Compatibility issues, should MS only web sites be banned?
OK, I'm not a great believer in legislation as the one I'm suggesting here. Banning prostitution doesn't make it disappear. Ban on cannabis doesn't make people stop smoking etc. etc. But since Microsoft has proved to be above the law, I wander if banning MS only web sites would work and could be the only thing to save os from a MS domination in the years to come? Maybe this could actually work with commercial corporations?
I've come to the boards on regular bases and moaned about MS only web sites. And my impression is that the situation is getting worse by the day.
I've come to the boards on regular bases and moaned about MS only web sites. And my impression is that the situation is getting worse by the day.
Comments
This worked. Even Microsoft bowed to this movement to some extent. So, now that there's pretty decent standards support everywhere, and there are plenty of examples of good standard websites, pressure can be applied to authors who are still stuck in some proprietary variant of HTML 4.
Honey attracts more flies than vinegar. It's better to make a case for why you should adopt standards than it is to beat people over the head for not adopting them. (Of course, to get here, the browser vendors had to be beaten over the head. So it goes...).
Originally posted by Fluffy
Absolutely not. What's next? Shall we ban windows-only software? It is not (nor should it be) considered wrong for an independent designer to create a web site that only works in Windows. Microsoft's corporate website should probably be multi-platform accessible in accordance with the DOJ's findings (and so it appears to be), but to then expand that ruling to all users of Microsoft software is ludicrous.
I don't think that's the point. I think the DOJ should for MS to make their browser 100% standards compliant and nothing more. If a different company wants to make a browser that could hook into the OS in different ways, and web designers wanted to take advantage of those features, then so be it. But MS should be taken out of that equation.
This would be an opportunity for both the standards committee and third party software developers to get into a market that MS's illegal monopoly has kept closed.
Originally posted by bunge
I don't think that's the point. I think the DOJ should for MS to make their browser 100% standards compliant and nothing more.
I don't know if I agree. Well first, the original post was about making certain websites illegal, not changing IE so I assumed that is how the proposed legislation would be worded. I disagree with that approach very strongly.
But as to the point you raised, I agree that MS should make their browser 100% standards compliant, but I don't agree with the rider "and nothing more". I'm the last person to accuse MS of innovation, but to prohibit even the possibility thereof pending the decision of a standards committee seems excessive. If Microsoft wants to make its browser more fully featured than its competitors then they should not be prohibited from doing so. If people then wish to build websites around these special features then they should also not be restricted in any way.
I am using Safari 1.1.1.
It gave me this on the top. "Warning: You are viewing this page with an unsupported Web browser. This Web site works best with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.01 or later or Netscape Navigator 6.0 or later. Click here for more information on supported browsers."
I did click on it and say No to "Was this information helpful?" then Not what I expected on "Why?". That's it.. it would go any further when I press Next.
Originally posted by thuh Freak
...but interfering with software development can't be good. developers may grow fearful of creating popular products.
i think the point is to acknowledge and work with accepted standards, and microsoft is finally getting to that point with IE6, but they're not there yet. problem is, they rammed IE5 down everyon's throats and it will be out there for a VERY long time. the 'net was supposed to be platform independent, and designing with CSS (AND client education, i might add) is the answer.
i still don't understand what they hell microsoft was complaining about with apple having more access to core technologies to create a better browser, so they just backed out. huh? IT'S THE WEB, for crying out lout. just render the damn xhtml the way it was intended, and invest the time to rewrite IE for mac, instead of glomming on more code to your terrible carbon port for every mac os release.
but i guess that makes too much sense.
Originally posted by rok
i still don't understand what they hell microsoft was complaining about with apple having more access to core technologies to create a better browser, so they just backed out. huh?
MS didn't drop Mac IE because of Safari - IE has been dropped on both Mac and Windows.
MS is still making their MSN browser for Mac OS X.
Originally posted by Fluffy
But as to the point you raised, I agree that MS should make their browser 100% standards compliant, but I don't agree with the rider "and nothing more". I'm the last person to accuse MS of innovation, but to prohibit even the possibility thereof pending the decision of a standards committee seems excessive. If Microsoft wants to make its browser more fully featured than its competitors then they should not be prohibited from doing so. If people then wish to build websites around these special features then they should also not be restricted in any way.
It may seem excessive, but they're an illegal monopoly. They should have to get approval for the features they want to add to IE before they add them. Once a standard, anyone can use it. It's not limiting anything they can do, just the realm where they've been judged to have caused major damage.
