The problem isn't that Microsoft prevents competition between browsers, but, as is the case with many other aspects of its business, that Microsoft circumvents competition by feeding the pervasive misconception that what they provide is all there is. Most people (regular people, who don't know a lot about computers), when asked why they use IE, will probably tell you it's because that's "the internet". Not "one way to get on the internet", not "the browser that came with my PC", but simply "the internet". The little "e" icon means browsing the web, it's as clear-cut as that. It doesn't occur to them that another program (if they can grasp what a program is, not being a physical object) could be used to do the same thing, let alone why they would go to the trouble of downloading and installing such an alternative (which, in their mind, carries the inherent risk of OH MY GOD I'M GOING TO BREAK THE COMPUTER IF I DO THIS) when IE is already there for them. You can bet Microsoft encourages this mindset of ignorance, because it keeps Internet Explorer in power; it keeps Microsoft Office in power; and it keeps Windows in power. Every one of those is believed by the vast majority to be the "only" way to get a computer to perform their respective tasks. I wonder if it's a coincidence that Microsoft pours a good deal of money into the education sector.
(Edit: Mooch touched on my point while I was typing away. )
It's interesting to see people using the term "monopoly" without defining exactly what a monopoly is. ...
While it would be nice for more people to know what the requirements for a monopoly is, they would be better off looking it up on the wiki than listening to this drivel. This is the second time in less than a week you have managed to squeeze in this long wacky conspiracy theory of yours about governments and monopolies.
Please just stop.
You have no idea what a monopoly is and your attempts to redefine it single-handedly are doomed to fail.
If you really want to advance this nonsense, do what everyone else does and write a book about it. If you sell a few hundred thousand, then maybe we should listen to your crazy ideas, but until then I think you should just tie down your tin-foil hat a bit tighter and hunker down in the damp cardboard box you no doubt call home.
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?
Not really sure where "being mean" came into it... but, no matter. Also, I don't think anyone was arguing convenience... well at least I wasn't, can't speak for others.
There probably are a number of companies that would prefer that MS keep the OS a fairly minimal thing and that it not broaden the scope of what an OS is... since, well, it kills their business. I imagine to them it is a serious thing... of course MS would argue that the definition of an OS is a dynamic thing, and they have a point too.
If all software you ever needed/wanted came bundled with the OS, that would be very convenient.. and it would be even more convenient if there was only one company you had to deal with. Not sure that would be a good thing in the long run though...
While it would be nice for more people to know what the requirements for a monopoly is, they would be better off looking it up on the wiki than listening to this drivel. This is the second time in less than a week you have managed to squeeze in this long wacky conspiracy theory of yours about governments and monopolies.
Please just stop.
You have no idea what a monopoly is and your attempts to redefine it single-handedly are doomed to fail.
If you really want to advance this nonsense, do what everyone else does and write a book about it. If you sell a few hundred thousand, then maybe we should listen to your crazy ideas, but until then I think you should just tie down your tin-foil hat a bit tighter and hunker down in the damp cardboard box you no doubt call home.
Wow, that's a lot of hostility right there. You know, it actually doesn't hurt my case that someone like you would be against me, because all people will think is "Hey, that guy is pretty angry. I don't want to be like him. There must be something wrong with his ideas if he is carrying that amount of hatred around." You're not going to convince anyone like that. Just thought I'd give you the heads up. I can guess what you're really after, what motivates you to bait people like this, so i'm letting you know you won't get it from me. I won't engage with this behaviour. This isn't for me to look all deep and serene here, its for your sake that I say this. Think about yourself in the long run - do you really want to be the sort of person who insults and baits people like this? Do you really want to be that guy? Your call. You don't need to respond to this, just think about it.
Not really sure where "being mean" came into it... but, no matter. Also, I don't think anyone was arguing convenience... well at least I wasn't, can't speak for others.
There probably are a number of companies that would prefer that MS keep the OS a fairly minimal thing and that it not broaden the scope of what an OS is... since, well, it kills their business. I imagine to them it is a serious thing... of course MS would argue that the definition of an OS is a dynamic thing, and they have a point too.
If all software you ever needed/wanted came bundled with the OS, that would be very convenient.. and it would be even more convenient if there was only one company you had to deal with. Not sure that would be a good thing in the long run though...
After reading the article again, I have no problem with EU's claim if by forcing Microsoft to "cease the abuse" means making IE completely user removable, but not to force Microsoft removing IE completely from the bundle.
