backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by Aloonatic.. on Apr 18 at 1:58 PM

The ECIS organization was granted interested third-party status in the case

Microsoft is dominant in several different software categories including the operating system, web browser and productivity applications segments. While in some areas like browsers, Microsoft is losing ground to the competition, there are still others where it is clearly dominate leading to frequent allegations that it is abusing its top position to stifle competition.

Microsoft’s most recent antitrust claim brought against it in the EU alleges that it is preventing competition in the browser market by bundling its Internet Explorer browser with Windows.

Microsoft announced this week that the deadline for it to respond to the charges against it in the EU had been extended by one week to April 28. A Microsoft spokeswoman said, "Microsoft confirms that the new deadline for the company to respond to the Commission's statement of objections is April 28."

The deadline for Microsoft to respond was changed last month putting it at April 21 and the original charges were leveled against Microsoft on January 15. Computerworld reports that while the deadline has been moved back, the courts have granted "interested third-party" standing to the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS). Members of ECIS include Adobe, Corel, IBM, Oracle, RealNetworks, and Sun.

ECIS attorney Thomas Vinje said in a statement, "This is an important case to ensure that browsers can compete on the merits and that consumers have a true choice in the software they use to access the Web. Smaller, more innovative browser developers need a level playing field."

This isn't the first antitrust case against Microsoft that the ECIS has been involved with. In January 2008, the group filed charges against Microsoft alleging that the software firm was preventing competitors from accessing needed information to make software work smoothly with Microsoft's Office productivity suite.

Computerworld reports that in May of 2008 the EU antitrust commission had stated that it would investigate whether support of the ODF format by Microsoft allows consumers to share information between software products of their choice.

Support for the ODF format is among the new features being added to Office 2007 in the second service pack for the application.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

unfair browsers?
By smackababy on 4/16/2009 11:24:57 AM , Rating: 2
So, if Microsoft doesn't bundle a browser with their OS, how exactly are you supposed to get a browser from a different company? Are the EU stupid enough to expect MS to bundle another companies browser in their OS, and pay the fees for doing so (we all know there will be fees). Seriously? I, for one, think the EU is being completely moronic on this one, as with most of their outlandish claims.




RE: unfair browsers?
By GoodBytes on 4/16/2009 11:29:29 AM , Rating: 1
EU needs additional funding.. they need to get their money somewhere. Microsoft, of course!

If they truly did their job, then Microsoft would not be only one taken to court, and Apple would be so busted they the lawyers would need sleeping bags to sleep at the court room.
But then again, if Apple was charged the same level as Microsoft, Apple would close it's doors. And we need competition. It's already hard enough for Microsoft as they already 90-95% of the market share.


RE: unfair browsers?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/16/2009 11:36:20 AM , Rating: 5
Some of the EU claims have merits on some cases. The majority however, such as the browser claim, are pure bullshit. I find it interesting that Opera was the one that leveled the accusation and not Mozilla nor Apple. That tells me Opera has changed its business model to "If you can't beat em, sue em."


RE: unfair browsers?
By Mitch101 on 4/16/2009 12:21:11 PM , Rating: 5
Its the age old adage If you cant compete litigate.
Real Networks anyone?

It would be something if Microsoft prevented you from using Opera, firefox/mozilla, chrome, safari etc but this is just ridiculous.

Its just like when Microsoft said what your asking is that Coke should include one Pepsi with every six pack they sell.

While Microsoft wont pull out of the EU in the end the EU people will just wind up paying extra for their OS. Pass the costs of doing business onto the consumer. And the price of doing business in the EU is about to go up again.


RE: unfair browsers?
By omnicronx on 4/16/2009 12:41:27 PM , Rating: 5
The fact the EU can even regulate a FREE product is just ridiculous.

I also don't see how Microsoft's dominating position in the OS market has anything to do with the browser market.


RE: unfair browsers?
By Mitch101 on 4/16/2009 1:50:05 PM , Rating: 3
You would think the number of alternative browsers in use and increasing would be a good enough case that alternative browsers are thriving even in the face of Microsoft bundling a browser with the OS.

