I would think that adding a small browser to the desktop JUST to download another browser if someone wants to actually would make it HARDER on the consumer than if IE is installed by default. How many people here have had to help Mom, Grandma (etc) with installing software in the past? I can also say from my experiences in IT, that age doesn't really matter as I've dealt with plenty of people of all age ranges that truly have no clue on how to install software or do any of a range of simple tasks.
My point? If someone wants to install a second/alternative browser, then they are going to be more technically inclined to begin with. Item #1 just makes it harder for everyone involved.
To amplify slightly on your point: One of Apple's historical advantages was that the machines work "out of the box". A machine which ships without an operational browser is at a very serious competitive disadvantage. The EU ruling is just dumb (yes, it's the law, and MS is supposed to comply, but it IS dumb).
Yes, but this affair is more than 10 years old. The law may be stupid, that doesn't change that you have to respect it, then after maybe try to change it.
So MS had to include every single browser in existence with Windows? I can make a browser today and sue MS for not including it in their OS, because it's unfair to me that these other browsers get preferential treatment?
When the EU is able/willing to do something significant about Google, wake me up.
In addition, as shown by recent history, these antitrust things are just a way for governments to claim relevance (and to collect insane amounts of money from people who actually do something useful). By recent history, I mean: MS had a virtual monopoly on PC OSes. The DoJ action was a dud, but someone (Apple, in this case, followed by Google) just made something people preferred to use, and MS has lost its OS supremacy essentially overnight.
So MS had to include every single browser in existence with Windows? I can make a browser today and sue MS for not including it in their OS, because it's unfair to me that these other browsers get preferential treatment?
No, only the browsers whose makers make nice with the Eurocrats count.
"I hope this decision will make companies think twice before they even think of intentionally breaching their obligations or even of neglecting their duty to ensure strict compliance," he said.
Yes, but this is irrelevant. Why does Google give away Chrome? Answer: because this drives people to Google search. The underlying libraries are not what this is about.
To amplify slightly on your point: One of Apple's historical advantages was that the machines work "out of the box". A machine which ships without an operational browser is at a very serious competitive disadvantage. The EU ruling is just dumb (yes, it's the law, and MS is supposed to comply, but it IS dumb).
Not really. It is quite common for the first boot set up to ask the user for personal information, install preferences, establish network connection, look for software updates, get an Apple ID, etc. They just add one more screen that asks which browser to select.
Yes, but this is irrelevant. Why does Google give away Chrome? Answer: because this drives people to Google search. The underlying libraries are not what this is about.
I see you're trying to make up an argument to cover up the fact that you know absolutely nothing about Chrome whatsoever.
Just admit it. You had no idea Chrome used WebKit, created by Apple.
Not really. It is quite common for the first boot set up to ask the user for personal information, install preferences, establish network connection, look for software updates, get an Apple ID, etc. They just add one more screen that asks which browser to select.
And what would your grandma do if faced such a screen? Close her eyes and press a random button? That WOULD be the right thing (since the truth is that there is not much difference between the browsers), but people are afraid to do this, unless they feel they understand the options and the difference between them.
I'm well aware of what's happening and why, I just don't agree with it. I find it to be unjust in many aspects, including being 20 million Euro per license. We can say that MS had it coming, that's it's karma for all their illegal monopolistic behaviour in the past but that would only justify the excessive fine for having them do something that was foolish in the first place.
When it comes to huge corporations I care very little but it's the principle of an unjust ruling that bothers me. This happens in courts all around the world against individual people who don't have the means to defend themselves. That is my real issue here, not that MS has to dig slightly deeper into their pockets to pay a fine.
How is this not just? Microsoft voluntarily entered into an agreement with the EU in order to escape potentially huge penalties for abusing their market position to take over the browser market -- i.e., the web. They violated that agreement, which probably saved them hundreds of millions of dollars, or worse. How is it not just that they now pay a massive fine for "inadvertently" (where have we heard that before?) not living up to the agreement.
I think it's entirely just. What's ridiculous are the slap on the wrist fines regulators in this country hit violators with, where it just becomes the cost of doing business illegally. For penalties to be effective, to have any deterrent effect at all, they have to be severe, unpredictably severe. MS is getting off light here. Companies who violate consent decrees and other legal agreements -- i.e., repeat offenders -- should be fined within an inch of their corporate lives.
How is this not just? Microsoft voluntarily entered into an agreement with the EU in order to escape potentially huge penalties for abusing their market position to take over the browser market -- i.e., the web. They violated that agreement, which probably saved them hundreds of millions of dollars, or worse. How is it not just that they now pay a massive fine for "inadvertently" (where have we heard that before?) not living up to the agreement.
