I just think that EU is simply being stupid for reviving that claim. The main reason that IE dominated the market is simply because IE had a horrible opponent, which is Netscape 4.x to compete with. Bundling a product with M$ Windows is no magic formula. The rise of iTunes and Firefox is an obvious indication that people are smart enough to choose better product that doesn't come along with M$ Windows.
Plus, the EU overestimated M$'s influence on the market. The downfall of IE's market share only goes to show that M$ does not have the power and influence as it used to have and that people are indeed smart enough to make choices. EU should really stop whining about this stupid claim and worry about something else, like something more important.
how exactly would you download a browser if your OS didn't come with one?
You have a very good point. Although it's definitely possible to download a browser without a browser, it's just that most people don't know how to do so.
Plus, as far as I know, PC vendors can technically uninstall (or hide, which is a better description) IE and install other browsers on their PCs. However, I don't think any PC vendor is going to bother that, and I don't think they need to.
I just think that EU is simply being stupid for reviving that claim. The main reason that IE dominated the market is simply because IE had a horrible opponent, which is Netscape 4.x to compete with. Bundling a product with M$ Windows is no magic formula. The rise of iTunes and Firefox is an obvious indication that people are smart enough to choose better product that doesn't come along with M$ Windows.
I agree. Also, it's not like you need to remove IE in order to use competing products - who cares if it's tied into the system? It's just like if the finder windows happened to have some added functionality.
Quote:
Plus, the EU overestimated M$'s influence on the market. The downfall of IE's market share only goes to show that M$ does not have the power and influence as it used to have and that people are indeed smart enough to make choices. EU should really stop whining about this stupid claim and worry about something else, like something more important.
Do you think the EU may have other, less altruistic motives for doing this? Beyond the obvious cash grab for the EU, just think of the precedent this sets as far as expanding their power to regulate business. I can't be sure, of course, but in my opinion, it's not about Microsoft's market share at all - it's the huge publicity this case would get, combined with the unpopular image that Microsoft has in the public. To me, it seems like they thought "Let's go after the biggest target we can, but choose someone who's unpopular enough that we can get away with it." I think that to these people, public perception isn't just an intangible thing, to them its reality. I mean, the EU is just made up of people, like you and me, people who like to grow their departments and expand their role in the world. There may be other reasons, i don't know, but i find it hard to think of the government as somehow 'above' these types of motivations. Am I being to harsh here?
Bullshit. When IE 6.0 came out those web standards did not exist. Opera's officers which created the ACID 2.0 and 3.0 tests were the ones that pushed for various CSS standards. In fact when Acid 2.0 was released they challenged Microsoft to pass it when hypocritically the Opera browser hadn't passed yet. IE 8 does pass 2 and is better on 3 (its still in Beta).
In addition Microsoft can't force users to quit using IE6. Released in 2001 mind you.
All other browsers such as Safari, Opera, Firefox, and Chrome are way new browsers.
While I do dislike certain CSS and PNG issues with IE6, if I want to cater to people using software from 2001 (when there is a free upgrade to Firefox or IE7 that doesn't have png issues) I need to develop that way. If your too lazy then your not a real web designer. The browsers will never be 100% alike as standards evolve and you should choose another job.
What a massive rewrite of history and facts.
Firstly, the Acid tests started in 1998, way before IE6 was released.
"Acid1 is a test page for browsers. It was developed in October 1998 and was important in establishing baseline interoperability between early web browsers, especially for the Cascading Style Sheets 1.0 specification."
Secondly there is a very strong case that it was the Acid2 test made forced IE7 to be more compatible than it could have been. And IE6 was a pretty terrible bit of software for web standards, and the lack of awareness of other browsers meant that Microsoft sat back for SIX years without making improvements apart from slowly patching the myriad security holes in the product. When IE8 is released it will have taken Microsoft 4 years to pass Acid 2!
There's an argument that the standards bodies should have been more proactive in pushing for uptake of their new standards, instead of a third party having to create some publicised tests.
Anyway, this action is way too late now, the damage has been done to the software that has died out or had to massively change revenue model since 2000.