Meanwhile, isn't Apple always advertising that Macs come with everything you need? iLife, iTunes etc. Do you think it's probably not a good thing in the long run and Apple should stop bundling these services with Macs?
Wow, that's a lot of hostility right there. You know, it actually doesn't hurt my case that someone like you would be against me, because all people will think is "Hey, that guy is pretty angry. I don't want to be like him. There must be something wrong with his ideas if he is carrying that amount of hatred around." You're not going to convince anyone like that. Just thought I'd give you the heads up. I can guess what you're really after, what motivates you to bait people like this, so i'm letting you know you won't get it from me. I won't engage with this behaviour. This isn't for me to look all deep and serene here, its for your sake that I say this. Think about yourself in the long run - do you really want to be the sort of person who insults and baits people like this? Do you really want to be that guy? Your call. You don't need to respond to this, just think about it.
So, now we are in a PR war? Hmmmmmm....
For the record, not angry at all. Exasperated though. In the real world Virgil-TB2 is an older person with about 30 years of experience studying wacky conspiracy theories like this and can recognise one from a mile away. I'm not going to reveal who I am and thus you'd have to take my word for it, but probably the same goes for yourself.
To get into particulars, your idea that a government is the same thing as a monopoly is um, "unique?" At the very least it's an extraordinary idea and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof don't they. Don't bother doing that here though as it's pretty much off topic (which is at least partly why I object so strongly to your constant bringing it up.)
This is the problem with iE, everytime you use a browser to browse the web partly only the browser gets expose to the web, with iE not only does the browser gets expose but so does the entire OS cause iE is not a separate app iE is part of Windows, so eveytime iE gets expose it also exposes the entire windows, hijack iE and that's it your in, hijack any other browser and you my friend still have a lot of work to reach the OS
The EU is a little late here. Microsoft did abuse their monopoly many years ago by tying IE with Windows, but the damage was done years ago. They might have a case that Microsoft should be punished for their past actions, but things are already improving now so there isn't much point forcing IE to be removed from Windows, especially since all desktop operating systems are almost required to include a browser to be usable. The main problem with IE today is that it is just a very bad browser and is holding web-based technologies back (likely to Microsoft's benefit), so it would probably be better to force Microsoft to make IE an open source project that can be improved at a quicker pace instead of removing it from Windows altogether. This may not be necessary if after IE8 is released, Microsoft starts working on IE9 and makes an effort to get it up to speed.
Now in regards to Safari, Quicktime on Macs, while they are bundled with Macs, they can be removed. Additionally, Webkit and the Quicktime frameworks aren't simply backends of Safari and Quicktime; they are system libraries. WebKit is an open source general purpose rendering engine that other applications can use, just like ApplicationKit (Cocoa) is a general purpose application toolkit that nearly all OS X applications use. The current Quicktime frameworks are also usable in other applications, but they aren't as general purpose as WebKit (they seems to build on other Apple frameworks like CoreAudio), but those being replaced/re-worked with Snow Leopard anyway. Regardless, simply using either framework won't automatically allow you to build a web browser or media player; other frameworks and custom code will be required.
Surely this would mean that Apple could be in the firing line as well. Safari, and what about iLife? If MS got done for bundling in Media Player, surely Apple would be "stifling the market" for photo editors, movie editors etc etc...
Surely this would mean that Apple could be in the firing line as well. Safari, and what about iLife? If MS got done for bundling in Media Player, surely Apple would be "stifling the market" for photo editors, movie editors etc etc...
No, because Apple doesn't have a monopoly in operating systems. There's no monopoly power to abuse.
If you steal a car and you get convicted of car theft, then you need to return the car because it's the fruit of criminal activity.
Microsoft committed the crime of antitrust abuse and established a browser monopoly. Then they were convicted of the crime. Yet, thanks to Bush (who was very $trongly supported by Bill Gates and Microsoft) Microsoft was not forced to shed the browser monopoly which was the fruit of their criminal activity.
Even forgetting antitrust, just for their support of Bush in 2000, and the ensuing catastrophe that that imbecile brought upon the nation and the world, Microsoft deserves to be punished.
Good, go live in Somalia. There's hardly any government there. It's a libertarian paradise.
