backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 107 comment(s) - last by GeorgeOu.. on Jun 18 at 1:18 AM
Opera says shipping Windows 7 without a browser isn't enough

Antitrust investigations are nothing new for Microsoft. The company has been investigated and found to abuse its dominant market position on more than one occasion by authorities in the U.S. and in Europe. So far, the actions taken against Microsoft haven’t affected the firm's market dominance.

The latest antitrust action against Microsoft is happening in Europe where the software giant is accused of using its market dominance to eliminate competition in the web browser market. Microsoft's competitor's claim that by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows Microsoft is shielding its browser from direct head-to-head competition with other browsers.

To address the antitrust concerns Microsoft announced this week that it would ship Windows 7 in Europe without a web browser installed. According to browser maker Opera ASA, that move isn’t enough to return competition to the browser market in Europe.

Opera CTO Hakon Wium Lie told Reuters, "I don't think what Microsoft announced is going to restore competition. I don't think it's going to be enough, I don't think it will get them off the hook."

Reuters reports that Microsoft abruptly decided to remove IE from Windows 7 shortly before the European Commission is set to rule on antitrust charges brought against Microsoft in January. According to Opera, simply removing IE from Windows 7 will have no impact on the market.

Wium Lie said, "Then we would be very disappointed. That means Microsoft's dominant position will continue." Wium Lie wants Microsoft to ship Windows 7 with several browsers installed and give consumers the choice of which one to use.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
No!
By TomZ on 6/12/2009 9:13:18 AM , Rating: 5
I am totally against bloating up the OS with all kinds of software from other vendors. It is simple enough to do a free download and install. Let's keep Windows focused on providing the essentials.




RE: No!
By Screwballl on 6/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: No!
By reader1 on 6/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: No!
By amanojaku on 6/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: No!
By Screwballl on 6/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: No!
By mikefarinha on 6/12/2009 11:04:04 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
MS wants to keep as much of the browser and Media Player market as possible.


Not really. If you've been paying attention Microsoft has been making IE more and more standards compliant (a good thing). This makes it easier for other browsers to compete (another good thing).

Microsoft has realized that owning the largest browser marketshare doesn't buy them much. The real goldmine for them is owning the framework/binaries that the site runs in... Silverlight.


RE: No!
By Cypherdude1 on 6/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: No!
By inighthawki on 6/13/2009 1:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think they should really put it on the disc and include it, but rather, something similar to an app store would work wonderfully. Some suggested windows update, but thats not really the proper place to put application, its reserved for actual updates and drivers, as well as a few updates for microsoft products if you choose so. If microsoft hosted an app store, however, it could satisfy everyone. Even the entry level businesses with their "not so well known" applications can have a place to compete, and if microsoft just has the app store redirect the download off their servers, it solves any extra bandwidth from microsoft's side.


RE: No!
By RW on 6/13/2009 10:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
Including other browsers in Windows OS alongside Internet Explorer is stupid because the following reasons:
- If other browsers have a price, that added cost will add to Windows OS price increasing it and at the same time decreasing the Windows OS market share because of the higher price resulted
- Who will pay for the manufacturing costs of the Windows OS bundled with other browsers ? Microsoft ? what about the companies that produce the bundled browsers what amount of the manufacturing costs will they pay ?
- I don't wanna pay for Windows more because of the added price of bundling other browsers in it.


RE: No!
By amanojaku on 6/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: No!
By inighthawki on 6/12/2009 1:11:12 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
MS wants to keep as much of the browser and Media Player market as possible.

RIGHT, because owning a monopoly in a market consisting of FREE browsers and media players gets them REALLY far. What do they get in the end, bragging rights? if that... Microsoft is not trying to create a monopoly here, the EU is just stupid. If 75% of the people who use windows use IE just cause its there, it doesnt mean they CHOSE ie, and they wouldnt CHOOSE firefox or opera, etc. They just want something to get them to the web, and ie provides that. If they are unhappy, firefox or another browser is literally a couple clicks away


RE: No!
By William Gaatjes on 6/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: No!
By smegz on 6/12/2009 2:18:14 PM , Rating: 4
...that doesn't exist. I can't see MS agreeing to open up the Windows Update to other browsers. Nor do I see the ability for any governing body to force them to do so. Asking them not to include a browser in the OS is one thing but subjecting them to host 3rd party software on their site for no benefit is another.

This isn't like the old days when browsers came on disks found nearly everywhere including your mailbox. Now it's rare to find those offerings. There was a time when new PC's came with IE and Netscape on them. So, now for this to work in Europe, European PC's will have to come pre-installed with a means to get to IE (MS takes care of this), Opera, Firefox, Safari and Chrome. If you leave any players out, they will cry foul.


RE: No!
By TomZ on 6/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: No!
By invidious on 6/12/2009 9:59:17 AM , Rating: 3
First of all stop acting elitist about knowing how to install software. Second there is ZERO inteligence required to choose a version of windows (or anything for that matter). People make unintelligent choices ALL THE TIME.

Obviously it is Microsoft's responsibility to facilate and easy way to install some kind of browser. And its a completely valid to wonder how they are going to do it, as their are many options.

Personally I think having a list to pick from is less fair than having a dafault browser preinstalled. Anyone not on the list is going to cry.


RE: No!
By bhieb on 6/12/2009 12:46:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Obviously it is Microsoft's responsibility to facilate and easy way to install some kind of browser.


Umm they do facilitate this... BY PUTTING THEIRS ON THERE TO BEGIN WITH. The way to install the browser of your choice is to use IE then remove it.

I agree in the past IE was monopolistic in that it could not be removed. But I see no obligation on MS end to do anything here except get you on the internet. Then pick what you want.

If I don't like the tires on my car I use what was on it, drive to the store and get different ones. Same thing here. The manufacturer of the car gives you a tire that makes sense for them financially. If you don't like them change them what's the big deal. The solution is NOT to sell the car with NO tires and leave it up to the buyer to figure out.


RE: No!
By bhieb on 6/12/2009 12:48:42 PM , Rating: 3
To add to my analogy. Nor should it be the dealers responsibility to stock and install other tires they don't normally sell.


RE: No!
By TomZ on 6/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: No!
By bhieb on 6/12/2009 1:04:08 PM , Rating: 3
The point your are missing is that a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing that position is (which I contend they have not since the Netscape days). See my post below. The reason they have a monopoly is they are the default. It has little to do with feature set, or any underhanded bullying. It has far more to do with the other competitors complete lack of marketing. MS should not in any way be required to advertise for their competition.

