or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Europe revives claims of Microsoft web browser monopoly
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Europe revives claims of Microsoft web browser monopoly - Page 2

post #41 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduararipe View Post

Oh I see, so if there's something wrong with the app, lets say Safari, I just delete from the applications folder. In Windows I would have to remove from add/remove windows features in the add/remove programs configuration pane.

So the point is not making IE so embedded, so you can remove and use something else like Firefox. What I don't see is the fine line between programs and OS Utilities... like Keychain.

Tank-you!

No you can't remove iE from add/remove windows features in the add/remove programs configuration pane cause iE is part of the entire OS, it's embedded! lol. let me make it a bit clearer, what good does locking up your front gate do if you always leave all your house doors & windows open, Viruses and worms almost all go for iE cause they know it's there and vulnerable, if a virus is crafted to attack your machine throw iE but iE was deleted a year ago how the heck is it going to get in. Keychain on macs sit in Utilities and it keeps passwords that's it, OS X prompts your for a password every time something is requesting permission to the core of the OS only, but not like Vista where even a freggin picture is a threat cause it has access to everything. Permissions are highly enforced in OS X, a freggin picture for example has no business changing all your files or deleting them don't you think
post #42 of 150
I just think that EU is simply being stupid for reviving that claim. The main reason that IE dominated the market is simply because IE had a horrible opponent, which is Netscape 4.x to compete with. Bundling a product with M$ Windows is no magic formula. The rise of iTunes and Firefox is an obvious indication that people are smart enough to choose better product that doesn't come along with M$ Windows.

Plus, the EU overestimated M$'s influence on the market. The downfall of IE's market share only goes to show that M$ does not have the power and influence as it used to have and that people are indeed smart enough to make choices. EU should really stop whining about this stupid claim and worry about something else, like something more important.
post #43 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooch View Post

so.....

how exactly would you download a browser if your OS didn't come with one?

You have a very good point. Although it's definitely possible to download a browser without a browser, it's just that most people don't know how to do so.

Plus, as far as I know, PC vendors can technically uninstall (or hide, which is a better description) IE and install other browsers on their PCs. However, I don't think any PC vendor is going to bother that, and I don't think they need to.
post #44 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechengit View Post

I just think that EU is simply being stupid for reviving that claim. The main reason that IE dominated the market is simply because IE had a horrible opponent, which is Netscape 4.x to compete with. Bundling a product with M$ Windows is no magic formula. The rise of iTunes and Firefox is an obvious indication that people are smart enough to choose better product that doesn't come along with M$ Windows.

I agree. Also, it's not like you need to remove IE in order to use competing products - who cares if it's tied into the system? It's just like if the finder windows happened to have some added functionality.

Quote:
Plus, the EU overestimated M$'s influence on the market. The downfall of IE's market share only goes to show that M$ does not have the power and influence as it used to have and that people are indeed smart enough to make choices. EU should really stop whining about this stupid claim and worry about something else, like something more important.

Do you think the EU may have other, less altruistic motives for doing this? Beyond the obvious cash grab for the EU, just think of the precedent this sets as far as expanding their power to regulate business. I can't be sure, of course, but in my opinion, it's not about Microsoft's market share at all - it's the huge publicity this case would get, combined with the unpopular image that Microsoft has in the public. To me, it seems like they thought "Let's go after the biggest target we can, but choose someone who's unpopular enough that we can get away with it." I think that to these people, public perception isn't just an intangible thing, to them its reality. I mean, the EU is just made up of people, like you and me, people who like to grow their departments and expand their role in the world. There may be other reasons, i don't know, but i find it hard to think of the government as somehow 'above' these types of motivations. Am I being to harsh here?
post #45 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

Bullshit. When IE 6.0 came out those web standards did not exist. Opera's officers which created the ACID 2.0 and 3.0 tests were the ones that pushed for various CSS standards. In fact when Acid 2.0 was released they challenged Microsoft to pass it when hypocritically the Opera browser hadn't passed yet. IE 8 does pass 2 and is better on 3 (its still in Beta).