Something else I would use in defense is Microsoft doesnt force you to upgrade to newer version of IE its an optional download. Same with their Media player it never forced me to upgrade I actually had to go to the site to get them.

So when is the EU going after Apple?

Firefox boss fumes as Apple 'forces' Safari upgrade
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Firefox-...
quote:
Mozilla CEO John Lilly has hit out at Apple, accusing the company of doing a disservice to Windows users everywhere by including its Safari browser as a default add-on installation in the latest iTunes update, likening it to the way malware is distributed.

If this is stemming from the people at Opera then I'm betting its just sour grapes that they cant figure out how to get ahead in the browser market and have started the blame game.


RE: unfair browsers?
By BZDTemp on 4/16/2009 2:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
Apple does not have a controlling market share. This makes a huge difference!

As for Opera not getting ahead in the browser market. Do you even know how much innovation Opera brought to the web browser? It is not like there product was bad it is just impossible to sell something when most people just go with the the "free" browser they get with their OS. Especially when that browser is non-standard meaning a lot of web applications requires IE which again means one must run Windows.

I can not believe the short sighted views displayed in this group time and time again. It seems like almost no one has any grasp of how important it is that Microsoft is not allowed to use their OS control everything. What EU is doing is simply trying to level the playing field somewhat. Suggesting EU is doing it for the money is simply stupid - the EU economy is bigger that the US so it is peanuts.

Try to google the words netscape Microsoft settlement and you will find out how things started. You will even find traces of US states suing Microsoft and how that was stopped by President Bush.


RE: unfair browsers?
By FITCamaro on 4/16/2009 2:55:12 PM , Rating: 4
Ah so because Apple is smaller it's ok that they don't users a choice in anything but which of their pre-canned machines to buy. Good logic. In reality it makes no difference. Either the rules have to be followed by everyone or they should not exist or be changed. Your logic makes the case that is ok for a poor person to steal because they can't afford something they want or need.

Web applications requiring IE are the responsibility of those who wrote the web page. Not Microsoft. They don't force web developers to write web pages to be specific to their browser.

And the Netscape argument is old. Find a new one.


RE: unfair browsers?
By reader1 on 4/16/2009 4:18:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Either the rules have to be followed by everyone or they should not exist or be changed.


The rules do have to be followed by everyone. If Apple was a monopoly, the rules would apply to them, too.


RE: unfair browsers?
By BZDTemp on 4/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: unfair browsers?
By smackababy on 4/16/2009 4:54:43 PM , Rating: 3
Your argument is flawed and your example is no where near the situation.

Alternatively, a more accurate analogy would be if a rim company had a 90% market share. Now all these rims came equipped with their own tires. You had the option, however, to "upgrade" to another companies tires that some (lets say 30%) find are better.

Now, the tires that come with the rims are perfectly acceptable and work just fine for the average driver. The racer, on the other hand, wished to have the other free tires as they give him better performance when racing.


RE: unfair browsers?
By Pryde on 4/16/2009 11:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since Apple is so much smaller what they do except with regards to iTunes is not really changing the world. If one has market control then that enables you to do all sorts of things because you're customers have no real alternative.


What Apple is doing is far worse than Microsoft, they force their software upon people, they restrict hardware choices and the cost of the hardware is usually much higher.

quote:
Imagine for example that 90% of all car tires was made by one company. And that it meant the other brands was almost unknown the general public. This would of course mean that selling anything but the big brand would be difficult for car shops. Now imagine the big tire company moving into the lubricant business and them tell the car shops they must only sell their oil or they will get no tires. Guess what that would do to the lubricant market.


They are selling the OS not IE, you can download IE for free, you can also download Firefox, Safari etc for free. They are pretty much selling the tire and giving the lubricant away for free. Microsoft does not restrict this in anyway.

quote:
We do certainly agree that the rules must apply for all but only when the conditions are the same. The logic you try to use is flawed. If it's the same for all despite different situations then that for example means everyone should be allowed to get a drivers licenses regardless of age or that everyone should be allowed to carry a gun (including terrorists, murderers, 10 year old kids...).