Also Windows N versions of the operating systems are worthless if they don't actually cost less. However a bare-bones version of Windows (in terms of bundled software, not disabling desktop compositing like in Vista Basic) for a lot less money would be quite tempting for OEMs who could bundle Chrome, or Safari and iTunes, and so on.
Then again maybe Apple's bundling of iMovie, iWeb, iTunes, etc, has killed off many third party solutions on the Mac. The fact is that you aren't selling an operating system, you are selling a software solution out of the box.
I hate using microsoft products but I don't see the issue with bundling.
I suspect that the US and EU governments know there is monopolistic behaviour but struggle to make a legal case, so the browser bundling is really just a desperate attempt to protect the market.
Half of microsoft's grip is due to their ownership of the most common file formats for documents. The best efforts I have seen were those by the US and EU states that decided that it was unacceptable for citizens and their governments to communicate using file formats owned by a single powerful company and have pushed for open formats.
I think the latter, more than anything else, opens the way for OpenOffice, Google etc to compete with Microsoft in a fair fight.
How can a user download the web browsers other than Internet Explorer if it's not built in? Why EU doesn't ask Apple the same with regards to Safari in Mac?
How can a user download the web browsers other than Internet Explorer if it's not built in? Why EU doesn't ask Apple the same as of Safari in Mac?
Safari is a little different IMO because its not required to run the OS. In other words, its not physically attached to Mac OS X. You can fully deleted Safari and the OS keeps running. This isn't necessarily true with Explore because its attached to the OS.
While not a fan of MS' monopolistic practices, this is not one of them.
PS: Does Vista use IE to update the OS or does it use a seperate app like *nx-based systems?
Just like with XP, in Vista and Windows 7 if you use Automatic updates there's a separate window that launches and you can download and install updates from there. However, if you want to update manually you have to go through Internet Explore and hope and pray that Windows Update and Windows Genuine Active-X controls install and configure properly or else you're SOL without screwing around just to make the updates show up and install properly. That can even screw up the automatic updates from running properly. Been there, done that!
Its still not like Mac OS X though where there's a separate app just for updating (automatically or manual) without going through a browser. Personally I like the way Apple does it better. You get more than just OS X updates through it, and I know at one time Apple was playing with the idea of letting 3rd party vendors go through Software Update. That would be nice to see. A one stop shop for updates in one app.
The same arguments apply to Safari which is tied to Mac OS X, but also the iPhone. Both Firefox and Opera are better web browsers than Safari which is tied to Mac OS X and the iPhone OS X.
No it is not the same argument. When Apple includes Safari with OSX, they are only reaching 4% of the World's computer users. When MS includes IE with Windows, they reach 90% of the World's computer users. And if MS ties IE to Windows so that it's difficult to remove, (or make it difficult to install a competing browser) they are abusing the monopoly they have in the computer OS market.
But I don't see MS including IE with Windows as an abuse of their monopoly. This isn't like back in the 90's with Windows 95. Where MS wouldn't let you delete IE at all. And they were purposely making it very difficult for competing browsers (Netscape) to run properly in Windows. Plus they were threatening to stop licensing Windows (or increase the cost of a Windows license) to venders like Dell if they included a competing browser with their computers. Now of days, everyone expect a computer to be able to log on to the internet out of the box. And IE can be pretty much be deleted out of sight if some one wants to use a different browser. There may still be codes imbedded in the OS pertaining to IE that may cause security risk. But that's what some one gets for using Windows in the first place.
Here's a thought, maybe the EU computers are still on MS Windows 95.
I dislike MS (bad software, bad practices) and I dislike the EU (bad policy by politicians-for-life with no appeal, and no external or self-regulation). Both are generally bad with a few bright spots.
As for MS, do they still not allow PC mfrs to install other browsers (besides IE) if they install Windows? If they allow PC mfrs to do so, then there's no issue here.
I do not know a whole lot about the rest of the world, but in the US I think you are pretty correct. There are many government websites that cater to only IE. This is sad because government has a huge influence on what technology is adopted.