In addition Microsoft can't force users to quit using IE6. Released in 2001 mind you.

All other browsers such as Safari, Opera, Firefox, and Chrome are way new browsers.

While I do dislike certain CSS and PNG issues with IE6, if I want to cater to people using software from 2001 (when there is a free upgrade to Firefox or IE7 that doesn't have png issues) I need to develop that way. If your too lazy then your not a real web designer. The browsers will never be 100% alike as standards evolve and you should choose another job.

What a massive rewrite of history and facts.

Firstly, the Acid tests started in 1998, way before IE6 was released.

"Acid1 is a test page for browsers. It was developed in October 1998 and was important in establishing baseline interoperability between early web browsers, especially for the Cascading Style Sheets 1.0 specification."

Secondly there is a very strong case that it was the Acid2 test made forced IE7 to be more compatible than it could have been. And IE6 was a pretty terrible bit of software for web standards, and the lack of awareness of other browsers meant that Microsoft sat back for SIX years without making improvements apart from slowly patching the myriad security holes in the product. When IE8 is released it will have taken Microsoft 4 years to pass Acid 2!

There's an argument that the standards bodies should have been more proactive in pushing for uptake of their new standards, instead of a third party having to create some publicised tests.

Anyway, this action is way too late now, the damage has been done to the software that has died out or had to massively change revenue model since 2000.

Also Windows N versions of the operating systems are worthless if they don't actually cost less. However a bare-bones version of Windows (in terms of bundled software, not disabling desktop compositing like in Vista Basic) for a lot less money would be quite tempting for OEMs who could bundle Chrome, or Safari and iTunes, and so on.

Then again maybe Apple's bundling of iMovie, iWeb, iTunes, etc, has killed off many third party solutions on the Mac. The fact is that you aren't selling an operating system, you are selling a software solution out of the box.
post #46 of 150
I hate using microsoft products but I don't see the issue with bundling.

I suspect that the US and EU governments know there is monopolistic behaviour but struggle to make a legal case, so the browser bundling is really just a desperate attempt to protect the market.

Half of microsoft's grip is due to their ownership of the most common file formats for documents. The best efforts I have seen were those by the US and EU states that decided that it was unacceptable for citizens and their governments to communicate using file formats owned by a single powerful company and have pushed for open formats.

I think the latter, more than anything else, opens the way for OpenOffice, Google etc to compete with Microsoft in a fair fight.

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #47 of 150
How can a user download the web browsers other than Internet Explorer if it's not built in? Why EU doesn't ask Apple the same with regards to Safari in Mac?
post #48 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rokken View Post

How can a user download the web browsers other than Internet Explorer if it's not built in? Why EU doesn't ask Apple the same as of Safari in Mac?

Safari is a little different IMO because its not required to run the OS. In other words, its not physically attached to Mac OS X. You can fully deleted Safari and the OS keeps running. This isn't necessarily true with Explore because its attached to the OS.

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #49 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

While not a fan of MS' monopolistic practices, this is not one of them.

PS: Does Vista use IE to update the OS or does it use a seperate app like *nx-based systems?

Just like with XP, in Vista and Windows 7 if you use Automatic updates there's a separate window that launches and you can download and install updates from there. However, if you want to update manually you have to go through Internet Explore and hope and pray that Windows Update and Windows Genuine Active-X controls install and configure properly or else you're SOL without screwing around just to make the updates show up and install properly. That can even screw up the automatic updates from running properly. Been there, done that!

Its still not like Mac OS X though where there's a separate app just for updating (automatically or manual) without going through a browser. Personally I like the way Apple does it better. You get more than just OS X updates through it, and I know at one time Apple was playing with the idea of letting 3rd party vendors go through Software Update. That would be nice to see. A one stop shop for updates in one app.

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #50 of 150
The EU is so late on this issue that it's now totally irrelevant.