Yes the rules must apply the same for everyone meaning that ( where I live ) you must be 15 to get your drivers license, you must be 18 to get your firearms license. These rules apply to everyone no exceptions. Making Microsoft include other browsers in their OS and Apple not means the rule does not apply to everyone ... only MS. Why should MS help Opera, Firefox etc distribute their software ... are they going to distribute IE ... I don't think so, EU has to learn that making MS offer other browsers is unfair to MS and a huge advantage to its competitors which would be completely unfair.

quote:
Maybe Microsoft did not "force" web developers to write web pages for IE with a gun to their head. However they made it so that web pages had to follow Microsoft because the most people use IE.


Maybe in 1998 this argument may have been valid but today if a webpage doesn't work on all current browsers then its time the web developer updated their code.


RE: unfair browsers?
By BZDTemp on 4/17/2009 5:24:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe in 1998 this argument may have been valid but today if a webpage doesn't work on all current browsers then its time the web developer updated their code.


There loads of more advanced web pages that require IE. Just because you don't see them it is not so. For example this means that I have to run Windows when I work. If Microsoft had followed the open standards I would have been free to choose browser and therefore free to choose OS.

quote:
They are selling the OS not IE, you can download IE for free, you can also download Firefox, Safari etc for free. They are pretty much selling the tire and giving the lubricant away for free. Microsoft does not restrict this in anyway.


Of course they are selling IE it is just that you pay for it when you buy Windows. You can't run IE without Windows so how can you claim IE is free? Back when IE was coming out there was an IE version for Mac but once the battle was over Microsoft stopped making IE for Mac.

quote:
Yes the rules must apply the same for everyone meaning that ( where I live ) you must be 15 to get your drivers license, you must be 18 to get your firearms license. These rules apply to everyone no exceptions.


LOL - so the rule that you can get a firearm license goes for all providing they are 18 or older. Can't you see that is a parallel to the rule which applies to Microsoft Windows but not to Apple OS X. One has a age restriction the other has the restriction that one must have a controlling market share.

quote:
Maybe in 1998 this argument may have been valid but today if a webpage doesn't work on all current browsers then its time the web developer updated their code.


I totally agree but there are two problems. One is that many of the more advanced systems are not updated frequently and the other is that Microsoft still has a big pull on what is being made. For example a lot of companies are basing their intranet/workgroup solutions on Sharepoint. Sharepoint is somewhat okay in none-IE browsers but functionality is limited and as a result one must use Windows becuase IE becomes a requirement.


RE: unfair browsers?
By FITCamaro on 4/16/2009 2:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
You're using logic. Idiots don't have that.


RE: unfair browsers?
By acer905 on 4/16/2009 11:53:31 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps they would prefer that Microsoft includes an ultra basic, simgle use "web browser" that connects to one website, where a user can then pick their choice of actual web browser to install.

Either way, this is extremely stupid.


RE: unfair browsers?
By Aloonatic on 4/16/2009 12:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing that the EU think that you can choose your browsers in a similar fashion to how you choose your windows updates now.

It wouldn't be too hard to have a little screen in your control panel, with a short cut on the desk top called "Choose Web Browser" that displays a list of possible web browsers that are available to be downloaded and installed like you do your updates.

It's not a massive leap of the imagination to see that something like that could be easily implemented. Maybe it could be part of the initial set-up when you are choosing the time zone, keyboard layout and what have you?

It does all seem like a bit of a pain in the arse though as what is MS really gaining from the "browser wars"? Or (more importantly) what has the consumer lost? In the last few years we've seen the huge growth in the adoption of Fire fox in spite of Microsoft's "tyrannical" "monopoly" when they have "forced" internet explorer on us.

I really don't know why the EU have got such a bee in their bonnet over this, but hey ho.


RE: unfair browsers?
By Mitch101 on 4/16/2009 2:10:17 PM , Rating: 4
NO! NO! NO! Sorry it seems like an easy enough solution but the answer is a resounding NO!

It starts with consumers should be able to choose which browser comes with Windows next its I want my version of notepad to be bundled oh I want my calculator bundled with it then you get to the crud that is Real Network screaming people should be able to choose what version of media player gets installed. It wont end. There are plenty of alternative free applications beyond the browser that will scream next.