Now if they were installing IE and firewalling firefox, opera.. Or in any way inhibiting the ability to install a 3rd party browser, then that would obviously be abusing their position.

They simply gave you the tires so your car would drive, you can feel free to change them.


RE: No!
By TomZ on 6/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: No!
By jimbojimbo on 6/12/2009 2:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
You're right. There are no other operating systems you can install on a computer. I wish I was as smart as you.


RE: No!
By TomZ on 6/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: No!
By Motley on 6/12/2009 3:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
Actually monopoly does mean 100% market share. You are referring to monopoly (like) power.


RE: No!
By TomZ on 6/12/2009 3:42:06 PM , Rating: 3
Please point me to some kind of reputable definition - either legal or economic - that defines monopoly as being 100% market share. I have never seen it defined this way, anywhere. In fact, many definitions in particular point out specifically that 100% market share is not needed.

Here's the current Wikipedia definition:

In economics, a monopoly ... exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

No mention of 100% there.


RE: No!
By inighthawki on 6/13/2009 1:05:06 AM , Rating: 2
You clearly never took econ class. A true monopoly is a 100% control (or 99.99999% because of some little old business out there that sold to a few people). Over the years the term monopoly has been stretched to mean anything with a high market share, which is not always a monopoly. Windows, for example, is just a popular operating system. Nobody forces you to buy windows. A FREE alternative called linux is available to everyone, the only reason it truly lacks in any share is due to its common perception of being tough to use for the average user and lack of applications that many people are used to. There is also Macs, both ways, these are competitors that offer products comparable (or even better in some eyes) to the windows platform, therefore MS CANNOT be a monopoly because it has true competition.

As for a link, type "monopoly" into google then click in the top right corner for the definition:
"Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service"

"Exclusive control" is the fancy way of meaning complete or 100% control


RE: No!
By Oregonian2 on 6/13/2009 5:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that they're not technically a "monopoly" because for some users there are easily available alternatives. For some subsets of the "OS" marketplace category they've no monopoly whatsoever.

But with a world-wide pragmatic viewpoint, they've a monopoly. For most large subsets of the "OS" marketplace, they've a 100% monopoly.

The OS marketplace has a number of different subsets and can be broken up into a few or a large number depending upon how one wants to define things. Shoot, if one talks about RTOS sorts of OS's then Microsoft's share shrinks substantially. But even within the "PC" OS category, there are major subcategories like "business server", "business desktop", "home desktop", etc and those can be broken down even further if one wants to. In some Microsoft will have the purist's 100% monopolistic marketshare, some their share will be very much smaller.

So how one wants to categorize things or to lump categories together into marketplaces makes a big difference in terms of marketshare.

But as I said, in pragmatic overall number terms, they've a monopoly for non-Apple "PC" use.


RE: No!
By Oregonian2 on 6/13/2009 5:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that they're not technically a "monopoly" because for some users there are easily available alternatives. For some subsets of the "OS" marketplace category they've no monopoly whatsoever.

But with a world-wide pragmatic viewpoint, they've a monopoly. For most large subsets of the "OS" marketplace, they've a 100% monopoly.

The OS marketplace has a number of different subsets and can be broken up into a few or a large number depending upon how one wants to define things. Shoot, if one talks about RTOS sorts of OS's then Microsoft's share shrinks substantially. But even within the "PC" OS category, there are major subcategories like "business server", "business desktop", "home desktop", etc and those can be broken down even further if one wants to. In some Microsoft will have the purist's 100% monopolistic marketshare, some their share will be very much smaller.

So how one wants to categorize things or to lump categories together into marketplaces makes a big difference in terms of marketshare.

But as I said, in pragmatic overall number terms, they've a monopoly for non-Apple "PC" use.


RE: No!
By tlampen on 6/12/2009 6:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
That is BS! Before you know it people are going to be screaming why Microsoft isn't forced to include Open Office. What is happening here is the same thing as if Mcdonalds would be forced to offer Wendy's or Burger Kings fries because they are the bigger chain. I don't understand why people are so STUPID in thinking that companies should be penalized for being successful. How come no one is bitching that MAC doesn't come pre-installed with other internet browsers? It is the EXACTLY the same thing and if you argue otherwise you are an idiot.
You say Microsoft has a monopoly in the desktop operating systems? you tell me how they are directly controlling your decision to buy their product? is it because PCs are a lot cheaper than Macs? oh wait no that is the decision of the PC manufactures. Is it because Microsoft ALLOWS software and hardware manufactures to create ANY software or device that they want and then distribute and sell it? (Apple strictly controls this) That doesn't sound much like a monopoly. Microsoft is successful, However, they are not a monopoly. If you want to see what a monopoly is, go and start a cable company!


RE: No!
By INeedCache on 6/12/2009 8:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
To help protect competition that would, in the end, benefit the consumer. How does the EU's stance here benefit the consumer? That's the reason anti-trust came into existence in the first place - to ultimately protect the consumers by preserving competition. A dominant position amongst free items does exactly what?


RE: No!
By Screwballl on 6/12/2009 11:27:44 AM , Rating: 2
The general public is pretty dumb about how to use a computer. If you do not put a big flashing blue "e" (for Internet Explorer) in front of their faces, they may look in the Start Menu to find it but otherwise they are completely lost. I deal with 20-100 people like this every single day.

also since a majority of these people only have one computer... or if they do have more than one, they have no idea on how to transport stuff from one to the other, except maybe email it to themselves.... since Windows 7 does not include an email client either, that is a dead end street as well.

As a tech we know of many ways to get the browser... the general public does not and is more likely to take the computer back to the place they bought it and exchange it for an older system with Vista or something else that includes a browser. Look at the number of Linux based netbooks that were returned because people bought this cheap laptop thinking it had everything they are familiar with, and rather than try to actually learn anything about it, they return it and get something with Windows.

People as an individual are smart, but as a mass, they are dumb panicky animals. Microsoft has tapped into this, and this non-inclusion will only confuse them further.


RE: No!
By Motley on 6/12/2009 3:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
They are free to get a browser from the same place they bought the OS. Have it shipped to them on a DVD.


RE: No!
By callmeroy on 6/15/2009 9:15:54 AM , Rating: 2
Dumb applies to minority of users, whereas "they just don't care" applies to majority....I too have worked tech support before -- for years.