What next? Removing Mobile Safari from the iPhone?
post #51 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

The same arguments apply to Safari which is tied to Mac OS X, but also the iPhone. Both Firefox and Opera are better web browsers than Safari which is tied to Mac OS X and the iPhone OS X.

No it is not the same argument. When Apple includes Safari with OSX, they are only reaching 4% of the World's computer users. When MS includes IE with Windows, they reach 90% of the World's computer users. And if MS ties IE to Windows so that it's difficult to remove, (or make it difficult to install a competing browser) they are abusing the monopoly they have in the computer OS market.

But I don't see MS including IE with Windows as an abuse of their monopoly. This isn't like back in the 90's with Windows 95. Where MS wouldn't let you delete IE at all. And they were purposely making it very difficult for competing browsers (Netscape) to run properly in Windows. Plus they were threatening to stop licensing Windows (or increase the cost of a Windows license) to venders like Dell if they included a competing browser with their computers. Now of days, everyone expect a computer to be able to log on to the internet out of the box. And IE can be pretty much be deleted out of sight if some one wants to use a different browser. There may still be codes imbedded in the OS pertaining to IE that may cause security risk. But that's what some one gets for using Windows in the first place.

Here's a thought, maybe the EU computers are still on MS Windows 95.
post #52 of 150
To use-reason: Yes, you're making sense.

I dislike MS (bad software, bad practices) and I dislike the EU (bad policy by politicians-for-life with no appeal, and no external or self-regulation). Both are generally bad with a few bright spots.

As for MS, do they still not allow PC mfrs to install other browsers (besides IE) if they install Windows? If they allow PC mfrs to do so, then there's no issue here.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #53 of 150
I do not know a whole lot about the rest of the world, but in the US I think you are pretty correct. There are many government websites that cater to only IE. This is sad because government has a huge influence on what technology is adopted.

I also do not know if the EU is correct in this case or not, but more times then not, the EU tends to highly favor consumer rights. In the US, not so much. I prefer the US way. The government should work for people, not the other way around.

I think it fair to acknowledge that the reason Microsoft is constantly undergoing this scrutiny is because 1) it has a monopoly in desktop operating systems sold for PCs, and 2) it has been found in the past to illegally abuse that monopoly. For that reason, it has to be more careful then Apple in how it treats competitors. To gain or maintain dominance in a certain market, there can be no more paying Dell in the form of reduced payments for WIndows, if it excludes certain software (e.g. Netscape). No more threatening Apple to stop making Office for the Mac, if it doesn't abandon Quicktime for Windows.


Quote:
Originally Posted by P C View Post

For me the greatest irony in this is that government departments are the worst offenders when it comes to websites that are incompatible with anything other than I.E. followed in close second place by large corporates.

In my country the National Library has an excellent catalogue of historic photos available online. However, unless you have a PC running IE you cannot run the obscure viewer program which shows these photos in hi-res and are left with jpeg thumbnails. Our tax department also runs a great business portal which claims to have a Mac compatible plug-in. Its so buggy that you would never trust your business to it. Finally my bank has a consumer site which can be used by any browser but try and log-in to their business site and you find it is a Windows/IE-only environment.

So more power to the EU despite the hypocrisy.
post #54 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduararipe View Post

Firefox and Opera mobile browsers have a different code from Mobile Safari, they are based in Webkit too but it is a different interpreted code. Apple have on the developer I don't know what that they do not accept interpreted code.

They are not based on WebKit. They have different engines, which is why Apple is likely not to approve them while they specifically allow any app to call the framework that contains WebKit.

Before there were other apps whose specific purpose was to generate webpages, their were plenty of other apps that would call WebKit to render pages. App Store RSS readers commonly do this.

Opera uses a Presto-based layout engine and Firefox uses a Gecko-based layout engine.

Here is a complete list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...layout_engines
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #55 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Safari is a little different IMO because its not required to run the OS. In other words, its not physically attached to Mac OS X. You can fully deleted Safari and the OS keeps running. This isn't necessarily true with Explore because its attached to the OS.