Plain and simple Microsoft does not prevent you from installing any one else s application and if they have to ship someone else's application then sadly people will expect them to support the third party crap that came with their PC. No! No! No!

I'm betting if you investigate the people behind the EU case there is something else going on. Rod Blagojevich related to anyone on the EU?


RE: unfair browsers?
By rcc on 4/16/2009 3:15:53 PM , Rating: 4
lol, wouldn't that be a lovely install process. Instead of clicking go and having it run, you'd get pop ups every 10 seconds.

Please select your brower from the following list.

Please select your terminal program from the following list.

Please select your Zip....er, compression program from the .....

400 selections later your Windows installation is complete.

No, thanks. Give me something that works, and if I find something I like better, I'll use it.


RE: unfair browsers?
By reader1 on 4/16/2009 3:57:17 PM , Rating: 1
You won't be able to find anything better because Microsoft abuses their monopoly by giving away their software for free.


RE: unfair browsers?
By Pryde on 4/16/2009 11:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
yeah we should have to pay for all software.

There is nothing better than Windows Media Player
There is nothing better than Windows Firewall etc
There is nothing better than Internet Explorer
There is nothing better than Windows Burning Tool
etc

Oh wait there is and they are all free.

PS Microsoft don't have a monopoly and if they really forced this software upon us and had a monopoly they would need a very large legal team.


RE: unfair browsers?
By Aloonatic on 4/17/2009 2:04:42 AM , Rating: 1
I am not really sure that you mean by "free"

It takes time and effort to keep updating and improving their browser and media player. That has a cost, someone has to pay for that sooner or later. It costs competitors money to develop their software too. Somewhere down the line everyone pays, unless people are giving their time away for "free" but I don't think Microsoft's software engineers fall into that category.

By "giving" away their software for "free" it just makes it harder for people to see the need for and to find out how to find competing software that could be better for them.

In the end it's not so much a matter of cost, more effort that means that many people don't bother looking for, installing and learning to use anything different.

If MS are confident in their "free" software then let people choose to download and install it in the same way that they have to with one of MS's competitors.

FTR, I've always thought that Windows (as an OS) should come with certain security components such as a firewall and anti-virus/spyware/malware software included as they are something that are simply necessary for personal security and safety these days and as such are different to browsers and media players.


RE: unfair browsers?
By Pryde on 4/17/2009 11:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft sells a package not just the OS, people would be complaining why didn't Microsoft add their browser/media player etc in their OS. How would people download a browser if there was no browser installed? And please don't say bundle it with a competitors product that would be very unfair to Microsoft.

What I am saying is that Microsoft is not a monopoly but has market dominance and as long as they do not restrict competitors products from working on their OS in any way they should be able to market their products anyway they like. Instead the competitors should be better advertising their products so that the consumers know that there are other products out there.


RE: unfair browsers?
By Aloonatic on 4/16/2009 5:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you think you should be asking yourself "Do I need those 400 programs?"

Select browser from list.

Select media player from list.

Ignore the rest.

Job done, just an operating system, browser, couple of other programs (that you wanted installed that you chose and decided to use) with the option to install whatever else you wanted later.

The horror!!!!!!


RE: unfair browsers?
By Pryde on 4/16/2009 11:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
Its not that I would be asking for those programs, developers who made programs that competed with MS programs ie Winrar, Zonealarm, AVG etc would want their piece of the pie and suddenly you have 4 discs to install Windows XP


RE: unfair browsers?
By Aloonatic on 4/17/2009 1:48:35 AM , Rating: 2
You wouldn't have 4 disks. You could have just one, smaller disk with JUST windows (and drivers) on it, that's it, not all the other "free" programs that MS or anyone else provides.

Then let people choose. I am guessing that that is the EU's point. If MS are so confident in their browser's (or and other piece of software's) quality then let them compete on a level playing field where people have to put as much effort into downloading and installing their software as they do anyone else's.

