MS considering IE's grave?
After reading macosrumors.com, expecting to find not anything to interesting, I came acrossed a 'rumor' that explained that Apple might want to consider creating a browser for the win-box, as per this quote from their site:
"There's another reason/opportunity why Apple would be contemplating Safari for Windows: now that MS has axed IE on both platforms, and is attempting to turn the Internet into a closed system that's only compatible with a built-in Windows browser, the resulting disenchantment of users Ñ particularly proponents of open standards, and those who don't feel they should have to upgrade their version of Windows to connect to the Net Ñ would make for a very favourable climate for alternative browsers."
What do you think should happen, what will happen.
-walloo.
"There's another reason/opportunity why Apple would be contemplating Safari for Windows: now that MS has axed IE on both platforms, and is attempting to turn the Internet into a closed system that's only compatible with a built-in Windows browser, the resulting disenchantment of users Ñ particularly proponents of open standards, and those who don't feel they should have to upgrade their version of Windows to connect to the Net Ñ would make for a very favourable climate for alternative browsers."
What do you think should happen, what will happen.
-walloo.
Comments
something about unfair and anticompetitive practices and browser integration with OS
something about the current US administration giving MS a free ride instead of compelling compliance
colour me skeptical.
might be an opportunity for Safari to cross platforms and mesh with iTunes,
but there should still be some Attorney's-General who hold MS feet to the fire over this
Originally posted by willywalloo
After reading macosrumors.com, expecting to find not anything to interesting, I came acrossed a 'rumor' that explained that Apple might want to consider creating a browser for the win-box, as per this quote from their site:
"There's another reason/opportunity why Apple would be contemplating Safari for Windows: now that MS has axed IE on both platforms, and is attempting to turn the Internet into a closed system that's only compatible with a built-in Windows browser, the resulting disenchantment of users Ñ particularly proponents of open standards, and those who don't feel they should have to upgrade their version of Windows to connect to the Net Ñ would make for a very favourable climate for alternative browsers."
What do you think should happen, what will happen.
-walloo.
Such a move makes very little sense for Apple. Our favorite fruit company's only goal in such a move would be to save Windows users from the vendor they love to hate. That is a losing proposition. Everybody knows it. So does Steve Jobs.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
colour me skeptical.
Skeptical about which part? About Microsoft axing Internet Explorer?
It's true. It was announced earlier in the summer that Internet Explorer 6 is the *last* version that will be downloadable and installable. All future versions will be integrated with the operating system and the only way to get them will be by purchasing the next version of Windows. Don't want Longhorn? Can't afford Longhorn? Your computer doesn't support Longhorn? Too bad. No new Internet Explorer for you.
The whole problem with the integrated IE has always been twofold: 1. do we really want to deal with all this stuff through a browser paradigm, and 2. they were sabotaging other emerging (competitive) technologies on the Windows platform using integrated IE as their excuse to do so. And I don't just mean undermining Netscape by bundling their browser for free. I mean tinkering with Qt, Real, Java and their ilk with little to show in improvements otherwise to the system.
Remember back in the day when the internet was supposed to level the playing field for any competitors to Microsoft? Give MS credit for successfully cutting off that angle of attack.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Such a move makes very little sense for Apple. Our favorite fruit company's only goal in such a move would be to save Windows users from the vendor they love to hate. That is a losing proposition. Everybody knows it. So does Steve Jobs.
I mostly agree.
Originally posted by Brad
Skeptical about which part? About Microsoft axing Internet Explorer?