I also do not know if the EU is correct in this case or not, but more times then not, the EU tends to highly favor consumer rights. In the US, not so much. I prefer the US way. The government should work for people, not the other way around.
I think it fair to acknowledge that the reason Microsoft is constantly undergoing this scrutiny is because 1) it has a monopoly in desktop operating systems sold for PCs, and 2) it has been found in the past to illegally abuse that monopoly. For that reason, it has to be more careful then Apple in how it treats competitors. To gain or maintain dominance in a certain market, there can be no more paying Dell in the form of reduced payments for WIndows, if it excludes certain software (e.g. Netscape). No more threatening Apple to stop making Office for the Mac, if it doesn't abandon Quicktime for Windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P C
For me the greatest irony in this is that government departments are the worst offenders when it comes to websites that are incompatible with anything other than I.E. followed in close second place by large corporates.
In my country the National Library has an excellent catalogue of historic photos available online. However, unless you have a PC running IE you cannot run the obscure viewer program which shows these photos in hi-res and are left with jpeg thumbnails. Our tax department also runs a great business portal which claims to have a Mac compatible plug-in. Its so buggy that you would never trust your business to it. Finally my bank has a consumer site which can be used by any browser but try and log-in to their business site and you find it is a Windows/IE-only environment.
Firefox and Opera mobile browsers have a different code from Mobile Safari, they are based in Webkit too but it is a different interpreted code. Apple have on the developer I don't know what that they do not accept interpreted code.
They are not based on WebKit. They have different engines, which is why Apple is likely not to approve them while they specifically allow any app to call the framework that contains WebKit.
Before there were other apps whose specific purpose was to generate webpages, their were plenty of other apps that would call WebKit to render pages. App Store RSS readers commonly do this.
Opera uses a Presto-based layout engine and Firefox uses a Gecko-based layout engine.
Safari is a little different IMO because its not required to run the OS. In other words, its not physically attached to Mac OS X. You can fully deleted Safari and the OS keeps running. This isn't necessarily true with Explore because its attached to the OS.
Interestingly, there are 3rd party programs which can compete with the Finder, and I don't think you can remove the Finder from the Mac OS. Is apple being anti-competitive by bundling the Finder with their OS, or does this principle only apply with web browsers? If so, why?
How can a user download the web browsers other than Internet Explorer if it's not built in? Why EU doesn't ask Apple the same as of Safari in Mac?
Methods used in the past involved FTP, local network, CD or even floppy if you go back far enough.
I don't think it's a problem that there is only one browser included, as long as that browser isn't programmed to prevent me from downloading my preferred alternative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraklinc
That's not so true, you might think Apple is going it but in reality things are different, as you might recalled this past week a few bullshit browsers where release throw the App store, all based on webkit, so i don't see how Apple can block firefox since they use webkit same as safari. People quickly jump to all kinds of conclusion when they don't see something on the app store, although these browsers seem small you can't cook one overnight you know
Firefox uses Gecko, not WebKit.
edit: solipsism got his reply in before I did.
I'm kind of disappointed by the policy, but I don't use the mobile browser that often anyway. The current version doesn't seem to crater so often.
The same arguments apply to Safari which is tied to Mac OS X, but also the iPhone. Both Firefox and Opera are better web browsers than Safari which is tied to Mac OS X and the iPhone OS X.
Moreover, Apple is illegally blocking Firefox and Opera developpers from distributing their web browser through the iTunes iPhone App Store for use on the iPhone.
I encourage the developpers of Firefox and Opera to launch an antitrust complaint with the European Commission against Apple which is illegally blocking their web browsers from distribution on the iTunes iPhone store.
Safari is BUNDLED with Mac OS X. Its NOT tied to the OS. You can delete Safari very easily by just dragging it to the trash and emptying it and the OS doesn't crap out. There's a big difference there. Apple isn't doing anything illegal with Safari. They aren't making you use it, they aren't making it difficult to remove, its not an essential component to run OS X, etc.