I think some users -- yes really are DUMB. Most though really don't care and that's why they don't know how to switch browsers or anything. They don't care because they don't view computers in the same way we do as techs. Where we look at a computer as multi-faceted tool for doing various tasks and upgrading it and how we get the most efficient use out of etc.....

Most users -- don't give a crap about that they just want to know where they click to get into their email or facebook.


RE: No!
By inighthawki on 6/12/2009 11:33:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
For example, download on another machine, use FTP, etc.

Firstly, you make the mistake of thinking somoene has a second pc available to them. Many people buy a new pc when their old one is completely dead, some people don't have one at all. But ok, understandable, a lot do have a second.

Now you expect these people to use FTP, or for the matter know anything about sharing files over a network? The standard windows user is clueless as to what a network is other than the thing that gives them their dsl/cable access. Clearly you hang out with a bunch of people who know everything about a computer, but some people i know barely know what a file is or know how to print, let alone trying to figure out how to get net access to get a browser...


RE: No!
By Aloonatic on 6/12/2009 9:52:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
ok BUT... with NO browser at all, how can they even get online to get IE? or Firefox or any other browser? With NO browser, how can they get to the website to get A browser?
Probably in the same way as you get windows updates in Vista and Win7 now, with NO browser. Just a list of available software and a check box to select the browser(s) that you want to download and install. It's not rocket science.


RE: No!
By PrinceGaz on 6/12/2009 10:53:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
with NO browser at all, how can they even get online to get IE? or Firefox or any other browser? With NO browser, how can they get to the website to get A browser?


They could include instructions on using Windows Explorer (which presumably is included in order to navigate files and folders) to go to a particular IP address where the browser they wish to download has been made available, and FTP it from there. Simply provide a list of the IP addresses for each browser and the average user has everything they need to get whichever browser they want :)


RE: No!
By Ratinator on 6/12/2009 11:45:50 AM , Rating: 4
I would rather it be left just the way it is. People complain that IE is installed with windows. Then when Microsoft takes it out they complain they can't get on the Internet. This is the height of hypocrisy.

No other company that I know of is required to carry and provide their competitor's brand, so why should Microsoft. Does a MAC have an option to install Internet Explorer or Safari? Is Sony required to offer Samsung software on their TVs?

This is all complete BS.


RE: No!
By bhieb on 6/12/2009 12:57:52 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. What the problem here is Firefox, Opera, Safari, ... all want a free ride.

IE is the #1 browser because it is the default. It is not because MS is strong arming the other players out, it is just that the layman either doesn't know there are options or does not care.

This is NOT Microsoft's problem people it is the competition's complete lack of marketing. If you want people to use your product then get off your cheap ass and convince them through marketing. Don't boohoo because "well he's the default and no one downloads my stuff", STFU and advertise so the user will be compelled to try yours out. There is no way that MS should be responsible for marketing your product even through a simple link, it is not their responsibility.


RE: No!
By William Gaatjes on 6/12/2009 3:13:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would rather it be left just the way it is. People complain that IE is installed with windows. Then when Microsoft takes it out they complain they can't get on the Internet. This is the height of hypocrisy.


That is the burden when you sell an OS. If you cannot live with it don't sell an OS.

Microsoft should deliver only a repository program. All the opensource linux distributors provide such a function and let's you choose. Mcrosoft can add an install IE as an default option but should provide other posibilites as well. It is all about being able to configure the OS as it pleases you.

quote:
Does a MAC have an option to install Internet Explorer or Safari?

Unfortunately there is no longer an IE for the MAC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_for...

quote:
Is Sony required to offer Samsung software on their TVs?


Many competing companis use chips from eachother. Sony may be the exception when they used to make their own chips but even sony realised it is much cheaper and better to buy of the shelf hardware. And the software you mention is usually embedded software where most of the software is from a common software platform. This reduces time to market.


RE: No!
By Ratinator on 6/12/2009 3:39:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That is the burden when you sell an OS. If you cannot live with it don't sell an OS.


Let's keep going. If it is the nature of the beast then NVidia's SLI should be required to support ATI Crossfire and vice versa. An iPod should be required to have a USB connection not their proprietary piece of crap.

The long and short of it is....can you show me the law that says you have to provide an option to install your competitor's products?

MS is being fined for rules that do not exist and are being made up along the way.


RE: No!
By William Gaatjes on 6/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: No!
By karlostomy on 6/14/2009 5:52:41 AM , Rating: 2
William,

I can see you are trying to make a coherent point, but, quite frankly, you are blinded by your apparent 'anti MS' socialist agenda.

Here's a fact for you to consider:
The free market decides what browser is ultimately used.

Firefox has gained market share, because it is a great browser.
That is the free market at work.
That is the way it is supposed to be.
That is efficient and fair.

you say:
quote:
Opera has always been the better browser compared to IE but was unknown


Well, i hate to make it so painfully obvious, but if opera is unknown, then they need to advertise it!
That is the free market at work, again.
That is the way it should be!

It may come as a surprise to you that no-one in the world is responsible for the success/failure of any business except the company that runs that business.

If the issue of 'fair' comes into business for you, then i would ask whether you truly understand business at all.

I personally use firefox, but i am absolutely against forcing MS to bundle anything that a competitor makes. This thread is full of valid arguments for why this is so.

I can see you have attempted to refute some parallels to other industries that were made above.
I had to shake my head when i read your reply!

Are you seriously in favour of forcing MS to bundle the product of competing companies?
Please tell me you are not!

What the EU (and you) seem to be implying is that it is better to submit to a socialist market policy, as if that would magically dissolve the inefficiencies of a dominant market player.

Come on, mate. Think!

*sighs*


RE: No!
By William Gaatjes on 6/15/2009 1:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
William, I can see you are trying to make a coherent point, but, quite frankly, you are blinded by your apparent 'anti MS' socialist agenda.


If there is anybody blinded, it is you.

I am delivering critism because i feel it is needed. However i will state that microsoft has done enough good things as well. In the end microsoft is still a company that wants to make profit and i would love to see the influence microsoft has to enhance our lives. Microsoft has done this but not enough. I have read some articles that microsoft sometimes seem to be divided into 2 camps. One camp wants to innovate. the other camp wants everything the same.

I feel you are blinded by your anti eu anti everybody but the us propaganda. I never mentioned being a socialist, guess i am one because you say so. I do wonder if you are from the US. your "mate" surprises me.

quote:
Firefox has gained market share, because it is a great browser. That is the free market at work. That is the way it is supposed to be. That is efficient and fair. you say: quote: Opera has always been the better browser compared to IE but was unknown Well, i hate to make it so painfully obvious, but if opera is unknown, then they need to advertise it! That is the free market at work, again. That is the way it should be!