It's true. It was announced earlier in the summer that Internet Explorer 6 is the *last* version that will be downloadable and installable. All future versions will be integrated with the operating system and the only way to get them will be by purchasing the next version of Windows. Don't want Longhorn? Can't afford Longhorn? Your computer doesn't support Longhorn? Too bad. No new Internet Explorer for you.
it was my understanding that the integration of the Windows OS and IE was one of the specific issues that was found to be anti-competitive... you couldn't remove IE without crippling the OS (not level playing field for Netscape), and the IE programmers were privy to proprietary inside information from the OS programmers which other companies were denied (not level playing field for Netscape)
IIRC, some of the proposed legal remedies included a forcible divorce of Browser and OS (subsequently overturned, I think), and/or equal standing in desktop (at some stages IE was prioritized in Start menu/taskbar) for alternative development (monopolies bad, competition good)
i suppose part of my skepticism is about the govt wimping out and completely letting MS off the hook. cronyism? the fact that multiple State AG's are pushing to reapply at least some punishment for the illegal behaviour (a finding not overturned) is reassuring.
the fact that MS seems to spite the finding is unsurprising.
Nice to know it's so easy to buy the US. Let's hope it's harder in the EU but I am not getting my hopes up. If so, Apple should jump on it and lower prices abroad to make serious inroads, especially in foreign governments (much of OS X is indeed open). It's so cool how Apple hasn't been squished to 3% market share in Japan, that gives me hope.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
it was my understanding that the integration of the Windows OS and IE was one of the specific issues that was found to be anti-competitive... you couldn't remove IE without crippling the OS (not level playing field for Netscape), and the IE programmers were privy to proprietary inside information from the OS programmers which other companies were denied (not level playing field for Netscape)
Agreed, but honestly I don't think there's anyone out there with enough capital to take this battle to court. Netscape? Dead. W3C? Impossible. Opera? Laughable. Apple? Equally laughable, especially since it doesn't have a competing product on Windows and since Apple is guilty of the same practice with Safari. Besides, the US government is good buddies with Microsoft now, what with the Department of Homeland Security (IIRC) officially adopting Windows as its platform of choice. *sigh*
Here's CNet's take on the antitrust angle (from June 2003):
The government sued Microsoft in 1998, alleging that the software giant had used its monopoly power in desktop operating systems to develop a chokehold on browser software. A federal judge agreed andordered the company to be broken up into separate application and operating system companies to prevent future abuses. That order was later overturned on appeal, and Microsoft eventually worked out asettlement that leaves it free to develop the OS as it sees fit.
In its defense against the charge it illegally tied the browser to its monopoly operating system, Microsoft argued that the operating system could not function properly without the Web browser.
Now Microsoft has flipped its argument around, claiming that future versions of the browser won't be able to function properly without the OS.
"Legacy OSes have reached their zenith with the addition of IE 6 SP1 (Service Pack 1, a collection of bug fixes and updates to the browser)," Countryman said in the May 7 chat. "Further improvements to IE will require enhancements to the underlying OS."
Antitrust experts said that because the appeals court had found, on a technicality, that the government had failed to prove IE commanded a monopoly, Microsoft's move to remove standalone IE from the market wouldn't run afoul of any restrictions placed on the company by the courts.
The courts forbade Microsoft from refusing to offer a version of Windows without IE, antitrust lawyers pointed out. But the company remains free to offer IE only bundled with a $199 copy of Windows.
"They have to let OEM licensees, HP or whoever, put Netscape or another browser on the other computer and have it work with Windows," said Richard Liebeskind, a partner with Pillsbury Winthrop in Washington, D.C., who worked for both the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice on antitrust issues. "I don't know that there's any obligation to make (Internet) Explorer, because it's not the product Microsoft has been found to have monopolized. The government lost that part of the case--Microsoft got off on a technicality."
Perhaps paradoxically, the removal from the market of IE as a separate product makes reality conform with Microsoft's longtime defense against charges that it tied the browser and the OS.
"Obviously, having a separate product out there prolonged the argument that there were two products that would form the basis of an unlawful tie," said Mark Ostrau, antitrust chair at the technology law firm Fenwick & West. "This gets rid of one pesky aspect of the case. It brings to the inevitable conclusion what Microsoft had in mind all along. And it won't be the last time that this occurs. Windows is like Los Angeles--it likes to annex a lot of outlying areas over time."
Asked where another standalone Microsoft application might disappear from the market, Ostrau advised, "Watch what happens with the media player."
