The EU should simply have all it's own websites check the browser and if it's IE, display a page reading something like:
"You are using an unsafe browser. To view our site, please download a safe browser." ... and then have links for downloading Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome, etc.
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
It's not that different to the IE setup, you can delete the Safari app but the system framework is still there for other programs to use. That's supposed to be why updating Safari requires a reboot on OS X.
How can a user download the web browsers other than Internet Explorer if it's not built in? ...
Funny, I guess if you are younger than a certain age this is not something you'd readily know... google: file transfer client to see some of the ways folks used to do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rokken
Why EU doesn't ask Apple the same with regards to Safari in Mac?
I believe the problem arises when a company uses a monopoly in one market (OS) to unfair advantage in another (browsers). Monopolies in and of themselves aren't illegal.
Netscape sort of undercut the argument in this area by giving their browser away for free... but that's another story.
There should be pressure applied to prevent certain web sites from only working with IE. This I assume is done by some M$ trick of including some code that checks what you are running or some code that is missing on the web side but supplied by the browser (I have no clue but you cannot trick these sites I assure anyone about to claim this can be circumvented in Safari by using tricks). There are numerous examples of such web sites and I know many folks who have to run Windows (now thankfully they can use Parallels or VMWare on a Mac too) simply to access a web site vital to their businesses. I am just guessing but I assume these web sites are run using M$ technology?
... You're still not getting rid of all of Safari, you're only getting rid of the Safari app. The back end is still in the OS.
I'd like it if someone who is in the know could post a definitive statement on this. We have people higher up in the thread arguing that Safari *isn't* deeply embedded in the OS and others that are saying it is.
Also, just to throw out another thought on the topic: What about iTunes?
iTunes is bundled with every Mac and is basically a web and HD browser. I don't know if it too is embedded deeply into the OS but I would argue it's as good a candidate for that as Safari and I would not be surprised to find the system become unstable without it. Anyone know the answer?
There are music library alternatives I am sure, but it's a solid that they won't be able to connect to the iTunes store, so that's kind of a lock out in a similar way to MSIE isn't it? I'm not saying I believe in this route, but the situation kind of seems like something the EU would be upset about in a similar way and for similar reasons.
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.
This is the heart of the matter based on the EU's complaint. Those raising the issue of security are out of bound with regard to the complaint. The EU is saying it's about competition, not security.
I'd like it if someone who is in the know could post a definitive statement on this. We have people higher up in the thread arguing that Safari *isn't* deeply embedded in the OS and others that are saying it is.
With Macs all programs have part of their being in the OS, that has always been the heart of the Mac from day one and why there is a consistency across all application written correctly. However, when you drag Safari to the trash and empty it the Application is truly gone. The parts that are left as Jeff describes are there for all other apps and obviously don't get removed.
I'm so tired of all these anti-trusts against IE. What's an operating system supposed to do, come without a browser? How would you access the internet? Its not like Microsoft is forbidding you from downloading any other web browser. Apple preloads Safari with Leopard, so what's the difference? Microsoft's market share? Big deal. People are free to choose what they like. This is just another example (actually, round #2) of the EU looking to make big money off of US companies. Their claim is bogus, which is why it failed in US courts.
With Macs all programs have part of their being in the OS, that has always been the heart of the Mac from day one and why there is a consistency across all application written correctly. However, when you drag Safari to the trash and empty it the Application is truly gone. The parts that are left as Jeff describes are there for all other apps and obviously don't get removed.
The part that I know about is in /System/Library/WebKit.framework - that's where the rendering engine is behind Safari. From what I'm told, that's why you can't update Safari without rebooting, when most other browsers can install/update and run immediately, because the system framework needs to be updated.
I think that can be deleted, but any programs that use it probably won't work anymore. I'm told that Apple Mail uses it. Maybe a couple of the WebKit-based browsers use the framework too.
Funny, I guess if you are younger than a certain age this is not something you'd readily know... google: file transfer client to see some of the ways folks used to do this.
I believe the problem arises when a company uses a monopoly in one market (OS) to unfair advantage in another (browsers). Monopolies in and of themselves aren't illegal.
Netscape sort of undercut the argument in this area by giving their browser away for free... but that's another story.
What is the point being mean? I thought people come here to discuss rather than to start a fight. Sure there are lots of ways to eventually get a browser for your OS, but are they really more convenient than having one built-in? What you may know doesn't necessarily mean that others do, especially for aged people, like my parents who don't really know computers well. EU is speaking for the companies but doesn't seem to think through for end-users. If it is indeed serious, why not ask Microsoft to remove all built-in services and present just a platform?