Without government, there are 2 ways a society can go:
a) If the society is not friendly to the ideas of liberty and private property, then you will have anarchy, followed by a violent struggle of warlords who will eventually re-establish a new government.
b) If the people support the philosophy of freedom, capitalism and non-violence, then you can end up with a purely capitalist free market. It's all about the private property. Somalia is not the sort of enlightened society that we would expect to go capitalist.
Ironically, it turns out that Somalia's previous government was so bad that the current mix of anarchy and warlords is better than what they had before. Life expectancies have shot up over the past 15 years, and they now have one of the best telecommunications industries in Africa. But it isn't really free by any means: libertarians would probably want to move to Hong Kong or New Hampshire.
b) If the people support the philosophy of freedom, capitalism and non-violence, then you can end up with a purely capitalist free market. It's all about the private property. Somalia is not the sort of enlightened society that we would expect to go capitalist.
And you think America or Europe are? Or pretty much anywhere, for that matter. How many violent individuals do you need before your theoretical capitalist utopia descends into anarchy?
If you steal a car and you get convicted of car theft, then you need to return the car because it's the fruit of criminal activity.
Microsoft committed the crime of antitrust abuse and established a browser monopoly. Then they were convicted of the crime. Yet, thanks to Bush (who was very $trongly supported by Bill Gates and Microsoft) Microsoft was not forced to shed the browser monopoly which was the fruit of their criminal activity.
Even forgetting antitrust, just for their support of Bush in 2000, and the ensuing catastrophe that that imbecile brought upon the nation and the world, Microsoft deserves to be punished.
So do you believe that the majority of Americans that voted for President Bush should be punished as well? I mean, that would only be fair, right?
On topic: As long as Microsoft isn't making it hard for users to download other browsers, I see no reason why they should be punished for including Internet Explorer with Windows. If the European Union, as well as some judges in the US, continue to push for 'consumer rights' in the way that they have, there aren't going to be any companies willing to develop new products and services because they are at risk of being shut down by the EU, or have very little profit incentive.
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.
CSS 1.0 was released in 1996. IE5 and IE6 took forever to suppor that one. Then 1999 CSS2 and shortly after 2001 CSS2.1 was standard.
How much time does it take to get your f'n browser compliant? Microsoft must think it takes an army of developers a decade.
If the European Union, as well as some judges in the US, continue to push for 'consumer rights' in the way that they have, there aren't going to be any companies willing to develop new products and services because they are at risk of being shut down by the EU, or have very little profit incentive.
What a load of nonsense. This is about abuse of monopoly power. How is that going to dissuade companies from developing new products and services?
Answer: It's not. It might dissuade companies lucky enough to be in a monopoly position from abusing that power, and that's a good thing.
Surely this would mean that Apple could be in the firing line as well. Safari, and what about iLife? If MS got done for bundling in Media Player, surely Apple would be "stifling the market" for photo editors, movie editors etc etc...
iLife is bundled with the hardware not the OS. If I buy OSX Leopard upgrade, I do not get the latest iLife that came with a Mac using Leopard. I have to buy iLife as a separate app. if I also want to upgrade my iLife. The only way to get iLife for free is to buy a Mac. This is no different than Dell bundling software for virus protection, spyware protection, firewall, Office suites, multimedia, ect. It's bundle with the hardware not Windows. Apple is just unique in the they make and sell both the hardware and software.
Comments
(Edit: Mooch touched on my point while I was typing away.
It's interesting to see people using the term "monopoly" without defining exactly what a monopoly is. ...
While it would be nice for more people to know what the requirements for a monopoly is, they would be better off looking it up on the wiki than listening to this drivel. This is the second time in less than a week you have managed to squeeze in this long wacky conspiracy theory of yours about governments and monopolies.
Please just stop.
You have no idea what a monopoly is and your attempts to redefine it single-handedly are doomed to fail.
If you really want to advance this nonsense, do what everyone else does and write a book about it. If you sell a few hundred thousand, then maybe we should listen to your crazy ideas, but until then I think you should just tie down your tin-foil hat a bit tighter and hunker down in the damp cardboard box you no doubt call home.
so.....
how exactly would you download a browser if your OS didn't come with one?
Kinda like how Aladdin's Stuffit Expander used to be only downloadable in a .sit file? I remember that garnering a big WTF?
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?
Not really sure where "being mean" came into it... but, no matter. Also, I don't think anyone was arguing convenience... well at least I wasn't, can't speak for others.
There probably are a number of companies that would prefer that MS keep the OS a fairly minimal thing and that it not broaden the scope of what an OS is... since, well, it kills their business. I imagine to them it is a serious thing... of course MS would argue that the definition of an OS is a dynamic thing, and they have a point too.
If all software you ever needed/wanted came bundled with the OS, that would be very convenient.. and it would be even more convenient if there was only one company you had to deal with. Not sure that would be a good thing in the long run though...
While it would be nice for more people to know what the requirements for a monopoly is, they would be better off looking it up on the wiki than listening to this drivel. This is the second time in less than a week you have managed to squeeze in this long wacky conspiracy theory of yours about governments and monopolies.
Please just stop.
You have no idea what a monopoly is and your attempts to redefine it single-handedly are doomed to fail.
If you really want to advance this nonsense, do what everyone else does and write a book about it. If you sell a few hundred thousand, then maybe we should listen to your crazy ideas, but until then I think you should just tie down your tin-foil hat a bit tighter and hunker down in the damp cardboard box you no doubt call home.
Wow, that's a lot of hostility right there. You know, it actually doesn't hurt my case that someone like you would be against me, because all people will think is "Hey, that guy is pretty angry. I don't want to be like him. There must be something wrong with his ideas if he is carrying that amount of hatred around." You're not going to convince anyone like that. Just thought I'd give you the heads up. I can guess what you're really after, what motivates you to bait people like this, so i'm letting you know you won't get it from me. I won't engage with this behaviour. This isn't for me to look all deep and serene here, its for your sake that I say this. Think about yourself in the long run - do you really want to be the sort of person who insults and baits people like this? Do you really want to be that guy? Your call. You don't need to respond to this, just think about it.
Not really sure where "being mean" came into it... but, no matter. Also, I don't think anyone was arguing convenience... well at least I wasn't, can't speak for others.
There probably are a number of companies that would prefer that MS keep the OS a fairly minimal thing and that it not broaden the scope of what an OS is... since, well, it kills their business. I imagine to them it is a serious thing... of course MS would argue that the definition of an OS is a dynamic thing, and they have a point too.
If all software you ever needed/wanted came bundled with the OS, that would be very convenient.. and it would be even more convenient if there was only one company you had to deal with. Not sure that would be a good thing in the long run though...
After reading the article again, I have no problem with EU's claim if by forcing Microsoft to "cease the abuse" means making IE completely user removable, but not to force Microsoft removing IE completely from the bundle.
Meanwhile, isn't Apple always advertising that Macs come with everything you need? iLife, iTunes etc. Do you think it's probably not a good thing in the long run and Apple should stop bundling these services with Macs?
Wow, that's a lot of hostility right there. You know, it actually doesn't hurt my case that someone like you would be against me, because all people will think is "Hey, that guy is pretty angry. I don't want to be like him. There must be something wrong with his ideas if he is carrying that amount of hatred around." You're not going to convince anyone like that. Just thought I'd give you the heads up. I can guess what you're really after, what motivates you to bait people like this, so i'm letting you know you won't get it from me. I won't engage with this behaviour. This isn't for me to look all deep and serene here, its for your sake that I say this. Think about yourself in the long run - do you really want to be the sort of person who insults and baits people like this? Do you really want to be that guy? Your call. You don't need to respond to this, just think about it.
So, now we are in a PR war? Hmmmmmm....
For the record, not angry at all. Exasperated though. In the real world Virgil-TB2 is an older person with about 30 years of experience studying wacky conspiracy theories like this and can recognise one from a mile away. I'm not going to reveal who I am and thus you'd have to take my word for it, but probably the same goes for yourself.
To get into particulars, your idea that a government is the same thing as a monopoly is um, "unique?" At the very least it's an extraordinary idea and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof don't they. Don't bother doing that here though as it's pretty much off topic (which is at least partly why I object so strongly to your constant bringing it up.)
Now in regards to Safari, Quicktime on Macs, while they are bundled with Macs, they can be removed. Additionally, Webkit and the Quicktime frameworks aren't simply backends of Safari and Quicktime; they are system libraries. WebKit is an open source general purpose rendering engine that other applications can use, just like ApplicationKit (Cocoa) is a general purpose application toolkit that nearly all OS X applications use. The current Quicktime frameworks are also usable in other applications, but they aren't as general purpose as WebKit (they seems to build on other Apple frameworks like CoreAudio), but those being replaced/re-worked with Snow Leopard anyway. Regardless, simply using either framework won't automatically allow you to build a web browser or media player; other frameworks and custom code will be required.
Surely this would mean that Apple could be in the firing line as well. Safari, and what about iLife? If MS got done for bundling in Media Player, surely Apple would be "stifling the market" for photo editors, movie editors etc etc...
No, because Apple doesn't have a monopoly in operating systems. There's no monopoly power to abuse.
God, I hate big government.
Good, go live in Somalia. There's hardly any government there. It's a libertarian paradise.
Microsoft committed the crime of antitrust abuse and established a browser monopoly. Then they were convicted of the crime. Yet, thanks to Bush (who was very $trongly supported by Bill Gates and Microsoft) Microsoft was not forced to shed the browser monopoly which was the fruit of their criminal activity.
Even forgetting antitrust, just for their support of Bush in 2000, and the ensuing catastrophe that that imbecile brought upon the nation and the world, Microsoft deserves to be punished.
Good, go live in Somalia. There's hardly any government there. It's a libertarian paradise.
Without government, there are 2 ways a society can go:
a) If the society is not friendly to the ideas of liberty and private property, then you will have anarchy, followed by a violent struggle of warlords who will eventually re-establish a new government.
b) If the people support the philosophy of freedom, capitalism and non-violence, then you can end up with a purely capitalist free market. It's all about the private property. Somalia is not the sort of enlightened society that we would expect to go capitalist.
Ironically, it turns out that Somalia's previous government was so bad that the current mix of anarchy and warlords is better than what they had before. Life expectancies have shot up over the past 15 years, and they now have one of the best telecommunications industries in Africa. But it isn't really free by any means: libertarians would probably want to move to Hong Kong or New Hampshire.
b) If the people support the philosophy of freedom, capitalism and non-violence, then you can end up with a purely capitalist free market. It's all about the private property. Somalia is not the sort of enlightened society that we would expect to go capitalist.
I think the EU is grandstanding again.
So much for all that Obama love!
If you steal a car and you get convicted of car theft, then you need to return the car because it's the fruit of criminal activity.
Microsoft committed the crime of antitrust abuse and established a browser monopoly. Then they were convicted of the crime. Yet, thanks to Bush (who was very $trongly supported by Bill Gates and Microsoft) Microsoft was not forced to shed the browser monopoly which was the fruit of their criminal activity.
Even forgetting antitrust, just for their support of Bush in 2000, and the ensuing catastrophe that that imbecile brought upon the nation and the world, Microsoft deserves to be punished.
So do you believe that the majority of Americans that voted for President Bush should be punished as well? I mean, that would only be fair, right?
On topic: As long as Microsoft isn't making it hard for users to download other browsers, I see no reason why they should be punished for including Internet Explorer with Windows. If the European Union, as well as some judges in the US, continue to push for 'consumer rights' in the way that they have, there aren't going to be any companies willing to develop new products and services because they are at risk of being shut down by the EU, or have very little profit incentive.
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.
CSS 1.0 was released in 1996. IE5 and IE6 took forever to suppor that one. Then 1999 CSS2 and shortly after 2001 CSS2.1 was standard.
How much time does it take to get your f'n browser compliant? Microsoft must think it takes an army of developers a decade.
If the European Union, as well as some judges in the US, continue to push for 'consumer rights' in the way that they have, there aren't going to be any companies willing to develop new products and services because they are at risk of being shut down by the EU, or have very little profit incentive.
What a load of nonsense. This is about abuse of monopoly power. How is that going to dissuade companies from developing new products and services?
Answer: It's not. It might dissuade companies lucky enough to be in a monopoly position from abusing that power, and that's a good thing.
Surely this would mean that Apple could be in the firing line as well. Safari, and what about iLife? If MS got done for bundling in Media Player, surely Apple would be "stifling the market" for photo editors, movie editors etc etc...
iLife is bundled with the hardware not the OS. If I buy OSX Leopard upgrade, I do not get the latest iLife that came with a Mac using Leopard. I have to buy iLife as a separate app. if I also want to upgrade my iLife. The only way to get iLife for free is to buy a Mac. This is no different than Dell bundling software for virus protection, spyware protection, firewall, Office suites, multimedia, ect. It's bundle with the hardware not Windows. Apple is just unique in the they make and sell both the hardware and software.