If live only was really that simple...

quote:
It may come as a surprise to you that no-one in the world is responsible for the success/failure of any business except the company that runs that business.


I think of AMD and Intel for example. :)

quote:
Are you seriously in favour of forcing MS to bundle the product of competing companies? Please tell me you are not!


I think microsoft would turn into the defacto standard without negative feelings if they would allow competition on their platform, It shows the strenght microsoft can have and sometimes briefly shows. Alas, as long as Ballmer is around, nothing will change. I prefer bill over Steve. He seems more reasonable.

Besides, you talk about the free market but what is a free market without competition. After all , it was the competition that made microsft realise they still can and have to improve the product microsoft delivers. And see it is improving. Positive criticism is a good thing. As is having a choice. Without a choice(read competition) there is no need for innovation. Because innovation in short term thinking costs money. That is the burden of the free market as we have it today. Nothing is flawless tho.

quote:
What the EU (and you) seem to be implying is that it is better to submit to a socialist market policy, as if that would magically dissolve the inefficiencies of a dominant market player. Come on, mate. Think! *sighs*


I do not agree with everything that happens in the EU. I keep a clear head and do not get blinded by propaganda from anybody. I have a critical view and am proud of it. I also do not agree with your blind view that everybody that does not agree with you must be a commie or a socialist or whatever... SIGH indeed !


RE: No!
By erple2 on 6/14/2009 9:47:17 AM , Rating: 2
I think that you're conveniently leaving some things out. Taking the software repository idea a little bit further, show me where, in the default installation of Ubuntu, I can install Opera? I don't see it. And I can't get to the instructions on how to add a new repository to apt (assuming I didn't know how to do it off the top of my head, which an average user probably wouldn't) without going on to the web and looking that information up, which I'd have to do with a web browser to begin with.

Ultimately, the argument fails due to scope. You can't reasonably expect a software company to support "everything".

Ubuntu falls into the same "trap" - they don't officially support, among other things, Opera. They also can't officially support all of the software that exists for Linux, nor provide a mechanism for getting any possible application written for Linux. It's simply infeasible.

Given that they are not allowed to bundle IE with their OS (why is Apple allowed to get away with Safari being installed by default in the EU??), which I don't really understand, nor care about - Gecko, Webkit and Opera based browsers are easy enough to find, then I'd also choose to bundle nothing at all.


RE: No!
By William Gaatjes on 6/15/2009 1:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think that you're conveniently leaving some things out. Taking the software repository idea a little bit further, show me where, in the default installation of Ubuntu, I can install Opera? I don't see it. And I can't get to the instructions on how to add a new repository to apt (assuming I didn't know how to do it off the top of my head, which an average user probably wouldn't) without going on to the web and looking that information up, which I'd have to do with a web browser to begin with. Ultimately, the argument fails due to scope. You can't reasonably expect a software company to support "everything".


I agree with you on your last sentence.
The one thing that finally seems to happen is that we get some freedom with respect how windows is setup. Windows finally becomes more modular. This is copied from the linux distributions imho.

quote:
Given that they are not allowed to bundle IE with their OS (why is Apple allowed to get away with Safari being installed by default in the EU??)


I think there are a lot of microsoft haters and i can sure you i am not one of them. But i do give criticism be it in a positive way. And i am not alone. I think Apple first has to reach critical mass with respect to marketshare before the eu hunter kroes will get them in her sight. I am not to fond of Nelie Smit Kroes. She has had her share of questionable acting herself. And when it comes to eu actions against microsoft. I wonder if the eu ruling did not take place, would windows 7 have become as modular as some dailytech posters suppose ? That is the question. If Apple or linux distributors did not state (questionable i know) that the operating systems they provide where more free from harm when thinking of viruses would microsoft not have taken more actions and effort to make the windows os more secure ? Think about those questions. That is what is important. I happen to like Opera, no doubt about that. But i do not care if opera is shipped with windows or not. It is about having competition.


RE: No!
By Ratinator on 6/15/2009 12:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:
An iPod should be required to have a USB connection

I happen to own one and it does have an USB connection.

Out yes, not in. The vast majority of devices out there allows a USB in which is the universally accepted standard, yet Apple requies you to purchase components and extensions based on a proprietary input.


RE: No!
By William Gaatjes on 6/15/2009 1:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Out yes, not in. The vast majority of devices out there allows a USB in which is the universally accepted standard, yet Apple requies you to purchase components and extensions based on a proprietary input.


That proprietary input is not as proprietary as you think. A lot of third party hardware is available and works flawlessly. That is , i admit if apple for some reason does not block the use of such a third party device. But cables, blah. If i take for example a gsm telephone from any manufacturer, most also do not have a usb connector but do have usb connectivity. And that is available through a multi purpose multi function connector.

It is also a matter of opinion. I rather have a device with one multi purpose, multi function connector that that device is covered with connectors.

The only negative thing i have about my ipod is that i have to use itunes and that no other programs are allowed. But that has something to do i assume with the deal apple made with the record companies. Apple would not have been allowed to sell songs through the i tunes store if copying music to any ipod with use of tags was so incredible easy. It's the database that makes the ipod handy but it is also what prevents third party software with every ipod update.


RE: No!
By Norseman4 on 6/12/2009 11:56:30 AM , Rating: 1
With Live Update (or whatever it's called) anyone will be able to get and install IE. Then they can download Opera. That'd be the most obvious solution.

(Opera was my primary browser for several years until recently. Comments a couple months ago made me not so supportive of them. The browser is fine, the company is another matter. Found a Speed Dial plugin for FF and have been happy, though it is slower for me.)


RE: No!
By Justin Time on 6/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: No!
By GeorgeOu on 6/18/2009 1:18:17 AM , Rating: 1
try it some times.


RE: No!
By marvdmartian on 6/12/2009 10:17:26 AM , Rating: 3
Ding! Ding! Ding!! Winnah!!!

Microsoft could just as easily put an option in the Windows installation.....a step, where they ask "Do you wish to install Internet Explorer and Outlook Express??", and give consumers a yes/no option. The bozos that opt not to get it, and yet don't have another method for downloading and installing an alternate browser, should just have to deal with it.

Either that, or include a separate cd with IE, Firefox and Opera on it, and charge the Firefox and Opera folks a pittance for the convenience, just to cover the extra cost. Then there's no way they can claim favoritism..... though I'm sure they still would!