Methods used in the past involved FTP, local network, CD or even floppy if you go back far enough.
This is a big "who cares" kind of response. Nobody is going to use FTP or a CD to get Firefox if they can simply click a link instead.
Given that I have safari and firefox on my Windows box, the barrier to entry is the ability to click a web link while an administrator. The EU is just being the EU again.
It's interesting to see people using the term "monopoly" without defining exactly what a monopoly is. What market share does a company need in order to be a monopoly? Is it even tied to market share at all? What makes some monopolies good, and others bad? Are they all bad, or do we need a better definition?
If you look into the history of monopolies, the answer is quite surprising: originally, monopolies were actually created by governments. Typically, the king granted someone an exclusive license to do business in a given field, usually as a reward for loyalty. So, if you fought for the king, he might give you the only license to sell swords in a given area, thus creating a 'monopoly'. If someone dared to compete with your monopoly, you would use the government to shut down his business for operating without a license. A monopoly actually has nothing to do with market share - a monopoly is just any situation where violence is used to forcefully prevent or limit new competition. Where do we see this today? Well, some examples include the post office, power companies, water companies, road companies, military contractors, medical associations, and lawyers associations. Basically, any industry that is closely involved with the government.
In modern times, this infection has spread into other areas of the economy through the process of licensing. Typically, the established businesses in any industry will get together and pressure the government to pass new 'regulations' and 'licensing requirements', which make it more difficult for new competitors to enter the market. Often, the excuse is safety, the environment, 'protecting local jobs', or some other superficially plausible reason. A great example is when all of the established restaurants get together and demand a new regulation "Requiring All restaurants to purchase a $50,000 stove hood", in the name of safety. Well, now they have just increased the cost of entering the market by $50,000, thus cutting out a whole lot of new competitors, and preserving the profits of the big players. You can see this same process in the licensing of doctors, labourers, lawyers and many other restricted fields, where wages or profits are artificially kept high by limiting the new competition. Compared to all of this sleaziness, can we really say that big market shares are something to be worried about? Remember, its not market share that makes true monopolies dangerous and unfair (many of them are quite small). The real danger and unfairness is the violence that backs up true monopolies if you try and compete with them.
If you find all of this as interesting as I do, there's 2 websites you may be interested in:
1) http://www.mises.org - economics and history audio lectures, books and publications. I recommend the lectures, some are very entertaining.
2)http://freedomainradio.com/podcasts.html - very entertaining, well spoken podcasts on a range of topics from politics to economics, religion, psychology, relationships, and philosophy. Very highly recommended.
If IE is to windows what Safari is to Mac, why don't they force Apple to remove Safari from Mac OS and iPhone OS. While at it, remove iCal, iTunes, Quicktime, Address book, iChat...
Just leave IE there, if you want to use another browser install Safari or Firefox.
Isn't Quicktime embedded deep down Mac OS X?
Pretty clueless. Safari is not tied to the Mac OS. It is not embedded in the OS. You can delete Safari by simply deleting it. IE is part of Windows and cannot be uninstalled, that represents the problem in this case. iCal, iTunes, etc are separate programs. QuickTime has nothing to do with this.
If you read the article, Microsoft originally did not allow another browser to be installed. In the US, they had to add a control panel that allowed users to choose another default browser. In the US, you still cannot uninstall IE. Perhaps in Europe, they are still forcing users to use IE.
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.
I would wager that the majority of the people that use IE fall into the "don't know how to do so" category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones
Pretty clueless. Safari is not tied to the Mac OS. It is not embedded in the OS. You can delete Safari by simply deleting it. IE is part of Windows and cannot be uninstalled, that represents the problem in this case.
It might not be un-installable, but that doesn't mean you have to use it. It's not a virus, it won't do any harm just sitting on your hard drive, especially in these days of terabyte drives. Now that Windows Update runs from the Control Panel, you don't even need to use it for that, which is the only time I ever had to use it before. Just take it off your start menu and forget about it.
Pretty clueless. Safari is not tied to the Mac OS. It is not embedded in the OS. You can delete Safari by simply deleting it. IE is part of Windows and cannot be uninstalled, that represents the problem in this case. iCal, iTunes, etc are separate programs. QuickTime has nothing to do with this.
The problem with your caustic remark is that deleting Safari does not delete its framework that does the actual back-end work, as well as the rendering. It's similar to how Quicktime is too, deleting the app doesn't delete the back end framework for Quicktime.
