Originally Posted by use-reason
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?
No, Apple's the only OEM for Mac OS X, they can't be forced to license it or support it on 3rd party hardware (assuming governments know their place in the world), so they can bundle any apps they want. You can quit the Finder and never touch it or use it if you use a 3rd party implementation like Path Finder or just don't bother with either and use bash or zsh or something like I do. But it is rather annoying that Apple treats the Finder as essential even though it and the Dock are both non-essential and are not needed for a functioning system as long as you have a proper shell (either CLI or GUI) to replace it.
Originally Posted by macxpress
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.
Quicktime != Quicktime Player.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
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.
WebKit != Safari, for more Frameworks != Application examples, please visit http://developer.apple.com/documenta...CH210-BBCBEAJD
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
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.
iTunes is a wrapper for Quicktime (for playback), just trash it if you don't want it and install something else. Personally I think the iTunes store would be better off in a web browser though, Apple would reach a larger audience since anybody using any music player that supports AAC files on any platform could use it, but if Apple wants to be stingy they can just lose sales to other music stores.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
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.
Mail and Dashboard both use WebKit yes, but WebKit still != Safari, although whenever Safari is updated, Apple also updates WebKit, if you don't like that just don't update either as WebKit will still be updated in the service packs, 3rd-parties also use it, like NetNewsWire and the HTML bundle in TextMate. I think WindowServer is updated every time Quicktime and WebKit are updated as well, you don't really need to restart the entire OS, just kill WindowServer, but form a user's perspective it's going to be more or less the equivalent of restarting since any process depending on the WindowServer process will also be killed as if they were crashed, so it's usually easier to just restart anyway.
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
While it would be nice for more people to know what the requirements for a monopoly is, they would be better off looking it up on the wiki than listening to this drivel. This is the second time in less than a week
you have managed to squeeze in this long wacky conspiracy theory of yours about governments and monopolies.
Please just stop.
You have no idea what a monopoly is and your attempts to redefine it single-handedly are doomed to fail.
If you really want to advance this nonsense, do what everyone else does and write a book about it. If you sell a few hundred thousand, then maybe we should listen to your crazy ideas, but until then I think you should just tie down your tin-foil hat a bit tighter and hunker down in the damp cardboard box you no doubt call home.
Originally Posted by fraklinc
This is the problem with iE, everytime you use a browser to browse the web partly only the browser gets expose to the web, with iE not only does the browser gets expose but so does the entire OS cause iE is not a separate app iE is part of Windows, so eveytime iE gets expose it also exposes the entire windows, hijack iE and that's it your in, hijack any other browser and you my friend still have a lot of work to reach the OS
IE was properly separated from Trident in Vista.
Originally Posted by sgntscrawn
Surely this would mean that Apple could be in the firing line as well. Safari, and what about iLife? If MS got done for bundling in Media Player, surely Apple would be "stifling the market" for photo editors, movie editors etc etc...
Apple is the only OEM for Mac OS X, they can bundle any software they like, just like any OEM for any OS can bundle any software that they like.
All in all, the EU is wasting their time, and probably their tax-payers money (I'm curious, do citizens of it's constituent countries pay taxes to the EU, or through proxy through their country?) because any OEM that's interested enough will just bundle a different browser, and many do, IE is usually left on there though so it's up to the user to actually well, choose to use the bundled alternative, and if they don't, oh well, it's a shame but they have the right to their own choice in browsers as well.