Originally posted by bunge
It may seem excessive, but they're an illegal monopoly. They should have to get approval for the features they want to add to IE before they add them. Once a standard, anyone can use it. It's not limiting anything they can do, just the realm where they've been judged to have caused major damage.
it is limiting what they can do. it would be bad for business and the consumer. one of the hugest software companies would be told they are not allowed to innovate. i know and you know they aren't any good at innovating. they suck at making software in general, but its not the government's place to force them to stop. it would be a scary day indeed if that came to pass. corporations have to get special permission to add features to one of their products? you and i might not like these features, but its no place of any government to step in. where ms went wrong, imo, was pushing out competition. they were one on one (basically) against netscape, and they under cut prices (i think legal), but then they forced their product onto users of unrelated products and made them basically inseparable (illegal). users of windows couldn't, without particular and highly technical knowledge, remove or replace ie with netscape or another competitor. i think the government should force ie out of the OS/kernel, but not mess with any potential features ie might have/bring. market forces should move those.
the reason ie-only sites are popular is because ie had/has some features that other browsers don't. where they intersect with accepted standards, we would all prefer that ms use the standards. but if we just stare at the standards, then the web won't advance. and i don't think the web should be regulated in any way. governments are large enough, we dont need to add on a web-standards body. ms doens't have any impetus to make a standards compliant browser, because they can basically dictate what the browser is, since they force it on 90% of the users. if the browser was separated from the OS, and on equal footing with its competitors, browsers could compete on features. and, the standards compliant browsers would more likely become popular (and more popular than ie), because ms can't make a competing product. if they could they wouldn't have used monopoly practices.
Originally posted by thuh Freak
it is limiting what they can do. it would be bad for business and the consumer. one of the hugest software companies would be told they are not allowed to innovate. i know and you know they aren't any good at innovating. they suck at making software in general, but its not the government's place to force them to stop. it would be a scary day indeed if that came to pass. corporations have to get special permission to add features to one of their products? you and i might not like these features, but its no place of any government to step in.
It is the government's job to step in though, when the government decides that the company in question is an illegal monopoly. And besides, MS could still innovate, but the features they add would have to be ratified as standards before they could be put to use publicly. This is a penalty because they broke the law. They have an illegal head start on marketshare because they broke the law.
Forcing them to reduce some of that isn't scary at all. It's scary that the government hasn't done anything to them. Previously, like with the phone company monopoly, the government did much much more.
Originally posted by bunge
It may seem excessive, but they're an illegal monopoly. They should have to get approval for the features they want to add to IE before they add them. Once a standard, anyone can use it. It's not limiting anything they can do, just the realm where they've been judged to have caused major damage.
The monopoly conviction is irrelevant in this case. The major damage they caused was not by adding features to their web browser. MS only web sites have nothing to do with Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly, they are a natural outgrowth of new features and are not illegal. Microsoft didn't use their monopoly position to threaten people to make MS only sites, they used their power to threaten companies to only use IE. That is illegal and they may no longer do so, but it doesn't then follow that there is any reason to restrict Microsoft's ability to add to their browser.
It's unfortunate that the cage has been closed after the lion escaped and MS is allowed to keep its ill-gotten gains, but that's the way it is. I'd rather MS be forced to abandon its browser, open the code and allow others to compete for the browser piece of the pie. That would be a logical punishment for their crime IMO, taking away what they stole (ubiquitous desktop presence). Forcing standards compliance does not punish the crime, it's petty revenge.
This is a penalty because they broke the law. They have an illegal head start on marketshare because they broke the law.
Then take the marketshare away. That would be a proper punishment.
Originally posted by Fluffy
It's unfortunate that the cage has been closed after the lion escaped and MS is allowed to keep its ill-gotten gains, but that's the way it is. I'd rather MS be forced to abandon its browser, open the code and allow others to compete for the browser piece of the pie. That would be a logical punishment for their crime IMO, taking away what they stole (ubiquitous desktop presence). Forcing standards compliance does not punish the crime, it's petty revenge.
Then take the marketshare away. That would be a proper punishment.
Forcing their browser to be open doesn't take away their ability to innovate their brower? You're contridicting yourself, even if I think it's a better punishment than what I suggested.
Whatever the correct punishment is, your assessment of "too bad the cage is closed" is just wrong. This will be the first time in history an illegal monopoly isn't truly punished. Asking for that punishment isn't 'petty revenge.' it's normal.
Originally posted by bunge
Forcing their browser to be open doesn't take away their ability to innovate their brower? You're contridicting yourself, even if I think it's a better punishment than what I suggested.
It does take that away, but that's incidental to why I support it. I support taking the browser away because even with the browser 100% standards compliant it still leaves MS with their illegally gained marketshare. If a man steals a car you make him give it back, you don't affix a speed governor to ensure speed limit compliance... it doesn't address the crime. Forcing 100% compliance is a half-way measure that solves nothing (ie "petty") and doesn't allow future innovation without a tangle of bureaucracy. It doesn't empower MS's competitors because they have already been forced off the Windows desktop (for the vast majority of people), so how does this in any way address the crime?
Originally posted by Fluffy
It doesn't empower MS's competitors because they have already been forced off the Windows desktop (for the vast majority of people), so how does this in any way address the crime?
It reopens the desktop to companies that produce browsers. It gives an opportunity for other companies to innovate beyond what MS is capable of doing. As things stand, no one bothers to compete. That stifles innovation. Killing or crippling IE reopens that market to competition and this innovation.
How does limiting IE not empower competition?