Apple IS allowing 3rd party browsers on the iPhone. Link
Well, there are 3rd party programs which can compete with the Finder, and I don't think you can remove the Finder from the Mac OS. Is apple being anti-competitive by bundling the Finder with their OS, or does this principle only apply with web browsers? If so, why?
Nice argument.
PS: This being an Apple-centric website and MS being the quintessential nemesis of Apple, it's often easy on this forum for many to automatically shun anything MS does, but almost all of the posts are on the side of MS' 'current' practice. I'm glad to see common sense winning over personal feelings.
I think this comes down to a far more annoying issue: Most CEOs are old guys who don't understand computers as well as the younger generation, so they easily get duped by tasteless IT guys into buying crappy windows systems. None of us like this fact, but the solution is not to blame Microsoft. The free market will sort this out in time - companies which use macs will have fewer maintenance costs and will be more profitable in the long run. It's like survival of the fittest - if macs give a competitive advantage, then more people will use them. Don't be impatient, there are lots of bad people in the world who will prey on your impatience and sell you 'quick fix' solutions like diets, self-help cults and in this case, instant top-down regulations. Don't fall for the trick, don't give in to the the temptation - just be patient, this problem will sort itself out if we give it enough time. Microsoft will either innovate or die, and that's as it should be. Just be patient.
PS: This being an Apple-centric website and MS being the quintessential nemesis of Apple, it's often easy on this forum for many to automatically shun anything MS does, but almost all of the posts are on the side of MS' 'current' practice. I'm glad to see common sense winning over personal feelings.
It is good to see. I was worried for a moment at the beginning, but it seems all right.
Well, there are 3rd party programs which can compete with the Finder, and I don't think you can remove the Finder from the Mac OS. Is apple being anti-competitive by bundling the Finder with their OS, or does this principle only apply with web browsers? If so, why?
You have to have a way to navigate through your OS. Otherwise you wouldn't have any way to get to your apps, documents, etc. Finder is tied to the OS yes, but its not effecting 90% of the computing population either. It doesn't have a huge monopoly like Microsoft does.
Apple isn't preventing those apps for being installed to replace the finder app. Running an update may screw up something, but Apple isn't doing it on purpose. Its just part of installing something overtop of an essential part of the OS. Apple shouldn't be made to go out of its way to make sure all 3rd party finder type apps work with an OS X update. Its up to the 3rd party vendor to make sure it works properly.
You could say the same thing for QuickTime which is also built into the OS. Its an essential part of the OS and once uninstalled certain things won't work properly. But Apple isn't preventing VLC or Flip4Mac, the old Windows Media Player for OS X from being installed either.
If everyone was made to not tie things into your OS you would have an OS that IMO works half-ass, not at all, hard to integrate features into it, etc. You have to draw the line somewhere. The way Microsoft is doing IE now I don't see an issue with it. If you don't like IE, you can install another browser and use it. Far as I'm concerned, this is a stupid claim in the EU.
Comments
Plus, the EU overestimated M$'s influence on the market. The downfall of IE's market share only goes to show that M$ does not have the power and influence as it used to have and that people are indeed smart enough to make choices. EU should really stop whining about this stupid claim and worry about something else, like something more important.
so.....
how exactly would you download a browser if your OS didn't come with one?
You have a very good point. Although it's definitely possible to download a browser without a browser, it's just that most people don't know how to do so.
Plus, as far as I know, PC vendors can technically uninstall (or hide, which is a better description) IE and install other browsers on their PCs. However, I don't think any PC vendor is going to bother that, and I don't think they need to.
I just think that EU is simply being stupid for reviving that claim. The main reason that IE dominated the market is simply because IE had a horrible opponent, which is Netscape 4.x to compete with. Bundling a product with M$ Windows is no magic formula. The rise of iTunes and Firefox is an obvious indication that people are smart enough to choose better product that doesn't come along with M$ Windows.
I agree. Also, it's not like you need to remove IE in order to use competing products - who cares if it's tied into the system? It's just like if the finder windows happened to have some added functionality.
Plus, the EU overestimated M$'s influence on the market. The downfall of IE's market share only goes to show that M$ does not have the power and influence as it used to have and that people are indeed smart enough to make choices. EU should really stop whining about this stupid claim and worry about something else, like something more important.