RE: No!
By Mitch101 on 6/12/2009 10:41:07 AM , Rating: 4
Ok and at the same time they do that I want a Bing Search Bar option in every one of the browsers being offered.

I should be able to choose the search engine for my browser right?


RE: No!
By chrone on 6/12/2009 10:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
agree with this. i hope someone in the near future will also sue ubuntu for only install firefox in their system for all this time, or mac for only install safari. lol :D

just make a better browser, no need to sue here and there. if the browser is really good and easy to use then perhaps time will take care the browser market share itself.

opera has been awhile and then comes firefox to the rescue. i wonder why opera didn't blame firefox too for their loss of the pie??


RE: No!
By monomer on 6/12/2009 1:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it even Microsoft's problem? Truthfully, the people that will be going out and installing an OS on their own will generally be those tech savvy enough to know about alternative browsers.

It's the people who buy their boxes pre-built with everything installed already that the browser wars really apply to. The system builders should just have an option asking which free browser you would like installed on top of all the other junkware they come with.


RE: No!
By dk494922 on 6/12/2009 2:05:06 PM , Rating: 3
Whatever other software or links that MSFT has to provide, they would eventually get hold for responsibility. Why would MSFT want something like that, might as well just sell a bare bone OS and rest of the stuffs. Let EU figure out how they want their users get the software they think they really need.


RE: No!
By eddieroolz on 6/12/2009 2:22:18 PM , Rating: 4
Exactly.

Simply said,

"Go to hell, Opera. No one wants to use you, that's why you're stuck with a 0.6% market share. GO TO HELL and stop causing problems."

Whew, that got a lot out. I'll never ever consider letting an Opera software touch my computer.


RE: No!
By Nighteye2 on 6/12/2009 2:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. Having multiple browsers available is good for the consumers. But they should not get pre-installed. During windows installation, the user should get a choice which browser, if any, to install. Shouldn't take more than about 100 MB on the DVD.


RE: No!
By erple2 on 6/14/2009 10:04:23 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, there's a LOT of browsers out there. Who decides which ones to include and which ones not to? Do you include customized ones based on Gecko? Which ones do you decide not to include? A quick check on wikipedia's list of web browsers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers) lists a crazy number of them. Should all of those be included? The argument that all <insert family name here> based ones are the same falls flat, since where do you draw that actual line? Do you include Flock and FireFox? Do you include Safari and Chrome? Do you include each of the shell wrappers around IE? Which do you pick?

I think that it's ludicrous to have to include many choices, simply because there's no fair way to do it. So don't offer choices. At least not initially.


RE: No!
By Nighteye2 on 6/14/2009 10:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
Offering only a single choice would be even more unfair than offering an incomplete selection of choices.

Microsoft could include:
IE8
Firefox
Opera
Chrome
Safari

That covers the most well-known ones.


By encryptkeeper on 6/12/2009 9:35:07 AM , Rating: 3
I'm sure that by now, MS builds the cost for developing IE into the price of Windows, but they never directly charge for IE, so who the hell cares? In fact, I'm pretty sure NO ONE charges real cost for a web browser, so why is there so much viciousness between MS, Apple, Firefox, Opera and Google? Even if one of them becomes dominant over MS, they haven't made any money off of the browser.

It's like companies competing to see who can send out the most junk mail, but in this case, the junk mail is actually useful.




By TomZ on 6/12/2009 9:48:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say the developers and users of Firefox and Opera would disagree with your statement.

At the end of the day, the browser is free because it provides a very basic service, and there is no shortage of companies and individuals willing to write code to provide that functionality.


By Aloonatic on 6/12/2009 10:25:32 AM , Rating: 3
Years ago, before Fire Fox and ie7, when we had the awful browsers that were ie5 and 6 there were little knowns browsers out there for sale. No one cared though. Netcaptor and Opera were much better, but they got no where because ie was free and already on your PC. Aslo, as ie was the "standard" most web pages were written for it, and they were often not the best and most efficient web pages that you'll ever come across.

Sure, now that ie8 (apparently better, I don't use it much) is out and Fire Fox is well known this all seems pointless and petty, but it's taken far too long for us to get here and companies that could/should have been able to make money and have had their ideas on show much sooner have gone without just so that MS could make ie the internet, for all intents and purposes.


By omnicronx on 6/12/2009 12:26:26 PM , Rating: 3
Netscape was released before IE, had almost the entire market under their control, and overall was a better browser. It was not MS that started the trend of giving away the browser for free, while the rest of your post makes sense (IE was definitely was used more because it was bundled with Windows and it was used as a standard for website development), none of these companies would have been making money if Microsoft never released a browser. They would have been free regardless as the ball was already rolling.


By theapparition on 6/15/2009 8:01:10 AM , Rating: 2
Hate to disagree with your history lesson, but Netscape cost money for all but educational use. Business and home use required a purchase of Netscape. It was only after MS bundled IE for free, and Netscape drastically lost marketshare, then they changed policy and discontinued charging for Navigator.

IE, even then, was vastly superior to that piece of crap called Navigator. So yes it was in fact MS who started the trend of giving the browser away for free.

And look how consumers have benefited! We now have options of several browsers, all that try to conform to specifications.
IE being bundled, as you know, certainly gave them a leg up on the browser market in the early days. Now, they are losing market share due to competition. That tells me that competition is thriving, and the only thing the EU needs to do is stick a thumb up thier ass and watch the free market.


By omnicronx on 6/12/2009 9:56:04 AM , Rating: 5
Firefox is an open source project, they literally cannot sell their product (at the very least they would have to give it away a copy for free) so I don't see how you can solely blame MS for this. Google's Chrome is also built from open source software.

*drags deer carcass under bridge*

There you go, now leave us alone Troll.


By omnicronx on 6/12/2009 12:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I'm pretty sure it was Netscape(which turned opensource and is now the firefox project, as your probably already know) that started that fad. Internet Explorer did not exist when I started used the internet way back when, Netscape was pretty much your only option.

So are you trying to imply MS should have sold their browser for profit while their biggest competitor (whom at the time of release controlled the entire market, and had a superior product) gave it away for free?

P.S If you ever need help digging a hole in the sand for your ever growing head (ever expanding with all the BS that you come up with) I am always willing to lend a helping hand.


By smegz on 6/12/2009 2:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
I believe you are correct sir. Mozilla was created by Netscape programmers in 1998. So in effect, Firefox is the latest Netscape revision.