In saying all that, I can't really see why the EU are bothering as MS haven't really added or updated much other than their browser and media player which seem to be the only "bundled" and "free" programs that are really worth taking notice of. Maybe media player will be next in the firing line.


RE: unfair browsers?
By Pryde on 4/17/2009 11:38:29 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft lets people choose, just because you are using a MS system does not mean that you restricted to MS products. Maybe car manufacturers should stop including CD players in there vehicles so that people can choose what one they like the best? Microsoft sells a package for convenience because the average joe doesn't know enough about computers.

Also heard of nLite, how about you go make your own disc without the stuff you don't need. Computer savvy people do have a choice.


RE: unfair browsers?
By just4U on 4/18/2009 12:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
But.. the people don't choose what to install on their computers initially anyway. The guy/girl/company that builds their computer does.


RE: unfair browsers?
By Aloonatic on 4/16/2009 5:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
The majority of home users would click "skip all" to most options that you mention. A lot of people don't use calculator, notepad, word pad,char map, in fact most of the programs that come "bundled" with windows in the Accessories folder never get clicked, not once, or if they do it's just out of curiosity.

I would wager that a lot of people would be happy to choose the version of internet browser they wanted and then ignore the rest without thinking about it and why are they included these days? Just taking up room and wasting our time. If you really wanted them, as you point out, you can easily find free alternative on-line.

It seems odd that the EU haven't gone after Windows Media Player too, as surly that is just as as big a "problem" too? Free media players do a pretty good job as well after all.

Are they after an operating system being just a simple shell from which you can do other things without there being any bundled MS programs in there. What is the hardship in that after all? A lot of the apps that you mentioned are just legacy applications that are included because they always have been.

By the way, I am not saying that everyone ignores the accessories applications, especially those reading this, calculator is really useful, as is notepad but I am referring to my brother, mum and dad, aunt and uncle. They just want an operating system to install their photo album software and browser tool bars on to.

I don't know why you have got your panties in such a twist over this? I think the main point about ie is that if there is a fairly reasonable browser included then people wont bother to look for something else, which stifles competition and innovation, which hardly seems unreasonable, but it's not all that big a deal. There are far more important things that the EU needs to be doing, like getting the bloody French to stop going on strike every 5 fr@king minutes, blockading ports and generally being a pain in the arse.


RE: unfair browsers?
By Pryde on 4/16/2009 11:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is where does it end

Browsers
Media Players
Security Software
Burning Software
Calculator
Notepad
etc

What is wrong with IE8? For most peoples needs IE is more than capable, so we should start forcing programs onto people that don't really need them?


RE: unfair browsers?
By Aloonatic on 4/17/2009 4:56:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The problem is where does it end
Browsers - Choose at start up or later date.
Media Players - Choose at start up or later date.
Security Software - Should be integrated IMHO, people can pay for other solutions if they really want to, but I think that security should not be an "add on" to and OS.
Burning Software - Should be integrated as is now, let people pay for extra functionality (e.g. converting MP3 to CD audio) but data disk operations are a basic part of an operating system's duties, everything else is an extra.
Calculator - Rarely used by many, people can look for one of the net as and when they feel the need.
Notepad - Rarely used by many, people can look for one of the net as and when they feel the need.
etc - Most other applications are rarely used, people can look for one of the net as and when they feel the need them, most wont bother.
quote:
What is wrong with IE8? For most peoples needs IE is more than capable....
<warning car analogy alert>
Seems like a similar philosophy to the way personal transportation was handled in the eastern block.
</warning car analogy alert>
quote:
...., so we should start forcing programs onto people that don't really need them?
I don't think anyone is having anything forced on them other than choice and since when has that been a bad thing that people in the west have rebelled against or struggled to understand the need for?


RE: unfair browsers?
By Pryde on 4/17/2009 11:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Security Software - Should be integrated IMHO, people can pay for other solutions if they really want to, but I think that security should not be an "add on" to and OS.


What about free software? Zonealarm Firewall vs Windows Firewall, If MS have to package Browsers then you can sure bet Firewall companies are going to wait their software packaged.

quote:
Burning Software - Should be integrated as is now, let people pay for extra functionality (e.g. converting MP3 to CD audio) but data disk operations are a basic part of an operating system's duties, everything else is an extra.


Same as above, there are many free alternatives. Ashampoo 6.

The point is that if this case is won by the Browsers market then its going to open up a whole lot of other cases, not because the people who buy Windows but because people who develop programs for Windows want their software integrated to.


RE: unfair browsers?
By Aloonatic on 4/18/2009 1:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
I can see why you are a little confused, bit essentially I am saying that a line has to be drawn as to what should be included in an operating system and what should not.

It's not like I am saying that if company releases a better SSD I/O system and that should be included by Microsoft r as a choice? I am simply trying to be realistic about what should and should not be included.

Security should be a basic tenant of an operating system. Anything that MS or any other OS vendors sells should be fit for purpose and that is that is that it should not be vulnerable to attack, whilst being able to carry out basic functions, as a platform on which other vendors can see their products, including MS if they are that confident that we will all want them because they are so great..

For me, a web browser (which is what this article is all about) is just the other side of the lone, as is a media player and more advanced CD/DVD burning software.

Simple data burning isn't something that is really much of a problem, it's a basic thing really and if MS want to release a more "fully featured" product which can do more than that then they should not be allowed to bundle that either but face the same hurdles that every other competitor has to.

I really really really cannot see what you are finding so hard to understand about this?

MS could make more money by selling their products that they"give away as free" should the consumer deem them to be worthy and MS's competitors would have a better chance of competing.


RE: unfair browsers?
By Aloonatic on 4/18/2009 1:58:28 PM , Rating: 1
The crazy nature of my comment above is most probably due to the piece of shit dell laptop I am writing this on which has a freaking mind of it's own and the worst keyboard in all of god's creation that chose to post my comment all by itself. Seriously, I had one chance to preview and then it posted? WTF!


RE: unfair browsers?
By Jucken on 4/16/2009 5:00:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
So, if Microsoft doesn't bundle a browser with their OS, how exactly are you supposed to get a browser from a different company?
FTP.

Or Microsoft could finally bring their OS into the 21st century by bundling a package management system with it, just like most modern systems (especially Unix) do.

quote:
Are the EU stupid enough to expect MS to bundle another companies browser in their OS, and pay the fees for doing so (we all know there will be fees)
You do know that companies are not the only ones who write software out there, don't you? If they bundled an opensource or freeware browser, there would be no fees. But they could simply stop locking-in their customers and make a standards-compliant browser!

quote:
I, for one, think the EU is being completely moronic on this one, as with most of their outlandish claims.
I think so too. Expecting Microsoft to bundle a competing browser with their OS is insane. They should rather make Microsoft bundle an interoperable browser.


By n0nsense on 4/16/2009 12:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
It can be simple program that shows list of available browsers which can be selected on first login.
The list will include browsers that want to be listed.
So it's simple and fair.




By Chudilo on 4/16/2009 12:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
And Microsoft will charge a licensing fee to get included in that list! It would be stupid , but fare.


By omnicronx on 4/16/2009 12:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it would probably be the other way around.. Either way, as other posters have mentioned, any fees will be passed on to the consumer.


By Kenenniah on 4/16/2009 12:49:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So it's simple and fair.

Simple? What happens if a download link changes for one of the browsers, or new browsers get added to the list? This would not be a one time little thing for a developer to do as it would need updated on a regular basis. Yeah it wouldn't be terribly difficult but it's not quite as simple as it sounds.
Fair? Microsoft would have to pay programmers to keep this "simple program" up to date and provide the bandwidth for doing so. In the grand scheme of things it wouldn't be that much cost, but is it "fair" for Microsoft to pay anything for what is in effect advertising for their competitors?


By rcc on 4/16/2009 3:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but is it "fair" for Microsoft to pay anything for what is in effect advertising for their competitors


But isn't that part of the whole philosophy? Wanting the bigger successful companies/people to subsidize the smaller companies/people?


By omnicronx on 4/16/2009 12:54:42 PM , Rating: 1
How is that fair? Microsoft does not hold a monopoly in the browser market, nor are they using their OS to exclusively push the browser either.