Interestingly, there are 3rd party programs which can compete with the Finder, and I don't think you can remove the Finder from the Mac OS. Is apple being anti-competitive by bundling the Finder with their OS, or does this principle only apply with web browsers? If so, why?
post #56 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rokken View Post

How can a user download the web browsers other than Internet Explorer if it's not built in? Why EU doesn't ask Apple the same as of Safari in Mac?

Methods used in the past involved FTP, local network, CD or even floppy if you go back far enough.

I don't think it's a problem that there is only one browser included, as long as that browser isn't programmed to prevent me from downloading my preferred alternative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fraklinc View Post

That's not so true, you might think Apple is going it but in reality things are different, as you might recalled this past week a few bullshit browsers where release throw the App store, all based on webkit, so i don't see how Apple can block firefox since they use webkit same as safari. People quickly jump to all kinds of conclusion when they don't see something on the app store, although these browsers seem small you can't cook one overnight you know

Firefox uses Gecko, not WebKit.

edit: solipsism got his reply in before I did.

I'm kind of disappointed by the policy, but I don't use the mobile browser that often anyway. The current version doesn't seem to crater so often.
post #57 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

The same arguments apply to Safari which is tied to Mac OS X, but also the iPhone. Both Firefox and Opera are better web browsers than Safari which is tied to Mac OS X and the iPhone OS X.

Moreover, Apple is illegally blocking Firefox and Opera developpers from distributing their web browser through the iTunes iPhone App Store for use on the iPhone.

I encourage the developpers of Firefox and Opera to launch an antitrust complaint with the European Commission against Apple which is illegally blocking their web browsers from distribution on the iTunes iPhone store.


Safari is BUNDLED with Mac OS X. Its NOT tied to the OS. You can delete Safari very easily by just dragging it to the trash and emptying it and the OS doesn't crap out. There's a big difference there. Apple isn't doing anything illegal with Safari. They aren't making you use it, they aren't making it difficult to remove, its not an essential component to run OS X, etc.

Apple IS allowing 3rd party browsers on the iPhone. Link

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #58 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by use-reason View Post

Well, there are 3rd party programs which can compete with the Finder, and I don't think you can remove the Finder from the Mac OS. Is apple being anti-competitive by bundling the Finder with their OS, or does this principle only apply with web browsers? If so, why?

Nice argument.


PS: This being an Apple-centric website and MS being the quintessential nemesis of Apple, it's often easy on this forum for many to automatically shun anything MS does, but almost all of the posts are on the side of MS' 'current' practice. I'm glad to see common sense winning over personal feelings.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #59 of 150
I think this comes down to a far more annoying issue: Most CEOs are old guys who don't understand computers as well as the younger generation, so they easily get duped by tasteless IT guys into buying crappy windows systems. None of us like this fact, but the solution is not to blame Microsoft. The free market will sort this out in time - companies which use macs will have fewer maintenance costs and will be more profitable in the long run. It's like survival of the fittest - if macs give a competitive advantage, then more people will use them. Don't be impatient, there are lots of bad people in the world who will prey on your impatience and sell you 'quick fix' solutions like diets, self-help cults and in this case, instant top-down regulations. Don't fall for the trick, don't give in to the the temptation - just be patient, this problem will sort itself out if we give it enough time. Microsoft will either innovate or die, and that's as it should be. Just be patient.
post #60 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Nice argument.


PS: This being an Apple-centric website and MS being the quintessential nemesis of Apple, it's often easy on this forum for many to automatically shun anything MS does, but almost all of the posts are on the side of MS' 'current' practice. I'm glad to see common sense winning over personal feelings.

It is good to see. I was worried for a moment at the beginning, but it seems all right.
post #61 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by use-reason View Post

Well, there are 3rd party programs which can compete with the Finder, and I don't think you can remove the Finder from the Mac OS. Is apple being anti-competitive by bundling the Finder with their OS, or does this principle only apply with web browsers? If so, why?

