of the OS over the last decade plus. Video/Picture viewers, music players, web browsers are simply part of the OS these days. The classical computer science definition is not the same as the consumer's definition.
Factually incorrect. Can you point us to the clause in the T & C? You don't think Opera would have mentioned it in their complaint?
MS can not help itself BUT be unethical. It is not just what they know; it is what they are based on.
Huh?
If MS is broken up, I think that we will see true innovation come from at least one of the groups assuming that they create multiple companies with each having initial duplicate code.
Huh??
How do they all get duplicate code? The online services company would get the code for MSN, Live Services, etc. The windows company would get the windows code. The server and tools company would get the SQL and visual studio code. The consumer electronics company would get the Xbox and Zune code etc.
That is, of course, the Bill Gates argument. "I'm successful, so let me be successful." Al Capone was successful as well. Standard Oil was successful too.
Not at all. I'm saying, punish them for their offenses -- not for their success.
Microsoft is successful because of its illegal and unethical actions. Its "success" is at the expense of the consumer and the industry. That sort of "success" denies a functioning market place of greater success.
Put aside antitrust law for a minute and then tell me what law MS has broken. If you think it was bundling browsers, pass a law saying "OS makers cannot bundle browsers" and apply it to everyone. If you think it was locking out other OS vendors, pass a law saying "exclusivity clauses cannot be applied to OS sales" and apply it to everyone. If you think it overcharged for licensing it's IP or something, pass a law saying "patents can only be licensed for x % of revenue" and apply it to everyone. If you think it hid internal APIs/protocols/documentation - pass a law saying "you cannot hide your internal APIs/protocols/documentation" - but apply it to everyone. By all means, along the way, fine MS for these breaches as well.
Note that you don't need antitrust concepts for these corrective actions. Also note that this way you get clear laws that apply to the entire industry. Right now you're getting stuff that just applies to one player, but allows the bit player do anything they please. Eventually one of the bit players will become the new monopoly (because the old monopoly was so fucked-over by antitrust regulations). And when that happens we'll need to go through a whole new antitrust song and dance with this new monopoly over all the same damn issues.
You don't need antitrust law for a free market. There are too many grey areas - at exactly what point does it come into effect, and what does it apply to? Does a company have a way of knowing what (previously legal) action became illegal on crossing this invisible threshold, or does it have to just wait for a DOJ investigation to find out? The measures enacted are too specific. The process takes too long to bring relief to the aggrieved party if any. Antitrust law is absolute and utter bullshit -- and instead of protecting free markets it actually biases it against any player that had the 'misfortune' of becomming too successful.
I just know that in my experience, the technology is there and it works pretty well.
I guess we've just had different experiences then. I use QuickMark for QR/Datamatrix codes and the MS tag scanner for MS Tags (obv.) -- on my phone I was getting mixed results with some QR codes (like the ones I pointed out), but much better results with MS tags. The hardware is common in this case.
I could probably be accused of being anti-MS, paranoid about privacy concerns, or a number of other things, but NIH is not really one of them in this case. I'm proposing using the already existing technologies instead of needlessly inventing new alternatives that I don't see as adding anything significant.
Why is it ok to have QRs + Datamatrix + others, but not ok to have the same mix + MS tags then? That's the reason I was talking about reverse NIH -- it's not that I think you're being particularly anti-MS or anything -- its just that one yardstick of redundancy applied to all existing formats, but when MS's format enters the game (and it's the only one that brings anything different to the table, IMHO), it's "needlessly inventing new alternatives"?
It has a long history of pushing for H1B visa increases intended to reduce the average wage of skilled tech workers.
MS pays on the 67th percentile (so top one-third) of companies in it's industry. Seattle is not as expensive as say Silicon Valley/NYC/the bay area, so 67th percentile is pretty decent. Second -- MS has super-rigorous interviewing standards, and fires under-performers quickly. They're not looking for H1Bs to cut costs. To be among the best in the world, you gotta hire from among the best in the world. It's illogical to think that the best programmers in the world are only Americans.
There are many companies that do abuse H1B guidelines to lower payroll costs. MS (Apple/Google/etc.) are not among them. In case you aren't aware, these companies are always on the lookout for talent -- they poach talent from each other all the time. The bidding war on talent is always on.
Why when there are so many people out of work are they STILL pushing H1B visas?
Because people working on J2EE/Ruby/whatever web technology are probably not qualified to work on the next version of Visual Studio/SQL Server/Windows.
Also, Microsoft is an abnormally profitable company. That comes from somewhere. For every dollar that Microsoft makes in profit, that could have been $0.25 ~~ $0.30 to a normally profitable company. Which means, because of Microsoft's monopoly, we have one business employing fewer people instead of 3 or 4 business of roughly the same size employing 3 or 4 times that number of people. Microsoft should be broken up by the government as an anti-competitive monopoly.
You've actually nailed everything that's wrong with antitrust law!
Your suggestion is basically this: MS is really successful. Like, really really successful. If we were to just give a little bit of that success to other companies, many other companies would be successful as well. To achieve this distribution of success, we should break up Microsoft. Basically, you're advocating punishing success!
So nobody is saying Microsoft can't bundle a browser - they just have to provide options. Make it so you can choose your browser on install, make it so the OEM can choose a browser to bundle with default installs, whatever. Some sort of choice. You can bundle fifty browsers if you want. Just don't bundle your own and only your own.
I don't agree with you at all:
Why does MS need to provide options? Nothing today prevents OEMs from say, installing FF, and hiding the IE icons from the desktop and quick launch toolbar.
Again - why does MS need to provide options? Nothing today prevents OEMs from offering choice of browsers on first boot.
How does MS bundling more than one browser solve the problem? If MS were to bundle say, IE + FF - then Opera would be at an even bigger disadvantage than it is today. If they were to bundle IE + FF + Opera, then some other random browser maker will sue claiming they are at a disadvantage. And the disadvantage will generally last for one windows version -- which is at least 3 years on average.
So the root of all 3 questions above -- why is it incumbent upon MS to provide a browser option, when the OEMs are already free to do that?
A browser a fundamental end user requirement - MS has to ship one with their OS. Obviously they choose to ship their browser. In terms of different defaults or offering choices to the end-user, OEMs have always had the ability to do that. The EU simply has no business getting involved here. They're just making another withdrawal from their personal ATM - that's all it is.