Do you think the EU may have other, less altruistic motives for doing this? Beyond the obvious cash grab for the EU, just think of the precedent this sets as far as expanding their power to regulate business. I can't be sure, of course, but in my opinion, it's not about Microsoft's market share at all - it's the huge publicity this case would get, combined with the unpopular image that Microsoft has in the public. To me, it seems like they thought "Let's go after the biggest target we can, but choose someone who's unpopular enough that we can get away with it." I think that to these people, public perception isn't just an intangible thing, to them its reality. I mean, the EU is just made up of people, like you and me, people who like to grow their departments and expand their role in the world. There may be other reasons, i don't know, but i find it hard to think of the government as somehow 'above' these types of motivations. Am I being to harsh here?
Bullshit. When IE 6.0 came out those web standards did not exist. Opera's officers which created the ACID 2.0 and 3.0 tests were the ones that pushed for various CSS standards. In fact when Acid 2.0 was released they challenged Microsoft to pass it when hypocritically the Opera browser hadn't passed yet. IE 8 does pass 2 and is better on 3 (its still in Beta).
In addition Microsoft can't force users to quit using IE6. Released in 2001 mind you.
All other browsers such as Safari, Opera, Firefox, and Chrome are way new browsers.
While I do dislike certain CSS and PNG issues with IE6, if I want to cater to people using software from 2001 (when there is a free upgrade to Firefox or IE7 that doesn't have png issues) I need to develop that way. If your too lazy then your not a real web designer. The browsers will never be 100% alike as standards evolve and you should choose another job.
What a massive rewrite of history and facts.
Firstly, the Acid tests started in 1998, way before IE6 was released.
"Acid1 is a test page for browsers. It was developed in October 1998 and was important in establishing baseline interoperability between early web browsers, especially for the Cascading Style Sheets 1.0 specification."
Secondly there is a very strong case that it was the Acid2 test made forced IE7 to be more compatible than it could have been. And IE6 was a pretty terrible bit of software for web standards, and the lack of awareness of other browsers meant that Microsoft sat back for SIX years without making improvements apart from slowly patching the myriad security holes in the product. When IE8 is released it will have taken Microsoft 4 years to pass Acid 2!
There's an argument that the standards bodies should have been more proactive in pushing for uptake of their new standards, instead of a third party having to create some publicised tests.
Anyway, this action is way too late now, the damage has been done to the software that has died out or had to massively change revenue model since 2000.
Also Windows N versions of the operating systems are worthless if they don't actually cost less. However a bare-bones version of Windows (in terms of bundled software, not disabling desktop compositing like in Vista Basic) for a lot less money would be quite tempting for OEMs who could bundle Chrome, or Safari and iTunes, and so on.
Then again maybe Apple's bundling of iMovie, iWeb, iTunes, etc, has killed off many third party solutions on the Mac. The fact is that you aren't selling an operating system, you are selling a software solution out of the box.
I suspect that the US and EU governments know there is monopolistic behaviour but struggle to make a legal case, so the browser bundling is really just a desperate attempt to protect the market.
Half of microsoft's grip is due to their ownership of the most common file formats for documents. The best efforts I have seen were those by the US and EU states that decided that it was unacceptable for citizens and their governments to communicate using file formats owned by a single powerful company and have pushed for open formats.
I think the latter, more than anything else, opens the way for OpenOffice, Google etc to compete with Microsoft in a fair fight.
How can a user download the web browsers other than Internet Explorer if it's not built in? Why EU doesn't ask Apple the same as of Safari in Mac?
Safari is a little different IMO because its not required to run the OS. In other words, its not physically attached to Mac OS X. You can fully deleted Safari and the OS keeps running. This isn't necessarily true with Explore because its attached to the OS.
While not a fan of MS' monopolistic practices, this is not one of them.
PS: Does Vista use IE to update the OS or does it use a seperate app like *nx-based systems?