You have to have a way to navigate through your OS. Otherwise you wouldn't have any way to get to your apps, documents, etc. Finder is tied to the OS yes, but its not effecting 90% of the computing population either. It doesn't have a huge monopoly like Microsoft does.

Apple isn't preventing those apps for being installed to replace the finder app. Running an update may screw up something, but Apple isn't doing it on purpose. Its just part of installing something overtop of an essential part of the OS. Apple shouldn't be made to go out of its way to make sure all 3rd party finder type apps work with an OS X update. Its up to the 3rd party vendor to make sure it works properly.

You could say the same thing for QuickTime which is also built into the OS. Its an essential part of the OS and once uninstalled certain things won't work properly. But Apple isn't preventing VLC or Flip4Mac, the old Windows Media Player for OS X from being installed either.

If everyone was made to not tie things into your OS you would have an OS that IMO works half-ass, not at all, hard to integrate features into it, etc. You have to draw the line somewhere. The way Microsoft is doing IE now I don't see an issue with it. If you don't like IE, you can install another browser and use it. Far as I'm concerned, this is a stupid claim in the EU.

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #62 of 150
The EU should simply have all it's own websites check the browser and if it's IE, display a page reading something like:
"You are using an unsafe browser. To view our site, please download a safe browser." ... and then have links for downloading Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome, etc.
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #63 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Safari is BUNDLED with Mac OS X. Its NOT tied to the OS. You can delete Safari very easily by just dragging it to the trash and emptying it and the OS doesn't crap out. There's a big difference there. Apple isn't doing anything illegal with Safari. They aren't making you use it, they aren't making it difficult to remove, its not an essential component to run OS X, etc.

Apple IS allowing 3rd party browsers on the iPhone. Link

It's not that different to the IE setup, you can delete the Safari app but the system framework is still there for other programs to use. That's supposed to be why updating Safari requires a reboot on OS X.
post #64 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooch View Post

so.....

how exactly would you download a browser if your OS didn't come with one?

[...].

er, maybe the same way folks did before browsers came with the OS...?!
post #65 of 150
Just try to uninstall IE on Winblows. I double dog dare you. It can't be done. You want to uninstall Safari on a Mac? Drag it to the trash.
post #66 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubert View Post

Just try to uninstall IE on Winblows. I double dog dare you. It can't be done.

It is possible to delete the program, but deleting the program doesn't delete the back end that supports it.

Quote:
You want to uninstall Safari on a Mac? Drag it to the trash.

You're still not getting rid of all of Safari, you're only getting rid of the Safari app. The back end is still in the OS.
post #67 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rokken View Post

How can a user download the web browsers other than Internet Explorer if it's not built in? ...

Funny, I guess if you are younger than a certain age this is not something you'd readily know... google: file transfer client to see some of the ways folks used to do this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rokken View Post

Why EU doesn't ask Apple the same with regards to Safari in Mac?

I believe the problem arises when a company uses a monopoly in one market (OS) to unfair advantage in another (browsers). Monopolies in and of themselves aren't illegal.

Netscape sort of undercut the argument in this area by giving their browser away for free... but that's another story.
post #68 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

I'm glad, IE is messing up web standards.

There should be pressure applied to prevent certain web sites from only working with IE. This I assume is done by some M$ trick of including some code that checks what you are running or some code that is missing on the web side but supplied by the browser (I have no clue but you cannot trick these sites I assure anyone about to claim this can be circumvented in Safari by using tricks). There are numerous examples of such web sites and I know many folks who have to run Windows (now thankfully they can use Parallels or VMWare on a Mac too) simply to access a web site vital to their businesses. I am just guessing but I assume these web sites are run using M$ technology?
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #69 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

... You're still not getting rid of all of Safari, you're only getting rid of the Safari app. The back end is still in the OS.

I'd like it if someone who is in the know could post a definitive statement on this. We have people higher up in the thread arguing that Safari *isn't* deeply embedded in the OS and others that are saying it is.