I think it's entirely just. What's ridiculous are the slap on the wrist fines regulators in this country hit violators with, where it just becomes the cost of doing business illegally. For penalties to be effective, to have any deterrent effect at all, they have to be severe, unpredictably severe. MS is getting off light here. Companies who violate consent decrees and other legal agreements -- i.e., repeat offenders -- should be fined within an inch of their corporate lives.
Tell me how not complying earned MS hundreds of millions?
Tell me how not complying earned MS hundreds of millions?
They escaped much larger fines, or more draconian penalties, by entering into the agreement in the first place. So, it was the agreement itself that saved them money or harsher penalties, not not complying with it.
They escaped much larger fines, or more draconian penalties, by entering into the agreement in the first place. So, it was the agreement itself that saved them money or harsher penalties, not not complying with it.
Sounds like a protection racket (on part of the EU) to me.
Yes, but this is irrelevant. Why does Google give away Chrome? Answer: because this drives people to Google search. The underlying libraries are not what this is about.
If it was irrelevant then why claim that Chrome isn't based on the WebKit rendering engine?
How is this not just? Microsoft voluntarily entered into an agreement with the EU in order to escape potentially huge penalties for abusing their market position to take over the browser market -- i.e., the web. They violated that agreement, which probably saved them hundreds of millions of dollars, or worse. How is it not just that they now pay a massive fine for "inadvertently" (where have we heard that before?) not living up to the agreement.
I think it's entirely just. What's ridiculous are the slap on the wrist fines regulators in this country hit violators with, where it just becomes the cost of doing business illegally. For penalties to be effective, to have any deterrent effect at all, they have to be severe, unpredictably severe. MS is getting off light here. Companies who violate consent decrees and other legal agreements -- i.e., repeat offenders -- should be fined within an inch of their corporate lives.
At 20 million Euro per installation I think that's unjust. Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just. Do you think it's fair that one can get their hand cut off for stealing bread to feed a starving family or that a woman can be put to death for being raped? I certainly don't think so. Of course, this just a corporation which means it's not about human rights as my examples indicate but unjust is still unjust.
If you want an example about an agreement would you say that Colombia's House's tricky wording, small windows, and negative option billing are just practices simply because the customer had to initially agree to it? I certainly don't think so.
Now do I think MS was also unjust with the way they initiatively dominated the browser market? As previously stated, I do, but this has nothing to do with that and this entire issue by the EU is a unjust farce.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnash
Not siding with anyone here, just a comment.
I would think that adding a small browser to the desktop JUST to download another browser if someone wants to actually would make it HARDER on the consumer than if IE is installed by default. How many people here have had to help Mom, Grandma (etc) with installing software in the past? I can also say from my experiences in IT, that age doesn't really matter as I've dealt with plenty of people of all age ranges that truly have no clue on how to install software or do any of a range of simple tasks.
My point? If someone wants to install a second/alternative browser, then they are going to be more technically inclined to begin with. Item #1 just makes it harder for everyone involved.
To amplify slightly on your point: One of Apple's historical advantages was that the machines work "out of the box". A machine which ships without an operational browser is at a very serious competitive disadvantage. The EU ruling is just dumb (yes, it's the law, and MS is supposed to comply, but it IS dumb).
So MS had to include every single browser in existence with Windows? I can make a browser today and sue MS for not including it in their OS, because it's unfair to me that these other browsers get preferential treatment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Yawn.....
When the EU is able/willing to do something significant about Google, wake me up.
In addition, as shown by recent history, these antitrust things are just a way for governments to claim relevance (and to collect insane amounts of money from people who actually do something useful). By recent history, I mean: MS had a virtual monopoly on PC OSes. The DoJ action was a dud, but someone (Apple, in this case, followed by Google) just made something people preferred to use, and MS has lost its OS supremacy essentially overnight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
So MS had to include every single browser in existence with Windows? I can make a browser today and sue MS for not including it in their OS, because it's unfair to me that these other browsers get preferential treatment?
No, only the browsers whose makers make nice with the Eurocrats count.
As he stated, WebKit won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"I hope this decision will make companies think twice before they even think of intentionally breaching their obligations or even of neglecting their duty to ensure strict compliance," he said.
I see where the problem is.
pre-cognitive thought? Who'd have thunk it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
As he stated, WebKit won.
Yes, but this is irrelevant. Why does Google give away Chrome? Answer: because this drives people to Google search. The underlying libraries are not what this is about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
To amplify slightly on your point: One of Apple's historical advantages was that the machines work "out of the box". A machine which ships without an operational browser is at a very serious competitive disadvantage. The EU ruling is just dumb (yes, it's the law, and MS is supposed to comply, but it IS dumb).
Not really. It is quite common for the first boot set up to ask the user for personal information, install preferences, establish network connection, look for software updates, get an Apple ID, etc. They just add one more screen that asks which browser to select.
Originally Posted by igriv
What? The world's most popular browser is Chrome:
I see you know nothing about Chrome whatsoever.
Originally Posted by igriv
Yes, but this is irrelevant. Why does Google give away Chrome? Answer: because this drives people to Google search. The underlying libraries are not what this is about.
I see you're trying to make up an argument to cover up the fact that you know absolutely nothing about Chrome whatsoever.
Just admit it. You had no idea Chrome used WebKit, created by Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Not really. It is quite common for the first boot set up to ask the user for personal information, install preferences, establish network connection, look for software updates, get an Apple ID, etc. They just add one more screen that asks which browser to select.
And what would your grandma do if faced such a screen? Close her eyes and press a random button? That WOULD be the right thing (since the truth is that there is not much difference between the browsers), but people are afraid to do this, unless they feel they understand the options and the difference between them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I see you know nothing about Chrome whatsoever.
I see you're trying to make up an argument to cover up the fact that you know absolutely nothing about Chrome whatsoever.
Just admit it. You had no idea Chrome used WebKit, created by Apple.
I admit it, I didn't know it used webkit. And so? I didn't care, though now that I know, I wonder why it (Chrome) is so superior to Safari.
Otherwise, I am glad to see the customary level of moderation from the moderator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm well aware of what's happening and why, I just don't agree with it. I find it to be unjust in many aspects, including being 20 million Euro per license. We can say that MS had it coming, that's it's karma for all their illegal monopolistic behaviour in the past but that would only justify the excessive fine for having them do something that was foolish in the first place.
When it comes to huge corporations I care very little but it's the principle of an unjust ruling that bothers me. This happens in courts all around the world against individual people who don't have the means to defend themselves. That is my real issue here, not that MS has to dig slightly deeper into their pockets to pay a fine.
How is this not just? Microsoft voluntarily entered into an agreement with the EU in order to escape potentially huge penalties for abusing their market position to take over the browser market -- i.e., the web. They violated that agreement, which probably saved them hundreds of millions of dollars, or worse. How is it not just that they now pay a massive fine for "inadvertently" (where have we heard that before?) not living up to the agreement.
I think it's entirely just. What's ridiculous are the slap on the wrist fines regulators in this country hit violators with, where it just becomes the cost of doing business illegally. For penalties to be effective, to have any deterrent effect at all, they have to be severe, unpredictably severe. MS is getting off light here. Companies who violate consent decrees and other legal agreements -- i.e., repeat offenders -- should be fined within an inch of their corporate lives.
Originally Posted by igriv
I admit it, I didn't know it used webkit. And so?
So… that was the argument at hand. Sort of the idea.
I didn't care…
Then don't comment.
Finally a simple resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So… that was the argument at hand. Sort of the idea.
Then don't comment.
Finally a simple resolution.
Thanks for your moderation in quoting me out of context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
How is this not just? Microsoft voluntarily entered into an agreement with the EU in order to escape potentially huge penalties for abusing their market position to take over the browser market -- i.e., the web. They violated that agreement, which probably saved them hundreds of millions of dollars, or worse. How is it not just that they now pay a massive fine for "inadvertently" (where have we heard that before?) not living up to the agreement.
I think it's entirely just. What's ridiculous are the slap on the wrist fines regulators in this country hit violators with, where it just becomes the cost of doing business illegally. For penalties to be effective, to have any deterrent effect at all, they have to be severe, unpredictably severe. MS is getting off light here. Companies who violate consent decrees and other legal agreements -- i.e., repeat offenders -- should be fined within an inch of their corporate lives.
Tell me how not complying earned MS hundreds of millions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Tell me how not complying earned MS hundreds of millions?
They escaped much larger fines, or more draconian penalties, by entering into the agreement in the first place. So, it was the agreement itself that saved them money or harsher penalties, not not complying with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
They escaped much larger fines, or more draconian penalties, by entering into the agreement in the first place. So, it was the agreement itself that saved them money or harsher penalties, not not complying with it.
Sounds like a protection racket (on part of the EU) to me.
If it was irrelevant then why claim that Chrome isn't based on the WebKit rendering engine?
At 20 million Euro per installation I think that's unjust. Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just. Do you think it's fair that one can get their hand cut off for stealing bread to feed a starving family or that a woman can be put to death for being raped? I certainly don't think so. Of course, this just a corporation which means it's not about human rights as my examples indicate but unjust is still unjust.
If you want an example about an agreement would you say that Colombia's House's tricky wording, small windows, and negative option billing are just practices simply because the customer had to initially agree to it? I certainly don't think so.
Now do I think MS was also unjust with the way they initiatively dominated the browser market? As previously stated, I do, but this has nothing to do with that and this entire issue by the EU is a unjust farce.
Tell me how penalties should only be based on what you gained from breaking the law?