*sigh*
Originally posted by Brad
Agreed, but honestly I don't think there's anyone out there with enough capital to take this battle to court. Netscape? Dead. W3C? Impossible. Opera? Laughable. Apple? Equally laughable, especially since it doesn't have a competing product on Windows and since Apple is guilty of the same practice with Safari. Besides, the US government is good buddies with Microsoft now, what with the Department of Homeland Security (IIRC) officially adopting Windows as its platform of choice. *sigh*
Here's CNet's take on the antitrust angle (from June 2003):
*sigh*
I would say that mozilla vs. safari vs. camino are a pretty good match. Of course Apple's not going to produce Safari as first choice multi platform. Their idea is to sell their hardware, to sell hardware you must have Software, this proves as a good mentality for selling software. For them.
Microsoft would be screwed over, as they don't know hardware. Bill Gates probably knows as much as a kid opening a computer with about a year of experience in hardware maintenence.
It is still true to a lot of computer nerds, geeks of the trade, that do programming themselves; that software isn't generally something you buy. If your under the GPL, you build the tools yourself, based on other free tools. It's hard to be able to justify putting a price on something that is as prevalent as you want it. Aka, Something that can be reproduced many times with little effort, but just as factor of time. I see it as buying math equations.
Factor in the time it takes to create a tool (software program) from scratch: do people want to pay for software still? People that go to BestBuy and CompUSA to buy, they are not only acquiring the binary code, but also aquiring the box. So they see they are buying something. If you were going to pay 400 $ US for MS OFFICE as a download, it greatly looses its shine. Although in this process, you save Microsoft the hassle of copying the Program CD, the Manual CD, as well as saving the environment a little by not aquiring the junk to throw away. So it helps out both sides.
Look at it from an omnicient standpoint. From someone who doesn't really care about this matter and would only want peace. I think that the peace that would have to occur is to more reasonably price their software. I'll explain.
Bill Gates is the attackee I'm going for and even though he's making more money than he could ever spend in his lifetime, the prices of Office remain the same: horribly expensive. There's no 'reasoning' there in my opinion. No level of humbleness is shown.
Because of the lack there of, they again go for their own selfish desire and want to create their own network, their own browser, their own prices, that everyone feels they must pay. Microsoft doesn't confer with it's customers, as greatly as Apple does, so they make their customers mad from time to time.
What can we do about it? For software as a whole.
-walloo.
In life there are the Lions and the Zebras, and somehow they both survive.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
playing devil's advocate here: isn't Safari 1.1 only available for Panther?
The whole problem with the integrated IE has always been twofold: 1. do we really want to deal with all this stuff through a browser paradigm, and 2. they were sabotaging other emerging (competitive) technologies on the Windows platform using integrated IE as their excuse to do so. And I don't just mean undermining Netscape by bundling their browser for free. I mean tinkering with Qt, Real, Java and their ilk with little to show in improvements otherwise to the system.
Remember back in the day when the internet was supposed to level the playing field for any competitors to Microsoft? Give MS credit for successfully cutting off that angle of attack.
Apple doesn't even let you download Safari for Jag anymore!
Originally posted by willywalloo
I would say that mozilla vs. safari vs. camino are a pretty good match. Of course Apple's not going to produce Safari as first choice multi platform. Their idea is to sell their hardware, to sell hardware you must have Software, this proves as a good mentality for selling software. For them.
So, Apple's going to make a chunk of money off me not once, but twice here. Once for the hardware and twice (and then repeatedly) for the software. That's once more than Microsoft. Ah, how times have changed. I remember when all OS upgrades were free from Apple. Not that there's anything wrong with change...
It is still true to a lot of computer nerds, geeks of the trade, that do programming themselves; that software isn't generally something you buy...
Not anyone in my family. Not most of the people at my university. Not most of the people I work with.
My girlfriend isn't going to want to go download gcc and a hundred megabytes of source code and then have to wait a day for a browser to *hopefully* compile. She'd be lucky if she could even figure out what gcc is, let alone build a makefile. She and almost everyone else I know, myself included, would be much better off and satisfied getting major software titles precompiled, even if it means paying for it.