By BaronMatrix on 6/13/2009 5:18:47 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about. I paid $49 for Netscape for Windows 95 and you could get UPGRADES for free. The key was that if you didn't buy a copy you couldn't get to the site to get the upgrade.

When MS bundled IE - I was working there at the time - it in effect became useless to pay for Netscape.

Now the huge problem is it would be a nightmare to figure which browsers to include, how to order them in a list, how they are advertised to be more appealing, etc.

As someone said, OEMs can create install routines for browsers just like all the other crap. It wouldn't even need a "browser UI."


By therealnickdanger on 6/12/2009 9:15:49 AM , Rating: 5
Where does it end? Why must Microsoft become a welfare institution for products that can't compete fairly? It's BS.




By Screwballl on 6/12/2009 9:30:53 AM , Rating: 3
Because the EU is and always has been a Socialistic institution that would rather punish large and successful companies "for the greater good of its citizens".

Read up on Atlas Shrugged and see just how many similarities there are between the government in the book and the direction the EU (and current day US gov't) is going.


By TomZ on 6/12/2009 9:45:13 AM , Rating: 4
I'd say that we in the US have lost the right to criticize the EU in terms of trending towards socialism. It's shameful, really.

Altas Shrugged should be required reading for everyone who thinks they desire freedom.


By Lerianis on 6/14/2009 9:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
Socialism is a good thing in the long run, as long as socialism does not go too far.

The fact is that socialist countries AROUND THE WORLD have better qualities of life for their people, long and short run, than the United States does even though our people are 'free to compete'.

It's time to realize that a totally capitalistic society DOES NOT WORK, we saw that with President Chimp taking all the controls off Wall Street and having Wall Street crash big time.


By Aloonatic on 6/12/2009 10:07:06 AM , Rating: 2
I guess that media player will be next.

After that, other than the junk/rarely used apps like note pad and calculator (yes yes, a lot of use might use them, but the vast majority never go into the accessories folder) there isn't much to go after.

I'm not really sure why people have such a problem with MS being asked to provide an operating system and that's it, without promoting their other products and giving them away for "free" making them the de facto standard, meaning that most people don't even think about checking for an alternative and as such competition is stifled, as is innovation.

Tabbed browsing had been around for years before ie7, but MS didn't bother, why should they? Almost everyone uses their browser. Internet explorer became the way to access the internet and MS were therefore associated with all almost all things on-line, like how Google are associated with all internet searches regardless of which engine and site is actually being used.

Sure, people like us knew there were (often) better alternatives and didn't care, we were ok. In fact, it probably made you feel a bit smug/superior when you showed people Netcaptor or Opera, then Fire Fox, and they thought you were some sort of internet genius with inside knowledge. Then Fire Fox took off and we don't really see what the problem is now.

I'm not saying that people were really "harmed" all that much, but innovation and mass adoption was stifled. The ideas and hard work of the people who made these innovative new browsers was not recognised or rewarded as much as it should have been and it's taken too long for their ideas to reach the main stream.


By Lerianis on 6/14/2009 9:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
Media player has already been removed in the EU, so you are a little behind the times.
As to notepad, calculator, etc..... I would REJOICE if those things were not installed on my PC, that I had to CHOOSE WHILE INSTALLING WINDOWS to install those things.

The fact is that most people have a problem with MS being asked to provide an opearting system and 'that's it' because these things can fit the definition of 'being parts of the OS' in one person's mind and not in another person's mind.

The fact is that you also NEED de-facto standards in order to tell people "Hey, this is a bare-bones application, this is how it works, build on this!"
If Microsoft DIDN'T do that, we would have LOADS of different ways of doing stuff on Windows Vista/7 and no one who understood how they were written in order to fix them.


i'm sure
By omnicronx on 6/12/2009 9:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
Opera meet less than 1% market share, minuscule market share meet Opera. Are they really trying to imply that MS should package a browser that hardly ANYONE uses? I know it has some nice features, and some would argue that it is better than some browsers out there, but if nobody uses it, you don't really have an argument. MS packaging IE with Windows should not affect their market share that much if people really wanted Opera. If this were Firefox making this statement then perhaps they would have a point.




RE: i'm sure
By reader1 on 6/12/2009 10:05:58 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Are they really trying to imply that MS should package a browser that hardly ANYONE uses?


Nobody uses Opera because Opera can't charge for the browser and create a high quality product. They can't charge for it because IE is free and comes with Windows.

quote:
MS packaging IE with Windows should not affect their market share that much...


Packaging software with Windows gives it an advantage. If any other browser was packaged with Windows, and people had to download IE, that other browser would have the dominance that IE does now.


RE: i'm sure
By TomZ on 6/12/2009 10:15:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody uses Opera because Opera can't charge for the browser and create a high quality product. They can't charge for it because IE is free and comes with Windows.
Not to mention Firefox, Chrome, etc. which are also all free - so even if Microsoft were to charge money for IE, Opera would still be forced to compete with other free browsers.
quote:

Packaging software with Windows gives it an advantage. If any other browser was packaged with Windows, and people had to download IE, that other browser would have the dominance that IE does now.
Some truth to that, but when you consider how Firefox is quickly gaining market share relative to IE, you see it's not the only factor involved.


RE: i'm sure
By omnicronx on 6/12/2009 1:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Packaging software with Windows gives it an advantage. If any other browser was packaged with Windows, and people had to download IE, that other browser would have the dominance that IE does now.
I'm not debating this point, it is a major factor (although as Tomz has shown it cannot be the only factor as Firefox has been doing fine). If the EU wants to force MS to make two versions of windows to allow the public to choose then so be it, but to continue their attack on MS after they have done what they were asked to do is ridiculous.

The best part of it all is that nothing will ever be good enough for the EU. They cannot stop OEM's from bundling whatever OS they please, so even if they do force MS to give the choice, unless you are doing your own Windows installation, you won't be the one making this decision. Even if OEM's start bundling other browsers, they will most likely also bundle IE, and people will continue to use it as though the other browser is not even on their computer. IE is a standard, web apps, especially internal business web apps have grown exponentially over the last few years, and most of them rely on IE and won't even work with another browser.

The damage has been done, MS bundled IE with Windows before it was the defacto browser, thus there was no way to stop this from happening. There is not a desktop variant OS out there that does not come bundled with a browser, so why should MS forced to comply with these stupid rules desktop monopoly or not is beyond me.