Also, just to throw out another thought on the topic: What about iTunes?

iTunes is bundled with every Mac and is basically a web and HD browser. I don't know if it too is embedded deeply into the OS but I would argue it's as good a candidate for that as Safari and I would not be surprised to find the system become unstable without it. Anyone know the answer?

There are music library alternatives I am sure, but it's a solid that they won't be able to connect to the iTunes store, so that's kind of a lock out in a similar way to MSIE isn't it? I'm not saying I believe in this route, but the situation kind of seems like something the EU would be upset about in a similar way and for similar reasons.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #70 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't think it's a problem that there is only one browser included, as long as that browser isn't programmed to prevent me from downloading my preferred alternative.

This is the heart of the matter based on the EU's complaint. Those raising the issue of security are out of bound with regard to the complaint. The EU is saying it's about competition, not security.
post #71 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

I'd like it if someone who is in the know could post a definitive statement on this. We have people higher up in the thread arguing that Safari *isn't* deeply embedded in the OS and others that are saying it is.

With Macs all programs have part of their being in the OS, that has always been the heart of the Mac from day one and why there is a consistency across all application written correctly. However, when you drag Safari to the trash and empty it the Application is truly gone. The parts that are left as Jeff describes are there for all other apps and obviously don't get removed.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #72 of 150
I'm so tired of all these anti-trusts against IE. What's an operating system supposed to do, come without a browser? How would you access the internet? Its not like Microsoft is forbidding you from downloading any other web browser. Apple preloads Safari with Leopard, so what's the difference? Microsoft's market share? Big deal. People are free to choose what they like. This is just another example (actually, round #2) of the EU looking to make big money off of US companies. Their claim is bogus, which is why it failed in US courts.
post #73 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

With Macs all programs have part of their being in the OS, that has always been the heart of the Mac from day one and why there is a consistency across all application written correctly. However, when you drag Safari to the trash and empty it the Application is truly gone. The parts that are left as Jeff describes are there for all other apps and obviously don't get removed.

The part that I know about is in /System/Library/WebKit.framework - that's where the rendering engine is behind Safari. From what I'm told, that's why you can't update Safari without rebooting, when most other browsers can install/update and run immediately, because the system framework needs to be updated.

I think that can be deleted, but any programs that use it probably won't work anymore. I'm told that Apple Mail uses it. Maybe a couple of the WebKit-based browsers use the framework too.
post #74 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by irobot2004 View Post

Funny, I guess if you are younger than a certain age this is not something you'd readily know... google: file transfer client to see some of the ways folks used to do this.



I believe the problem arises when a company uses a monopoly in one market (OS) to unfair advantage in another (browsers). Monopolies in and of themselves aren't illegal.

Netscape sort of undercut the argument in this area by giving their browser away for free... but that's another story.

What is the point being mean? I thought people come here to discuss rather than to start a fight. Sure there are lots of ways to eventually get a browser for your OS, but are they really more convenient than having one built-in? What you may know doesn't necessarily mean that others do, especially for aged people, like my parents who don't really know computers well. EU is speaking for the companies but doesn't seem to think through for end-users. If it is indeed serious, why not ask Microsoft to remove all built-in services and present just a platform?
post #75 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by iVlad View Post

European Union has much more civilized laws that don't favor any interest group of company.
...
EU is not that stupid. They just want real neutrality and choice.

No, they just favor the interest group of companies from European countries vs US ones.
post #76 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Methods used in the past involved FTP, local network, CD or even floppy if you go back far enough.

This is a big "who cares" kind of response. Nobody is going to use FTP or a CD to get Firefox if they can simply click a link instead.

Given that I have safari and firefox on my Windows box, the barrier to entry is the ability to click a web link while an administrator. The EU is just being the EU again.
post #77 of 150
It's interesting to see people using the term "monopoly" without defining exactly what a monopoly is. What market share does a company need in order to be a monopoly? Is it even tied to market share at all? What makes some monopolies good, and others bad? Are they all bad, or do we need a better definition?