Just like with XP, in Vista and Windows 7 if you use Automatic updates there's a separate window that launches and you can download and install updates from there. However, if you want to update manually you have to go through Internet Explore and hope and pray that Windows Update and Windows Genuine Active-X controls install and configure properly or else you're SOL without screwing around just to make the updates show up and install properly. That can even screw up the automatic updates from running properly. Been there, done that!
Its still not like Mac OS X though where there's a separate app just for updating (automatically or manual) without going through a browser. Personally I like the way Apple does it better. You get more than just OS X updates through it, and I know at one time Apple was playing with the idea of letting 3rd party vendors go through Software Update. That would be nice to see. A one stop shop for updates in one app.
What next? Removing Mobile Safari from the iPhone?
The same arguments apply to Safari which is tied to Mac OS X, but also the iPhone. Both Firefox and Opera are better web browsers than Safari which is tied to Mac OS X and the iPhone OS X.
No it is not the same argument.
But I don't see MS including IE with Windows as an abuse of their monopoly. This isn't like back in the 90's with Windows 95. Where MS wouldn't let you delete IE at all. And they were purposely making it very difficult for competing browsers (Netscape) to run properly in Windows. Plus they were threatening to stop licensing Windows (or increase the cost of a Windows license) to venders like Dell if they included a competing browser with their computers. Now of days, everyone expect a computer to be able to log on to the internet out of the box. And IE can be pretty much be deleted out of sight if some one wants to use a different browser. There may still be codes imbedded in the OS pertaining to IE that may cause security risk. But that's what some one gets for using Windows in the first place.
Here's a thought, maybe the EU computers are still on MS Windows 95.
I dislike MS (bad software, bad practices) and I dislike the EU (bad policy by politicians-for-life with no appeal, and no external or self-regulation). Both are generally bad with a few bright spots.
As for MS, do they still not allow PC mfrs to install other browsers (besides IE) if they install Windows? If they allow PC mfrs to do so, then there's no issue here.
I also do not know if the EU is correct in this case or not, but more times then not, the EU tends to highly favor consumer rights. In the US, not so much. I prefer the US way. The government should work for people, not the other way around.
I think it fair to acknowledge that the reason Microsoft is constantly undergoing this scrutiny is because 1) it has a monopoly in desktop operating systems sold for PCs, and 2) it has been found in the past to illegally abuse that monopoly. For that reason, it has to be more careful then Apple in how it treats competitors. To gain or maintain dominance in a certain market, there can be no more paying Dell in the form of reduced payments for WIndows, if it excludes certain software (e.g. Netscape). No more threatening Apple to stop making Office for the Mac, if it doesn't abandon Quicktime for Windows.
For me the greatest irony in this is that government departments are the worst offenders when it comes to websites that are incompatible with anything other than I.E. followed in close second place by large corporates.
In my country the National Library has an excellent catalogue of historic photos available online. However, unless you have a PC running IE you cannot run the obscure viewer program which shows these photos in hi-res and are left with jpeg thumbnails. Our tax department also runs a great business portal which claims to have a Mac compatible plug-in. Its so buggy that you would never trust your business to it. Finally my bank has a consumer site which can be used by any browser but try and log-in to their business site and you find it is a Windows/IE-only environment.
So more power to the EU despite the hypocrisy.
Firefox and Opera mobile browsers have a different code from Mobile Safari, they are based in Webkit too but it is a different interpreted code. Apple have on the developer I don't know what that they do not accept interpreted code.
They are not based on WebKit. They have different engines, which is why Apple is likely not to approve them while they specifically allow any app to call the framework that contains WebKit.
Before there were other apps whose specific purpose was to generate webpages, their were plenty of other apps that would call WebKit to render pages. App Store RSS readers commonly do this.
Opera uses a Presto-based layout engine and Firefox uses a Gecko-based layout engine.
Here is a complete list:
Safari is a little different IMO because its not required to run the OS. In other words, its not physically attached to Mac OS X. You can fully deleted Safari and the OS keeps running. This isn't necessarily true with Explore because its attached to the OS.