RE: i'm sure
By Sazar on 6/12/2009 1:34:41 PM , Rating: 1
Honestly, the market-share doesn't account for much.

In terms of quality, Opera beta 10.x is a fantastic browser. It is fast, useful, efficient and stable. It deserves to have a much higher market share, but that is on the developers and the Firefox fanboy's.

Chrome is also very fast, stable and useful but doesn't have add-ons. I don't personally care, but there are a fair few Firefox users who swear by extensions. A dead tab does not kill the browser, although you have to kill that tab in task manager.

IE8 is blistering fast as well and has some good accelerators on offer and also doesn't die when a tab dies. Unlike Chrome, I have been able to kill a tab directly in the operating environment itself instead of launching task-manager.

Firefox is the same old, same old at the moment. Jack of all trades but king of none and the stability continues to slip.

Firefox used to be the cool, innovative browser but it has long been dethroned. If not for 3'rd party extensions, it would have a far lower market-share.


RE: i'm sure
By omnicronx on 6/12/2009 1:44:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not debating any of this, I've always thought Opera had potential, and I love Opera Mobile and mini, but you cannot force users to use your product. For whatever the reason Opera has not been able to compete with two others browsers that are in the exact same boat as them, so there is no reason to believe that a non IE bundled OS would considerably change their userbase, that is the only point I am trying to make here.

The way I see it, it really comes down to the fact that Opera was/is not a brand name. FF was a Netscape derivative which always had a following, Chrome has Google to push it, and obviously IE has MS. It sucks that Opera has not been getting support, but that's just part of the business, complaining to the EU makes it quite obvious that Opera does not know how to compete. I've seen Chrome advertised more in a year than any of Opera's browsers during its lifetime.


RE: i'm sure
By Sazar on 6/16/2009 4:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
Advertising is definitely an issue for Opera. They have done well to go into the mobile space and also the Wii. Hopefully more recognition will be found through that :)

Btw, I LOVE how people saying anything negative about Firefox automatically get voted down :)

Fanboyism at it's finest.


Any OS should have a built in web browser
By wingless on 6/12/2009 9:15:23 AM , Rating: 2
If you make an OS, it should be expected that you make a web browser for those users to use the internet. This isn't a matter of competition, it is a matter of convenience to the end user who payed $300+! When I buy an OS I should be able to get online immediately. I then can choose to install whichever web browser I want to use, like any other types of software I choose to install.

I use Opera almost exclusively, but I disagree with their statement and this EU lawsuit. They can do that sort of stuff with an open source OS like Linux, but not with Windows. Windows is a Microsoft product so Microsoft has an obligation to make it fully functional out-of-the-box with their own software.

A web browser is a personal choice like which anti-virus to use, which games to play, etc. This is in no way a case for an anti-trust lawsuit. Companies use MS Windows as a choice because there is an infrastructure around it. This infrastructer was created by the customers, no MS. The industry flocked to MSs' products simply because they had a good product and offered good support. I don't see why they need to be punished for providing some good, useful technology.

There is nothing keeping anybody from using Linux with Open Office. Heck, THEY'RE EVEN FREE! How is MS violating anti-trust law?




Catch 22?
By ITknowitall on 6/12/2009 9:36:35 AM , Rating: 3
Here is a really good question...if MS Win doesn't come with a browser, how would i get on the fooking internet to download any other browser!?!?!?!??!

This is SO stupid. Its Microsofts product, anyone can download and install what ever browser they want at any moment. Its not like MS is stopping you from installing FireFox, or Chrome or whatever browser you choose.

This is like saying Toyota has to use Ford engines in their cars because if Toyota uses their own engines they are robbing the customer of choice. or creating a monopoly??
WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

If i had my own business that i brought up from the ground, and then all of a sudden i had to include a competitors product along with mine, i would just close shop, give the finger to all and move to Hawaii.

/rant




RE: Catch 22?
By Belard on 6/12/2009 10:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
In the OLD days when you bought a PC (or even a MAC).

It came with AOL, Netscape, etc software setup Icons. Okay, some companies would INSTALL them anyways... but yeah, having the setup software on the computer for various browsers would be needed.


I don't understand why they should.
By smeg off on 6/12/2009 10:40:49 AM , Rating: 2
It's like Burger King demanding McDonalds stock their Whopper.




By chrone on 6/12/2009 11:07:55 AM , Rating: 2
it's like hp and dell should install two or more operating systems at once in their shipped PC just not to violate monopoly. lol :D

i wonder do this people has logic or being just jelous with microsoft success??

if microsoft prohibit or block any installation of browser or so on on their operating system, this call will suit just fine.


M$ correct, rest annoying...
By XZerg on 6/12/2009 10:42:35 AM , Rating: 4
M$, regardless of how bad it is for competition, is on the right track for providing all the bundled software. Forcing no uninstall option for these software too seems about right as well. Why?

When you are developing an application you need to have some standards to go by. If M$ did not bundle these standard applications then you would have a very open standard system but leaving programmers incapable of creating an efficient application. Sure M$ applications are not the best of the world but they are decent and do enforce some standard way of computing.

Can you imagine how bad it would be to support your application if M$ did not bundle these software?
Support: What browser are you using?
User: What is a browser?
Support: What program do you use to go on Internet?
User: AOL
Support: No that's your internet provider. What program do you use to check email?
... WTF?!

Yes Firefox, Opera are in many ways better. I use strictly Firefox unless there is a site that only works for IE. So don't get me wrong.

Any company that forces M$ to break the bundle is outright stupid regardless of how anti-competitive, buggy/virus prone, unethical it seems. Without M$ way of business the rest of the software industry would go bonkers having to provide their implementation of each and every piece of software they provide to ensure even dumba$$es can use their software as they want them to.

The very "open" concept has left *nix flavors in stone age when it comes to support. Some of the major factors only the geeks and corporates use them are:
1) They have bought external support costing many thousands or millions of dollars each year
2) They know their way and understand the computer lingo sufficiently
3) If needs be they will hack something together to get their system accomplish what needs to be
4) and more...

Can you imagine a Joe being able to afford such support services or have such knowledge? No.

So all these companies or governments bashing M$ should just go F themselves.




Sure, why not?
By Barfo on 6/12/2009 9:12:38 AM , Rating: 3
Let MS do our marketing work for us without charging a dime.