That's why I don't use Linux on my personal computer.
Besides, it's not going to do us a heck of a lot of good if the software we build ourselves isn't compatible with the new stuff that Microsoft is including with Windows. Let's not forget Microsoft's push to implement new, proprietary goodies like XAML into Internet Explorer. Every new PC purchase is going to have the new version of Windows with this proprietary software. Add to that all the people that are going to buy the upgrade themselves.
Because of the lack there of, they again go for their own selfish desire and want to create their own network, their own browser, their own prices, that everyone feels they must pay. Microsoft doesn't confer with it's customers, as greatly as Apple does, so they make their customers mad from time to time.
And yet it still works. Microsoft still maintains a commanding 95% lead of the desktop market. Microsoft is even *gaining* popularity in the server market, the one area where people thought surely Linux and other alternatives would beat Microsoft to a pulp.
People are content with Microsoft.
In life there are the Lions and the Zebras, and somehow they both survive.
This analogy doesn't even begin to hold its ground. In your case, the minority group (the lions) is the predator. In this case, the majority group (Microsoft) is the predator. Completely different circumstances.
So, Apple's going to make a chunk of money off me not once, but twice here. Once for the hardware and twice (and then repeatedly) for the software. That's once more than Microsoft. Ah, how times have changed. I remember when all OS upgrades were free from Apple. Not that there's anything wrong with change...
So Apple will sell Safari, don't think so. I don't for see them releasing Safari for windows anytime soon.
Not anyone in my family. Not most of the people at my university. Not most of the people I work with.
My girlfriend isn't going to want to go download gcc and a hundred megabytes of source code and then have to wait a day for a browser to *hopefully* compile. She'd be lucky if she could even figure out what gcc is, let alone build a makefile. She and almost everyone else I know, myself included, would be much better off and satisfied getting major software titles precompiled, even if it means paying for it.
That's why I don't use Linux on my personal computer.
Besides, it's not going to do us a heck of a lot of good if the software we build ourselves isn't compatible with the new stuff that Microsoft is including with Windows. Let's not forget Microsoft's push to implement new, proprietary goodies like XAML into Internet Explorer. Every new PC purchase is going to have the new version of Windows with this proprietary software. Add to that all the people that are going to buy the upgrade themselves.
All I was basically saying is that there is a wealth of utilities out there, yes I could agree that the average American will buy from 3rd parties. Many other "geeks" as I've noticed, and was talking about, have found other ways: and in most cases, there are other freeware ways.
And yet it still works. Microsoft still maintains a commanding 95% lead of the desktop market. Microsoft is even *gaining* popularity in the server market, the one area where people thought surely Linux and other alternatives would beat Microsoft to a pulp.
"it still works" is a quote for right now. With ever increasing virus threats from people who don't agree with Microsoft's examples of not fixing their code:
They've known of this c program problem for at least 3 years now:
void main { for( ; ; ) printf("Hungup\\\b\\b\\b\\b\\b\\b"); }
From the side of the Virus writer, Microsoft re re re uses old code, which isn't a good practice. Proof comes from these writers when a virus works.
People are content with Microsoft.
Whoa, generalizing can be a bad idea.
This analogy doesn't even begin to hold its ground. In your case, the minority group (the lions) is the predator. In this case, the majority group (Microsoft) is the predator. Completely different circumstances.
Whoa, do you know what you said? If you take the line word for word: Lions are Predators, Zebras are the hunted, even though this takes place, it doesn't mean that Zebras are all hunted. So applying this to the subject at hand, if Microsoft is the Predator, and they go after the public, just the same way a smaller company goes after the same thing then they both have equal chances of surviving a single 'sale.' Factors weighing in their favors are skill and product. If the Zebra can outdo the Lion and win, then this would be an example of the Zebra surviving. So implications can be derived that then the other party would loose. Enough losses can impose death, not extinction. There is a lot to be said by the line.
I stand by: In life there are Zebras and Lions, and somehow they both survive.
I will explain it to no maximum depth.