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.
To address the first line: I misinterpreted the original comment as meaning that Apple has won the browser wars. My mistake, but the engine really is not relevant. Do you agree?
Your other comments are not addressed to me, but I agree with you.
...but the engine really is not relevant. Do you agree?.
The engine is very relevant. It's the core of the browser. WebKit is a great example of the success of an open-source community helping tie the modern internet together with standards. Apple made great efforts at the start for the desktop version which carried over to the mobile version. Consider where MS and Mozilla are with their mobile browsers.
Google's adoption took the performance of WebKit and helped make it the de facto standard engine that web developers support. iOS would have done this anyway, as well the support from other mobile OSes (note that WebOS uses WebKit for the OS's UI) but Chrome sped this up by several years. When was the last time you went to a gov't site that still said "You must use Internet Explorer or Firefox to properly view this page"?
We recently heard from Opera that they're dropping their Presto engine in favour of WebKit. This is huge! Even though Opera never saw huge adoption they have been the leaders in countless browser features that are now the standard in every modern browser.
There is still a ways to go but the internet is a much better place because of WebKit.
The engine is very relevant. It's the core of the browser. WebKit is a great example of the success of an open-source community helping tie the modern internet together with standards. Apple made great efforts at the start for the desktop version which carried over to the mobile version. Consider where MS and Mozilla are with their mobile browsers.
Google's adoption took the performance of WebKit and helped make it the de facto standard engine that web developers support. iOS would have done this anyway, as well the support from other mobile OSes (note that WebOS uses WebKit for the OS's UI) but Chrome sped this up by several years. When was the last time you went to a gov't site that still said "You must use Internet Explorer or Firefox to properly view this page"?
We recently heard from Opera that they're dropping their Presto engine in favour of WebKit. This is huge! Even though Opera never saw huge adoption they have been the leaders in countless browser features that are now the standard in every modern browser.
There is still a ways to go but the internet is a much better place because of WebKit.
I don't disagree, but my point was that the reason Microsoft's bundling of the browser was viewed as a bad thing was that the browser steered people to MS-related content (the current home page, which I am guessing 99% of the people don't change, is msn.com). MS could have a new WebKit based browser which did the same thing, and that is what the EU is complaining about, not the underlying technology.
They deserve the fine. They were warned and even apologized for the mistake. Actually this concept is quite simple, not sure why some of you don't seem to understand it. Anyway, it was a "technical problem". Really? Their developer doesn't know how to hard code 12 entries or utilise a cursor mechanism, if stored on a database table, onto a screen them action the selected item? I say fine them billions for their clusterf$$k.
This is such a BS fine. It's the software equivalent of suing McDonalds because they don't offer Whoppers or Frostees.
In that same token, why isn't Apple being sued for pre-loading Safari onto every Mac they sell? Or every iOS product, for that matter, as you can't even set third party browsers as default on your iPhone or iPad.
Both the stupidity, as well as the hypocrisy here, just make the EU look more ridiculous than it already does.
This is such a BS fine. It's the software equivalent of suing McDonalds because they don't offer Whoppers or Frostees.
In that same token, why isn't Apple being sued for pre-loading Safari onto every Mac they sell? Or every iOS product, for that matter, as you can't even set third party browsers as default on your iPhone or iPad.
Both the stupidity, as well as the hypocrisy here, just make the EU look more ridiculous than it already does.
I don't think it IS possible to make the EU seem more ridiculous than it already does.
Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just.
I'm putting this on my sig. I can't tell you the number of times I've said this only to have other posters and even a moderator (no not Tallest Skil) jump down my throat.
What's this number you are tossing around? 561 Million Euros / 28 Million machines = ~20 Euros per machine.
Holy crap! My shorthand math was way off. Thanks for pointing that out. I honestly was thinking it was 20 million Euro per license which should explain part of the reason I thought it so unfair. At 20 Euro per license that certainly seems fair as punishment but I still disagree with requiring them to include the dozen options.
I'm putting this on my sig. I can't tell you the number of times I've said this only to have other posters and even a moderator (no not Tallest Skil) jump down my throat.
I'll never tell you that. I say question everything… and as you know I certainly do my best.
I think the penalty system is a fair one. The fine was based on what they avoided initially by entering the agreement. The amount of which was based on percentage of profit of the company. To fine MS or Google or Apple the same as a small startup is not fair. The purpose of the potential fine (now real fine since MS violated the agreement) is to deter violations or repeat violations of the law. If the fine was small, MS would continue to violate as a small fine does not deter a big company.
Back in 2011 CNN Money estimated that MS were loosing 1 billion a year on Bing, and needed to double market share to break even. The potential to save 1 billion a year is a big incentive to for a company to ignore an agreement. If they were only being fined a couple of million, why stop doing what they are doing.
There's some deep denial, humbuggery and irony tinged-with-hypocrisy on display here with some of the posts in this thread. IIRC, these boards were plum full of dismissive posts regarding MS perfidy, unfair treatment of Netscape and frustration with the DOJ's lack of balls and perceived corruption of the US legal system. All posted with a generous helping of schadenfreude. Now we have apologist posts with EU xenophobia! Let's be clear. MS endlessly denied, procrastinated, cajoled, flat out lied, lobbied behind the Commission's back, used financial inducements, questioned the integrity and technical ability of the experts and judges... or in short, did everything they possibly could to subvert due process to avoid taking responsible measures to put right, a wrong. Only after two extensions to the time limit to implement the changes and under a threat of further fines - did they finally comply. A later statement from the Commission thanked MS for their efforts but warned MS that any recidivist backtracking on the agreement would incur further fines. The settlement was praised for doing what the US authorities were unable or unwilling - to do. And yet...here we are again. Despite yet more warnings of the omission, MS decides to test the resolve of the court with a derisory 'technical glitch' excuse. Hence, another hefty fine. Then there are those here excusing MS because Google/Facebook is now a bigger threat and the EU should be taking action on that score. Just how in hell is the EU going to take action against these later threats to internet and personal freedom, to user tracking and data abuse [I]if[/I] they let MS off the hook? How does a US style paper tiger set-up put a stop to large corporations abusing fundamental rights? Clue...it doesn't.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
To address the first line: I misinterpreted the original comment as meaning that Apple has won the browser wars. My mistake, but the engine really is not relevant. Do you agree?
Your other comments are not addressed to me, but I agree with you.
The engine is very relevant. It's the core of the browser. WebKit is a great example of the success of an open-source community helping tie the modern internet together with standards. Apple made great efforts at the start for the desktop version which carried over to the mobile version. Consider where MS and Mozilla are with their mobile browsers.
Google's adoption took the performance of WebKit and helped make it the de facto standard engine that web developers support. iOS would have done this anyway, as well the support from other mobile OSes (note that WebOS uses WebKit for the OS's UI) but Chrome sped this up by several years. When was the last time you went to a gov't site that still said "You must use Internet Explorer or Firefox to properly view this page"?
We recently heard from Opera that they're dropping their Presto engine in favour of WebKit. This is huge! Even though Opera never saw huge adoption they have been the leaders in countless browser features that are now the standard in every modern browser.
There is still a ways to go but the internet is a much better place because of WebKit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
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.
There's a quick history of Webkit here to bring you up-to-date:
http://web.appstorm.net/general/opinion/the-history-of-webkit/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There's a quick history of Webkit here to bring you up-to-date:
http://web.appstorm.net/general/opinion/the-history-of-webkit/
Thanks, that's a very nice summary!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The engine is very relevant. It's the core of the browser. WebKit is a great example of the success of an open-source community helping tie the modern internet together with standards. Apple made great efforts at the start for the desktop version which carried over to the mobile version. Consider where MS and Mozilla are with their mobile browsers.
Google's adoption took the performance of WebKit and helped make it the de facto standard engine that web developers support. iOS would have done this anyway, as well the support from other mobile OSes (note that WebOS uses WebKit for the OS's UI) but Chrome sped this up by several years. When was the last time you went to a gov't site that still said "You must use Internet Explorer or Firefox to properly view this page"?
We recently heard from Opera that they're dropping their Presto engine in favour of WebKit. This is huge! Even though Opera never saw huge adoption they have been the leaders in countless browser features that are now the standard in every modern browser.
There is still a ways to go but the internet is a much better place because of WebKit.
I don't disagree, but my point was that the reason Microsoft's bundling of the browser was viewed as a bad thing was that the browser steered people to MS-related content (the current home page, which I am guessing 99% of the people don't change, is msn.com). MS could have a new WebKit based browser which did the same thing, and that is what the EU is complaining about, not the underlying technology.
Actually this concept is quite simple, not sure why some of you don't seem to understand it.
Anyway, it was a "technical problem".
Really? Their developer doesn't know how to hard code 12 entries or utilise a cursor mechanism, if stored on a database table, onto a screen them action the selected item?
I say fine them billions for their clusterf$$k.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
At 20 million Euro per installation I think that's unjust.
What's this number you are tossing around? 561 Million Euros / 28 Million machines = ~20 Euros per machine.
This is such a BS fine. It's the software equivalent of suing McDonalds because they don't offer Whoppers or Frostees.
In that same token, why isn't Apple being sued for pre-loading Safari onto every Mac they sell? Or every iOS product, for that matter, as you can't even set third party browsers as default on your iPhone or iPad.
Both the stupidity, as well as the hypocrisy here, just make the EU look more ridiculous than it already does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
This is such a BS fine. It's the software equivalent of suing McDonalds because they don't offer Whoppers or Frostees.
In that same token, why isn't Apple being sued for pre-loading Safari onto every Mac they sell? Or every iOS product, for that matter, as you can't even set third party browsers as default on your iPhone or iPad.
Both the stupidity, as well as the hypocrisy here, just make the EU look more ridiculous than it already does.
I don't think it IS possible to make the EU seem more ridiculous than it already does.
I'm putting this on my sig. I can't tell you the number of times I've said this only to have other posters and even a moderator (no not Tallest Skil) jump down my throat.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I can't tell you the number of times I've said this only to have other posters and even a moderator (no not Tallest Skil) jump down my throat.
Can't imagine I would have; I believe the same thing.
Holy crap! My shorthand math was way off. Thanks for pointing that out. I honestly was thinking it was 20 million Euro per license which should explain part of the reason I thought it so unfair. At 20 Euro per license that certainly seems fair as punishment but I still disagree with requiring them to include the dozen options.
I'll never tell you that. I say question everything… and as you know I certainly do my best.
Back in 2011 CNN Money estimated that MS were loosing 1 billion a year on Bing, and needed to double market share to break even. The potential to save 1 billion a year is a big incentive to for a company to ignore an agreement. If they were only being fined a couple of million, why stop doing what they are doing.
IIRC, these boards were plum full of dismissive posts regarding MS perfidy, unfair treatment of Netscape and frustration with the DOJ's lack of balls and perceived corruption of the US legal system. All posted with a generous helping of schadenfreude.
Now we have apologist posts with EU xenophobia!
Let's be clear. MS endlessly denied, procrastinated, cajoled, flat out lied, lobbied behind the Commission's back, used financial inducements, questioned the integrity and technical ability of the experts and judges... or in short, did everything they possibly could to subvert due process to avoid taking responsible measures to put right, a wrong. Only after two extensions to the time limit to implement the changes and under a threat of further fines - did they finally comply. A later statement from the Commission thanked MS for their efforts but warned MS that any recidivist backtracking on the agreement would incur further fines. The settlement was praised for doing what the US authorities were unable or unwilling - to do.
And yet...here we are again. Despite yet more warnings of the omission, MS decides to test the resolve of the court with a derisory 'technical glitch' excuse.
Hence, another hefty fine.
Then there are those here excusing MS because Google/Facebook is now a bigger threat and the EU should be taking action on that score.
Just how in hell is the EU going to take action against these later threats to internet and personal freedom, to user tracking and data abuse [I]if[/I] they let MS off the hook?
How does a US style paper tiger set-up put a stop to large corporations abusing fundamental rights?
Clue...it doesn't.