Not this again....
By callmeroy on 6/12/2009 9:13:24 AM , Rating: 3
Here we again.....

and my answer is the same now as it was years ago when this was first raised -- so long as you can UNINSTALL IT w/o trouble and there is no BS code in the OS to sabotage installing other browsers on your own --- NO Microsoft should not ship their OS with any other version of browser other than their own.




Wrong.
By reader1 on 6/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong.
By TomZ on 6/12/2009 9:49:34 AM , Rating: 3
Did you go off your meds again? You're not making any sense.


SCREW EU!
By omgwtf8888 on 6/12/2009 4:25:13 PM , Rating: 1
This is just another attempt by these thieves to pick pocket an American Company with some outrageous fines. No other company in the world has ever had to bundle a competitor's product with their own... Yes for every 4 bottles of Coke in a sixpack you have to get 1 pepsi and 1 RC. Or maybe our justice department should be looking at some of their companies. I'm not seeing too many american looking pieces (or names) in those IKEA products. And, what about french bread, should they have to put a slice of Wonder Bread somewhere in that loaf?

Let's face facts, if you make a better product you will get the business. Apple is a perfect example of that. There were cell phones galore in the marketplace. Like the Iphone or not, they created the better Imousetrap and the world beat a path to its door.

As a matter of fact, isn't the entire European Union just one big, price fixing, monopoly? Essentially haven't they joined forces to control markets and provide themselves an unfair marketing advantage?

Hello? Microsoft if you are listening.. You heard this from me first... SUE the entire European Union as a large scale monopoly. I will gladly take 1%




RE: SCREW EU!
By karlostomy on 6/14/2009 5:59:39 AM , Rating: 2
well said.


EU wants more bloatware
By Hacp on 6/12/2009 9:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
The last thing I need is 4-5 programs full of bloat ruining my fresh install.




Lol
By ApfDaMan on 6/12/2009 9:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
Since all of the reasons that that was a stupid suggestion by opera are so painfully obvious, im just going to say lol.




What I'm wondering
By nvalhalla on 6/12/2009 9:32:51 AM , Rating: 2
If other browsers are bundled, will Opera or Mozilla respond to the millions of emails from users who are having problems with "Sorry, Microsoft is responsible for installing the software, talk to them"?




What about the other programs?
By ninus3d on 6/12/2009 9:36:02 AM , Rating: 2
Are they going to remove Wordpad, outlook express, windows zip support etc as well?
I prefer getting a "suite" of software readily available and then install what I prefer over the default if I'm not satisfied with everything.




uhh
By invidious on 6/12/2009 9:47:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to browser maker Opera ASA, that move isn’t enough to return competition to the browser market in Europe.

Europe got the same software that the US got. Things are no less competative there than they are here. I am all about Opera and would love to see more people using it, but it isn't Microsoft's responsibility to make sure that happens. If Opera wants to be more competative they have to get out their wallet and advertise.




Really?
By tjr508 on 6/12/2009 9:47:14 AM , Rating: 2
So we need even more crap in our OS now?

If people are all upset about IE, then maybe MS could put some sort of checkbox in the windows install wizard to install without it.

Including a bunch of browsers is bloating and not including a browser is ridiculous (I personally like having one disk for my entire install).

What's next? Telnet and notepad being anti-competitive? Maybe ID and Blizzard will get together and sue for including minesweeper in W7? Maybe Mathematica and MatLab have a problem with calc.exe or adobe with mspaint? What about 3rd party defrag utilities?




My windows 7 disruption tactic
By Keeper75 on 6/12/2009 9:59:24 AM , Rating: 2
mmmmmm...i'm going to petition EU to put my home made browser filled with bugs that make windows go into bluescreen, because i find that it's antitrust not having my little home made browser into Windows...hell, i'll even force windows 7 to go into bluescreen just to make people angry with windows 7, so to make Microsoft fall.

Seriously EU....you should be ashamed on what you're proposing.

I feel ashamed to be an european right now.




Opra.... SHUT UP
By Luticus on 6/12/2009 11:09:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Opera CTO Hakon Wium Lie told Reuters, "I don't think what Microsoft announced is going to restore competition. I don't think it's going to be enough, I don't think it will get them off the hook."


I think Opera CTO Harkon Wium Lie, shoud shut the F up... When I go home tonight I’m so uninstalling that junk. I refuse to support whiney little pricks that have to win through legal warfare. If you're browser is good, people will use it, they use FireFox and I don't think FireFox is really all THAT great personally. I think the competition is there it's just a matter of advertising. Firefox and IE are all over the news sites and in the media a lot more than Opera. Instead of increasing their advertising budget they'd rather whine about how Microsoft is being unfair because they don't put EVERY browser in the world in THEIR operating system by default.

This is exactly what I was talking about in the earlier article talking about Opera 10 when people rated me down. I even downloaded and installed Opera and liked the new browser, but that junk is gone now. This company sounds like a prepubescent teenager whining because he's girlfriend dumped him and now he’s "un-cool"... boo hoo, cry me a freaking river.

Should Microsoft be forced to put everyone else’s media player in their OS too? How about everyone else’s notepad? What about Windows Explorer, that's nice and proprietary... Should Microsoft be forced to include the Windows version of KDE as an optional desktop manager too? Where's the line? In fact what is the actual operating system anyway?

Just because your software is free, Opera, doesn't mean you get a free foothold in everyone's operating systems. Get over yourself, you're not that special! I don't see IE come by default on anyone's operating system but Microsoft's... Grow up!

</rant>




By mechBgon on 6/12/2009 12:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Opera CTO Hakon Wium Lie told Reuters, "I don't think what Microsoft announced is going to restore competition. I don't think it's going to be enough, I don't think it will get them off the hook."


Is he under the delusion that his browser is competitive with IE5, 6, 7 or 8? Show me Opera's central-management features, Hakon. Oh that's right, your browser doesn't have any, unlike all versions of IE released in the last 10 years , which can be centrally deployed, configured, enforced, audited and updated without the I.T. guy having to go do it by hand and/or trust his users to cooperate. An invaluable capability, and only Microsoft "gets it" so far on the Windows platform.

Hakon, if I want your browser, I'll install it myself. Don't insult my intelligence by trying to get it legislated onto my system.




What a bunch of f*cking morons
By Jeff7181 on 6/12/2009 1:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously? Can these idiots hear themselves speak? I nominate this for the dumbest idea of 2009.




By overlandpark4me on 6/12/2009 8:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
that Burger King includes the Whopper on their menu. Get bent. Come out with a product that a large amount of people want, instead of forcing it down our throats.




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki