While I don't get why Safari is first in Alphabetical order, it's not called 'Apple's Safari', I also don't get the complaint of Firefox. Firefox is a well known browser so stop whining.
She should just convince Mozilla to change the name of Firefox to Aardvark and then keep quiet!
Firefox is not the name that needs changing. It's Mozilla
Apple's "Safari" to Google's "Chrome" to Microsofts IE8, to Mozilla's Firefox...
It's the company name that is alphabetically arranged not the browser name... Otherwise, Firefox that begins with a "F" beats Safari that begins with a "S".
It was actually part of a settelement, and MS was wise to take it.
A 12 year old deal that MS made to try and get the Department of Justice off their backs, can hardly be categorized as a "financial relationship" at this point in time.
Besides, I believe that "deal" expired after 5 years.
What moron would pick either the first one or the one they're most familiar with when the list is only 5 long? They'll actually be more likely to pick Firefox than Safari because that's the browser that everyone always talks about on the web as being best.
I bet Mozilla would have preferred alphabetically by browser name to put Firefox first rather than alphabetically by company name or by market share. Yeah, a list that's so long, a person can't look at all those choices! They just pick the first one!
To bad the installer files don't come included with the OS, and too bad the screen doesn't just let you check all the ones you want to install though. I noticed the screen is displayed within Internet Explorer rather than a system window. So much for choice.
A 12 year old deal that MS made to try and get the Department of Justice off their backs, can hardly be categorized as a "financial relationship" at this point in time.
Besides, I believe that "deal" expired after 5 years.
At first I pictured a vertical listing of browsers, using a radio button control, with safari pre-selected. I thought, "ok, I guess this guy has a point, even though it is a very weak point."
Then I see the real selection box! It isn't even worth me typing this very sentence about. How absurd for someone to complain. I wonder if the "Firefox dude" even saw the presentation before whining.
Firefox is not the name that needs changing. It's Mozilla
Apple's "Safari" to Google's "Chrome" to Microsofts IE8, to Mozilla's Firefox...
It's the company name that is alphabetically arranged not the browser name... Otherwise, Firefox that begins with a "F" beats Safari that begins with a "S".
Yes, but had I not overlooked that, the joke wouldn't really have worked would it?
Yeah this is a clear case of whining because they aren't first. If they were, they wouldn't be claiming it should be randomized. I would agree it should be random to be a fair system but that would mean IE has an equal chance of being chosen and we don't want that.
Mozilla are just sad because they put so much effort into marketing Firefox and Apple get a decent boost for free. Out of all of them, Safari is probably the one Microsoft mind the least because it's the only one not on Linux and it doesn't really affect Apple if people use it or not.
I'd personally like to see Safari move up to Firefox's share because Apple have done a genuinely good job with it and improved the web experience and they deserve more recognition for it. Firefox is so bloated and I don't like to see it become another de facto standard where developers ignore other browsers like on eBay for example.
I don't think a horizontal list "first" position is the same as a vertical list first position (like the voting ballot example). I don't think there's that much advantage. You might argue the IE had the greater advantage... being smack dab in the middle of the screen. Anyway... who cares.
A 12 year old deal that MS made to try and get the Department of Justice off their backs, can hardly be categorized as a "financial relationship" at this point in time.
Besides, I believe that "deal" expired after 5 years.
The calculation of what those Apple shares would be worth today (if Microsoft had held on to them) is left as an exercise for the reader.
...lol. Who cares about the order of the Ballot? If they don't like it, why not make a random order each time you visit, or change the order every week/month?
I find it ironic that the browser ballot is presented in the form of a web page. In order to display the web page to the user, there has to be a web browser physically present on the computer system. The web browser used for this job is, you guessed it, Microsoft Internet Explorer.
So Microsoft is still bundling IE with Windows. It's just that the user is given a more in-your-face option to add additional web browsers, to conveniently pick a different default web browser, and to "turn off" Internet Explorer if they wish.
(Exactly what they mean by "turn off" is a nebulous issue...)
Personally, I don't have any philosophical problem with that decision. There are practical reasons why Microsoft may want, or even need, to have internal control over its own HTML rendering subsystem for its own internal uses, even if it is never activated for any reason other than to access the Windows Update website.
However, I'm not sure if this solution strictly complies with what the EU regulators had originally asked Microsoft to do -- ie don't include IE with Windows at all by default. Fortunately, the EU regulators seem to have appreciated that the request they had originally made might have been poorly thought out, and perhaps unreasonably harsh. Maybe they recognize that this solution, while not living up to the strictest interpretation of the letter of their original request, is a more satisfactory solution to the spirit under which the request was made.
so there is a great thing going on here. Microsoft is giving users the option to pick their own browsers.
and waaah, this article just complains at the placement? lame
sorry, if Alphabetical by company doesn't work fine, then i think they are giving too little credit to people who own computers.
heck my 13 yr old nephew knows what browsers he likes and wants better than this writer.
sorry... but i don't think Safari being listed first is a huge advantage. its an ok browser on windows, but if you know anything from being a mac user, you sometimes need several browsers, not each one works well with all websites. thats why i have Firefox and Safari. and who knows i may give Opera and Chrome a try.
Comments
Such a big list. It could certainly cause confusion to people in Florida.
Are you trying to make me CRY?
Other than selling Microsoft Office, what kind of relationship are you referring to?
Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple in 1997 ±. Is that it?
It was actually part of a settelement, and MS was wise to take it.
She should just convince Mozilla to change the name of Firefox to Aardvark and then keep quiet!
Firefox is not the name that needs changing. It's Mozilla
Apple's "Safari" to Google's "Chrome" to Microsofts IE8, to Mozilla's Firefox...
It's the company name that is alphabetically arranged not the browser name... Otherwise, Firefox that begins with a "F" beats Safari that begins with a "S".
It was actually part of a settelement, and MS was wise to take it.
A 12 year old deal that MS made to try and get the Department of Justice off their backs, can hardly be categorized as a "financial relationship" at this point in time.
Besides, I believe that "deal" expired after 5 years.
I bet Mozilla would have preferred alphabetically by browser name to put Firefox first rather than alphabetically by company name or by market share. Yeah, a list that's so long, a person can't look at all those choices! They just pick the first one!
To bad the installer files don't come included with the OS, and too bad the screen doesn't just let you check all the ones you want to install though. I noticed the screen is displayed within Internet Explorer rather than a system window. So much for choice.
A 12 year old deal that MS made to try and get the Department of Justice off their backs, can hardly be categorized as a "financial relationship" at this point in time.
Besides, I believe that "deal" expired after 5 years.
Indeed.
Then I see the real selection box! It isn't even worth me typing this very sentence about. How absurd for someone to complain. I wonder if the "Firefox dude" even saw the presentation before whining.
Firefox is not the name that needs changing. It's Mozilla
Apple's "Safari" to Google's "Chrome" to Microsofts IE8, to Mozilla's Firefox...
It's the company name that is alphabetically arranged not the browser name... Otherwise, Firefox that begins with a "F" beats Safari that begins with a "S".
Yes, but had I not overlooked that, the joke wouldn't really have worked would it?
Such a big list. It could certainly cause confusion to people in Florida.
Oh Snap that was good.
Mozilla are just sad because they put so much effort into marketing Firefox and Apple get a decent boost for free. Out of all of them, Safari is probably the one Microsoft mind the least because it's the only one not on Linux and it doesn't really affect Apple if people use it or not.
I'd personally like to see Safari move up to Firefox's share because Apple have done a genuinely good job with it and improved the web experience and they deserve more recognition for it. Firefox is so bloated and I don't like to see it become another de facto standard where developers ignore other browsers like on eBay for example.
Anyway... who cares.
Comfortably the most intelligent point here!
A 12 year old deal that MS made to try and get the Department of Justice off their backs, can hardly be categorized as a "financial relationship" at this point in time.
Besides, I believe that "deal" expired after 5 years.
The calculation of what those Apple shares would be worth today (if Microsoft had held on to them) is left as an exercise for the reader.
So Microsoft is still bundling IE with Windows. It's just that the user is given a more in-your-face option to add additional web browsers, to conveniently pick a different default web browser, and to "turn off" Internet Explorer if they wish.
(Exactly what they mean by "turn off" is a nebulous issue...)
Personally, I don't have any philosophical problem with that decision. There are practical reasons why Microsoft may want, or even need, to have internal control over its own HTML rendering subsystem for its own internal uses, even if it is never activated for any reason other than to access the Windows Update website.
However, I'm not sure if this solution strictly complies with what the EU regulators had originally asked Microsoft to do -- ie don't include IE with Windows at all by default. Fortunately, the EU regulators seem to have appreciated that the request they had originally made might have been poorly thought out, and perhaps unreasonably harsh. Maybe they recognize that this solution, while not living up to the strictest interpretation of the letter of their original request, is a more satisfactory solution to the spirit under which the request was made.
and waaah, this article just complains at the placement? lame
sorry, if Alphabetical by company doesn't work fine, then i think they are giving too little credit to people who own computers.
heck my 13 yr old nephew knows what browsers he likes and wants better than this writer.
sorry... but i don't think Safari being listed first is a huge advantage. its an ok browser on windows, but if you know anything from being a mac user, you sometimes need several browsers, not each one works well with all websites. thats why i have Firefox and Safari. and who knows i may give Opera and Chrome a try.