Interestingly, there are 3rd party programs which can compete with the Finder, and I don't think you can remove the Finder from the Mac OS. Is apple being anti-competitive by bundling the Finder with their OS, or does this principle only apply with web browsers? If so, why?
How can a user download the web browsers other than Internet Explorer if it's not built in? Why EU doesn't ask Apple the same as of Safari in Mac?
Methods used in the past involved FTP, local network, CD or even floppy if you go back far enough.
I don't think it's a problem that there is only one browser included, as long as that browser isn't programmed to prevent me from downloading my preferred alternative.
That's not so true, you might think Apple is going it but in reality things are different, as you might recalled this past week a few bullshit browsers where release throw the App store, all based on webkit, so i don't see how Apple can block firefox since they use webkit same as safari. People quickly jump to all kinds of conclusion when they don't see something on the app store, although these browsers seem small you can't cook one overnight you know
Firefox uses Gecko, not WebKit.
edit: solipsism got his reply in before I did.
I'm kind of disappointed by the policy, but I don't use the mobile browser that often anyway. The current version doesn't seem to crater so often.
The same arguments apply to Safari which is tied to Mac OS X, but also the iPhone. Both Firefox and Opera are better web browsers than Safari which is tied to Mac OS X and the iPhone OS X.
Moreover, Apple is illegally blocking Firefox and Opera developpers from distributing their web browser through the iTunes iPhone App Store for use on the iPhone.
I encourage the developpers of Firefox and Opera to launch an antitrust complaint with the European Commission against Apple which is illegally blocking their web browsers from distribution on the iTunes iPhone store.
Safari is BUNDLED with Mac OS X. Its NOT tied to the OS. You can delete Safari very easily by just dragging it to the trash and emptying it and the OS doesn't crap out. There's a big difference there. Apple isn't doing anything illegal with Safari. They aren't making you use it, they aren't making it difficult to remove, its not an essential component to run OS X, etc.
Apple IS allowing 3rd party browsers on the iPhone. Link
Well, there are 3rd party programs which can compete with the Finder, and I don't think you can remove the Finder from the Mac OS. Is apple being anti-competitive by bundling the Finder with their OS, or does this principle only apply with web browsers? If so, why?
Nice argument.
PS: This being an Apple-centric website and MS being the quintessential nemesis of Apple, it's often easy on this forum for many to automatically shun anything MS does, but almost all of the posts are on the side of MS' 'current' practice. I'm glad to see common sense winning over personal feelings.
Nice argument.
PS: This being an Apple-centric website and MS being the quintessential nemesis of Apple, it's often easy on this forum for many to automatically shun anything MS does, but almost all of the posts are on the side of MS' 'current' practice. I'm glad to see common sense winning over personal feelings.
It is good to see. I was worried for a moment at the beginning, but it seems all right.
Well, there are 3rd party programs which can compete with the Finder, and I don't think you can remove the Finder from the Mac OS. Is apple being anti-competitive by bundling the Finder with their OS, or does this principle only apply with web browsers? If so, why?
You have to have a way to navigate through your OS. Otherwise you wouldn't have any way to get to your apps, documents, etc. Finder is tied to the OS yes, but its not effecting 90% of the computing population either. It doesn't have a huge monopoly like Microsoft does.
Apple isn't preventing those apps for being installed to replace the finder app. Running an update may screw up something, but Apple isn't doing it on purpose. Its just part of installing something overtop of an essential part of the OS. Apple shouldn't be made to go out of its way to make sure all 3rd party finder type apps work with an OS X update. Its up to the 3rd party vendor to make sure it works properly.
You could say the same thing for QuickTime which is also built into the OS. Its an essential part of the OS and once uninstalled certain things won't work properly. But Apple isn't preventing VLC or Flip4Mac, the old Windows Media Player for OS X from being installed either.
If everyone was made to not tie things into your OS you would have an OS that IMO works half-ass, not at all, hard to integrate features into it, etc. You have to draw the line somewhere. The way Microsoft is doing IE now I don't see an issue with it. If you don't like IE, you can install another browser and use it. Far as I'm concerned, this is a stupid claim in the EU.