It won't make a difference. People will use IE the same way that they use Word, regardless of their options. A few will use Mozilla just as now, but in the end the majority of webmasters (of non computer oriented sites) aren't going to support a special feature in a browser few people use just to stick it to MS. IE will continue its dominance regardless.
I could be wrong. But the Mac has been better with better features for two decades now. MS is still king, illegally or not.
I can only think of one website that is IE only and that is a support website for a peecee only company. I also have to use IE when I patch my old peecee I use for game development.
Other than those two cases, MS and IE have no relevance to my web life at all.
You know they were lying right? They said it was because Apple had better access to the OS, which is hilarious since that is exactly why IE seems to work better on Windows, but that was just a lie. An excuse, a cop out. They dropped it for all platforms, even old versions of Windows, so they could bundle it (ILLEGALLY) in to Windows. So now they can charge people to use the Web if they want the best compatibility. Makes perfect business sense, as long as you have enough money to bribe the DoJ and smack around any other company.
developers may grow fearful of creating popular products. afterall, when they become ubiquitous, the government will step in and say "change it to how we want it!" what's next?
That's just silly. That would not stifle development at all and think of it this way. The FCC at one point many moons ago had to set standards for things like radio and television broadcasts. What's the difference some standards organization setting standards for the web?
That's just silly. That would not stifle development at all and think of it this way. The FCC at one point many moons ago had to set standards for things like radio and television broadcasts. What's the difference some standards organization setting standards for the web?
This is the whole point I would think. No one owns the web just like no one owns the society we live in. We still have to follow some basic guidelines and if we don't we're prisoned.
Thing is, too many sites don't bother about standards and that has to change. Not for Apple's sake but for future development regardless of platform. The current situation in very much in MS favour of course and only adds to their dominance
That's just silly. That would not stifle development at all and think of it this way. The FCC at one point many moons ago had to set standards for things like radio and television broadcasts. What's the difference some standards organization setting standards for the web?
well, for my part, i don't want the american government, or any government, having control over the web. any. i don't know the situations that caused the government to step into tv and radio, but i'd rather they stay off the web. That government which governs least, governs best. if the government makes a web standards body, then other browsers will suffer. mozilla won't be able to come up with moz-only, or moz-first features. should mozilla really be punished for ms' wrongs?
well, for my part, i don't want the american government, or any government, having control over the web. any. i don't know the situations that caused the government to step into tv and radio, but i'd rather they stay off the web. That government which governs least, governs best. if the government makes a web standards body, then other browsers will suffer. mozilla won't be able to come up with moz-only, or moz-first features. should mozilla really be punished for ms' wrongs?
That's not what we're discussing. Moz can still do whatever they want, but you seem to be ignoring that point. I don't want the government to have any say in the web either, but I do want them to have a say in MS now that they've been judged to be an illegal monopoly.
Well, why don't you come up with suggestion as what can be done? Or do you think MS's domination and their business practices are in our best interest? I'm not into government legislation at all. But in a way, the web is an international highway and on every highway certain rules must apply to avoid chaos. That's what this thread is all about. Can't see why I should be ashamed of suggesting something must be done.
People that worry about governement trying to regulate effectively are correct.
Those worried about MS are correct.
It boils down to the fact that if any of us were in Bill & Balmer's shoes we would do exactly the same thing as they do with MS. Cause its the way to make the most money. Thats their job. The problem is because of the size of MS they are able to do things that most companies can not even though they would like to.
Solution then can only be to take that power away thru a breakup.
Anything short of that will leave MS with the temptation to "profit maximize" just as a corporation is suppose to. And as long as they remain to big that profit maximizing will mean the same type of behavior they have been up to since 1995.
One more clarification. What I'm suggesting is forcing MS to keep to standards. WIth that, they can introduce new standards, but they'd have to be open enough for other companies to implement them. But just as important, if a different company introduces a standard, MS would be forced to implement it. That would help keep the browser playing field level.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
How does limiting IE not empower competition?
It won't make a difference. People will use IE the same way that they use Word, regardless of their options. A few will use Mozilla just as now, but in the end the majority of webmasters (of non computer oriented sites) aren't going to support a special feature in a browser few people use just to stick it to MS. IE will continue its dominance regardless.
I could be wrong. But the Mac has been better with better features for two decades now. MS is still king, illegally or not.
Other than those two cases, MS and IE have no relevance to my web life at all.
but i guess that makes too much sense.
You know they were lying right? They said it was because Apple had better access to the OS, which is hilarious since that is exactly why IE seems to work better on Windows, but that was just a lie. An excuse, a cop out. They dropped it for all platforms, even old versions of Windows, so they could bundle it (ILLEGALLY) in to Windows. So now they can charge people to use the Web if they want the best compatibility. Makes perfect business sense, as long as you have enough money to bribe the DoJ and smack around any other company.
developers may grow fearful of creating popular products. afterall, when they become ubiquitous, the government will step in and say "change it to how we want it!" what's next?
That's just silly. That would not stifle development at all and think of it this way. The FCC at one point many moons ago had to set standards for things like radio and television broadcasts. What's the difference some standards organization setting standards for the web?
Originally posted by trick fall
That's just silly. That would not stifle development at all and think of it this way. The FCC at one point many moons ago had to set standards for things like radio and television broadcasts. What's the difference some standards organization setting standards for the web?
This is the whole point I would think. No one owns the web just like no one owns the society we live in. We still have to follow some basic guidelines and if we don't we're prisoned.
Thing is, too many sites don't bother about standards and that has to change. Not for Apple's sake but for future development regardless of platform. The current situation in very much in MS favour of course and only adds to their dominance
Originally posted by trick fall
That's just silly. That would not stifle development at all and think of it this way. The FCC at one point many moons ago had to set standards for things like radio and television broadcasts. What's the difference some standards organization setting standards for the web?
well, for my part, i don't want the american government, or any government, having control over the web. any. i don't know the situations that caused the government to step into tv and radio, but i'd rather they stay off the web. That government which governs least, governs best. if the government makes a web standards body, then other browsers will suffer. mozilla won't be able to come up with moz-only, or moz-first features. should mozilla really be punished for ms' wrongs?
Originally posted by thuh Freak
well, for my part, i don't want the american government, or any government, having control over the web. any. i don't know the situations that caused the government to step into tv and radio, but i'd rather they stay off the web. That government which governs least, governs best. if the government makes a web standards body, then other browsers will suffer. mozilla won't be able to come up with moz-only, or moz-first features. should mozilla really be punished for ms' wrongs?
That's not what we're discussing. Moz can still do whatever they want, but you seem to be ignoring that point. I don't want the government to have any say in the web either, but I do want them to have a say in MS now that they've been judged to be an illegal monopoly.
kelib, you should be ashamed for suggesting this.
Originally posted by dfiler
kelib, you should be ashamed for suggesting this.
Well, why don't you come up with suggestion as what can be done? Or do you think MS's domination and their business practices are in our best interest? I'm not into government legislation at all. But in a way, the web is an international highway and on every highway certain rules must apply to avoid chaos. That's what this thread is all about. Can't see why I should be ashamed of suggesting something must be done.
People that worry about governement trying to regulate effectively are correct.
Those worried about MS are correct.
It boils down to the fact that if any of us were in Bill & Balmer's shoes we would do exactly the same thing as they do with MS. Cause its the way to make the most money. Thats their job. The problem is because of the size of MS they are able to do things that most companies can not even though they would like to.
Solution then can only be to take that power away thru a breakup.
Anything short of that will leave MS with the temptation to "profit maximize" just as a corporation is suppose to. And as long as they remain to big that profit maximizing will mean the same type of behavior they have been up to since 1995.
As much as I despise microsoft's corporate culture and business practices, it could be worse. Our government could criminalize a communication format.
You think they haven't already? Anti regulation people crack me up and scare me. You want a country with no regulations go move to the third world.