Comments
"You are using an unsafe browser. To view our site, please download a safe browser." ... and then have links for downloading Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome, etc.
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
It's not that different to the IE setup, you can delete the Safari app but the system framework is still there for other programs to use. That's supposed to be why updating Safari requires a reboot on OS X.
so.....
how exactly would you download a browser if your OS didn't come with one?
[...].
er, maybe the same way folks did before browsers came with the OS...?!
Just try to uninstall IE on Winblows. I double dog dare you. It can't be done.
It is possible to delete the program, but deleting the program doesn't delete the back end that supports it.
You want to uninstall Safari on a Mac? Drag it to the trash.
You're still not getting rid of all of Safari, you're only getting rid of the Safari app. The back end is still in the OS.
How can a user download the web browsers other than Internet Explorer if it's not built in? ...
Funny, I guess if you are younger than a certain age this is not something you'd readily know... google: file transfer client to see some of the ways folks used to do this.
Why EU doesn't ask Apple the same with regards to Safari in Mac?
I believe the problem arises when a company uses a monopoly in one market (OS) to unfair advantage in another (browsers). Monopolies in and of themselves aren't illegal.
Netscape sort of undercut the argument in this area by giving their browser away for free... but that's another story.
I'm glad, IE is messing up web standards.
There should be pressure applied to prevent certain web sites from only working with IE. This I assume is done by some M$ trick of including some code that checks what you are running or some code that is missing on the web side but supplied by the browser (I have no clue but you cannot trick these sites I assure anyone about to claim this can be circumvented in Safari by using tricks). There are numerous examples of such web sites and I know many folks who have to run Windows (now thankfully they can use Parallels or VMWare on a Mac too) simply to access a web site vital to their businesses. I am just guessing but I assume these web sites are run using M$ technology?
... You're still not getting rid of all of Safari, you're only getting rid of the Safari app. The back end is still in the OS.
I'd like it if someone who is in the know could post a definitive statement on this. We have people higher up in the thread arguing that Safari *isn't* deeply embedded in the OS and others that are saying it is.
Also, just to throw out another thought on the topic: What about iTunes?
iTunes is bundled with every Mac and is basically a web and HD browser. I don't know if it too is embedded deeply into the OS but I would argue it's as good a candidate for that as Safari and I would not be surprised to find the system become unstable without it. Anyone know the answer?
There are music library alternatives I am sure, but it's a solid that they won't be able to connect to the iTunes store, so that's kind of a lock out in a similar way to MSIE isn't it? I'm not saying I believe in this route, but the situation kind of seems like something the EU would be upset about in a similar way and for similar reasons.
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.
This is the heart of the matter based on the EU's complaint. Those raising the issue of security are out of bound with regard to the complaint. The EU is saying it's about competition, not security.
I'd like it if someone who is in the know could post a definitive statement on this. We have people higher up in the thread arguing that Safari *isn't* deeply embedded in the OS and others that are saying it is.
With Macs all programs have part of their being in the OS, that has always been the heart of the Mac from day one and why there is a consistency across all application written correctly. However, when you drag Safari to the trash and empty it the Application is truly gone. The parts that are left as Jeff describes are there for all other apps and obviously don't get removed.
With Macs all programs have part of their being in the OS, that has always been the heart of the Mac from day one and why there is a consistency across all application written correctly. However, when you drag Safari to the trash and empty it the Application is truly gone. The parts that are left as Jeff describes are there for all other apps and obviously don't get removed.
The part that I know about is in /System/Library/WebKit.framework - that's where the rendering engine is behind Safari. From what I'm told, that's why you can't update Safari without rebooting, when most other browsers can install/update and run immediately, because the system framework needs to be updated.
I think that can be deleted, but any programs that use it probably won't work anymore. I'm told that Apple Mail uses it. Maybe a couple of the WebKit-based browsers use the framework too.
Funny, I guess if you are younger than a certain age this is not something you'd readily know... google: file transfer client to see some of the ways folks used to do this.
I believe the problem arises when a company uses a monopoly in one market (OS) to unfair advantage in another (browsers). Monopolies in and of themselves aren't illegal.
Netscape sort of undercut the argument in this area by giving their browser away for free... but that's another story.
What is the point being mean? I thought people come here to discuss rather than to start a fight. Sure there are lots of ways to eventually get a browser for your OS, but are they really more convenient than having one built-in? What you may know doesn't necessarily mean that others do, especially for aged people, like my parents who don't really know computers well. EU is speaking for the companies but doesn't seem to think through for end-users. If it is indeed serious, why not ask Microsoft to remove all built-in services and present just a platform?
European Union has much more civilized laws that don't favor any interest group of company.
...
EU is not that stupid. They just want real neutrality and choice.
No, they just favor the interest group of companies from European countries vs US ones.
Methods used in the past involved FTP, local network, CD or even floppy if you go back far enough.
This is a big "who cares" kind of response. Nobody is going to use FTP or a CD to get Firefox if they can simply click a link instead.
Given that I have safari and firefox on my Windows box, the barrier to entry is the ability to click a web link while an administrator. The EU is just being the EU again.
If you look into the history of monopolies, the answer is quite surprising: originally, monopolies were actually created by governments. Typically, the king granted someone an exclusive license to do business in a given field, usually as a reward for loyalty. So, if you fought for the king, he might give you the only license to sell swords in a given area, thus creating a 'monopoly'. If someone dared to compete with your monopoly, you would use the government to shut down his business for operating without a license. A monopoly actually has nothing to do with market share - a monopoly is just any situation where violence is used to forcefully prevent or limit new competition. Where do we see this today? Well, some examples include the post office, power companies, water companies, road companies, military contractors, medical associations, and lawyers associations. Basically, any industry that is closely involved with the government.
In modern times, this infection has spread into other areas of the economy through the process of licensing. Typically, the established businesses in any industry will get together and pressure the government to pass new 'regulations' and 'licensing requirements', which make it more difficult for new competitors to enter the market. Often, the excuse is safety, the environment, 'protecting local jobs', or some other superficially plausible reason. A great example is when all of the established restaurants get together and demand a new regulation "Requiring All restaurants to purchase a $50,000 stove hood", in the name of safety. Well, now they have just increased the cost of entering the market by $50,000, thus cutting out a whole lot of new competitors, and preserving the profits of the big players. You can see this same process in the licensing of doctors, labourers, lawyers and many other restricted fields, where wages or profits are artificially kept high by limiting the new competition. Compared to all of this sleaziness, can we really say that big market shares are something to be worried about? Remember, its not market share that makes true monopolies dangerous and unfair (many of them are quite small). The real danger and unfairness is the violence that backs up true monopolies if you try and compete with them.
If you find all of this as interesting as I do, there's 2 websites you may be interested in:
1) http://www.mises.org - economics and history audio lectures, books and publications. I recommend the lectures, some are very entertaining.
2)http://freedomainradio.com/podcasts.html - very entertaining, well spoken podcasts on a range of topics from politics to economics, religion, psychology, relationships, and philosophy. Very highly recommended.
This is a big "who cares" kind of response. Nobody is going to use FTP or a CD to get Firefox if they can simply click a link instead.
True, I said pretty much the same thing in other posts in this very thread.
I was just explaining other means, the question was posed as if it was a chicken-or-egg problem when it really wasn't.
Just leave IE there, if you want to use another browser install Safari or Firefox.
Isn't Quicktime embedded deep down Mac OS X?
Pretty clueless. Safari is not tied to the Mac OS. It is not embedded in the OS. You can delete Safari by simply deleting it. IE is part of Windows and cannot be uninstalled, that represents the problem in this case. iCal, iTunes, etc are separate programs. QuickTime has nothing to do with this.
If you read the article, Microsoft originally did not allow another browser to be installed. In the US, they had to add a control panel that allowed users to choose another default browser. In the US, you still cannot uninstall IE. Perhaps in Europe, they are still forcing users to use IE.
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.
I would wager that the majority of the people that use IE fall into the "don't know how to do so" category.
Pretty clueless. Safari is not tied to the Mac OS. It is not embedded in the OS. You can delete Safari by simply deleting it. IE is part of Windows and cannot be uninstalled, that represents the problem in this case.
It might not be un-installable, but that doesn't mean you have to use it. It's not a virus, it won't do any harm just sitting on your hard drive, especially in these days of terabyte drives. Now that Windows Update runs from the Control Panel, you don't even need to use it for that, which is the only time I ever had to use it before. Just take it off your start menu and forget about it.
Pretty clueless. Safari is not tied to the Mac OS. It is not embedded in the OS. You can delete Safari by simply deleting it. IE is part of Windows and cannot be uninstalled, that represents the problem in this case. iCal, iTunes, etc are separate programs. QuickTime has nothing to do with this.
The problem with your caustic remark is that deleting Safari does not delete its framework that does the actual back-end work, as well as the rendering. It's similar to how Quicktime is too, deleting the app doesn't delete the back end framework for Quicktime.