If you look into the history of monopolies, the answer is quite surprising: originally, monopolies were actually created by governments. Typically, the king granted someone an exclusive license to do business in a given field, usually as a reward for loyalty. So, if you fought for the king, he might give you the only license to sell swords in a given area, thus creating a 'monopoly'. If someone dared to compete with your monopoly, you would use the government to shut down his business for operating without a license. A monopoly actually has nothing to do with market share - a monopoly is just any situation where violence is used to forcefully prevent or limit new competition. Where do we see this today? Well, some examples include the post office, power companies, water companies, road companies, military contractors, medical associations, and lawyers associations. Basically, any industry that is closely involved with the government.

In modern times, this infection has spread into other areas of the economy through the process of licensing. Typically, the established businesses in any industry will get together and pressure the government to pass new 'regulations' and 'licensing requirements', which make it more difficult for new competitors to enter the market. Often, the excuse is safety, the environment, 'protecting local jobs', or some other superficially plausible reason. A great example is when all of the established restaurants get together and demand a new regulation "Requiring All restaurants to purchase a $50,000 stove hood", in the name of safety. Well, now they have just increased the cost of entering the market by $50,000, thus cutting out a whole lot of new competitors, and preserving the profits of the big players. You can see this same process in the licensing of doctors, labourers, lawyers and many other restricted fields, where wages or profits are artificially kept high by limiting the new competition. Compared to all of this sleaziness, can we really say that big market shares are something to be worried about? Remember, its not market share that makes true monopolies dangerous and unfair (many of them are quite small). The real danger and unfairness is the violence that backs up true monopolies if you try and compete with them.

If you find all of this as interesting as I do, there's 2 websites you may be interested in:

1) http://www.mises.org - economics and history audio lectures, books and publications. I recommend the lectures, some are very entertaining.

2)http://freedomainradio.com/podcasts.html - very entertaining, well spoken podcasts on a range of topics from politics to economics, religion, psychology, relationships, and philosophy. Very highly recommended.
post #78 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

This is a big "who cares" kind of response. Nobody is going to use FTP or a CD to get Firefox if they can simply click a link instead.

True, I said pretty much the same thing in other posts in this very thread.

I was just explaining other means, the question was posed as if it was a chicken-or-egg problem when it really wasn't.
post #79 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduararipe View Post

If IE is to windows what Safari is to Mac, why don't they force Apple to remove Safari from Mac OS and iPhone OS. While at it, remove iCal, iTunes, Quicktime, Address book, iChat...

Just leave IE there, if you want to use another browser install Safari or Firefox.

Isn't Quicktime embedded deep down Mac OS X?

Pretty clueless. Safari is not tied to the Mac OS. It is not embedded in the OS. You can delete Safari by simply deleting it. IE is part of Windows and cannot be uninstalled, that represents the problem in this case. iCal, iTunes, etc are separate programs. QuickTime has nothing to do with this.

If you read the article, Microsoft originally did not allow another browser to be installed. In the US, they had to add a control panel that allowed users to choose another default browser. In the US, you still cannot uninstall IE. Perhaps in Europe, they are still forcing users to use IE.
post #80 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechengit View Post

You have a very good point. Although it's definitely possible to download a browser without a browser, it's just that most people don't know how to do so.

I would wager that the majority of the people that use IE fall into the "don't know how to do so" category.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Pretty clueless. Safari is not tied to the Mac OS. It is not embedded in the OS. You can delete Safari by simply deleting it. IE is part of Windows and cannot be uninstalled, that represents the problem in this case.

It might not be un-installable, but that doesn't mean you have to use it. It's not a virus, it won't do any harm just sitting on your hard drive, especially in these days of terabyte drives. Now that Windows Update runs from the Control Panel, you don't even need to use it for that, which is the only time I ever had to use it before. Just take it off your start menu and forget about it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Europe revives claims of Microsoft web browser monopoly