Furthermore, what exactly is this simple program going to do to stay up to date? Is it now Microsoft's responsibility to keep a list of the latest third party browser releases?
Remember IE is not installed, they cannot merely have links to the different sites.

Perhaps antitrust cases against linux should arise too, as most of distros are now prepackaged with firefox.


By BZDTemp on 4/16/2009 2:57:09 PM , Rating: 1
!?! Microsoft not using their OS to push the IE browser - are you kidding?

As for the technical stuff that part is easy. There are tons of way to do it. Like for example putting a bunch of different browsers on the OS distribution media or having a menu work as a front to an FTP solution. Stop making excuses for Microsoft.

And as for antitrust against linux?!? Exactly what market share does Linux have in the OS game. Have you grasped what an antitrust case is about in the first place?

Microsoft has used their OS to push IE and with the dominance of IE they use that to push stuff like Sharepoint. Just like they use their OS and Office package to push Outlook which again pushes Exchange and that again pushes Windows Server... WAKE UP AND SMELL THE REAL WORLD!

They also push Media Player using their OS. That lets them push media formats but thankfully this has been less of a win. If not for iTunes, MP3 and DivX then Microsoft would be getting a media tax on everything on-line!

Microsoft is of course using their size as an advantage when possible. That is how companies do business and if left alone to do it some will take over the world.


By amandahugnkiss on 4/16/2009 4:04:53 PM , Rating: 1
"As for the technical stuff that part is easy. There are tons of way to do it. Like for example putting a bunch of different browsers on the OS distribution media or having a menu work as a front to an FTP solution. Stop making excuses for Microsoft."

LOL, you made that comment and seriously meant it? Who is responsible for the cost here? Who covers testing? Who is responsible for bug patches and updates, how do you seperate the public's view that if FF crashed, it came with the OS, so let's blame MS? How about development of the next version, should MS wait until all these other companies are done with the version they want included?

"Microsoft has used their OS to push IE and with the dominance of IE they use that to push stuff like Sharepoint. Just like they use their OS and Office package to push Outlook which again pushes Exchange and that again pushes Windows Server... WAKE UP AND SMELL THE REAL WORLD!"

Are you actually trying to incriminate them for building services that work with their own technology? The horror of it all. God forbid we ever wind up with a well integrated system. They've been opening their document formats and beefed up the APIs that are available for others to build into these systems, much more so than anyone else is doing.

"If not for iTunes, MP3 and DivX then Microsoft would be getting a media tax on everything on-line!"

So the iTunes monopoly is OK, you're good with that one when it fits your need, just mot the one you still perciev MS has.


By BZDTemp on 4/16/2009 4:54:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So the iTunes monopoly is OK, you're good with that one when it fits your need, just mot the one you still perciev MS has.


No, I am not good with the iTunes thing where did I say that? I am just saying Microsoft has not been able to control the media market but it has not been for lack of trying. Perhaps you should look into how the EU got at Microsoft for including the Media Player. Just like the EU is going at Apple for them using iTunes to control online Music sales.

quote:
Are you actually trying to incriminate them for building services that work with their own technology? The horror of it all. God forbid we ever wind up with a well integrated system. They've been opening their document formats and beefed up the APIs that are available for others to build into these systems, much more so than anyone else is doing.


Maybe you're new to the IT business. Yes, Microsoft have been opening their formats and stuff but that is not the same as that they have always been like that. They have been forced to do so by the EU and also to preempt getting sued back in the Clinton days.

I am fine with Microsoft making well integrated systems. But I am not fine with them using their muscle to limit competition and slow down the technological progress. Just look at software prices and compare those to hardware prices and then look back in time. Hardware has come down in price big time but Windows not so much and this is despite it now selling in the hundred of millions of copies.

As for my suggestions to distribute different web browsers. Of course it is not so easy but it is also not so hard as people here make it to be. The suggestions I made was pulled out of a hat but still. Say it is an Menu which sits on top of an FTP download+install thing. That can be coded in no time and the responsibility of providing what to be downloaded is then left to the different vendors. No need for Microsoft to test browsers or wait for packages to be ready.


By reader1 on 4/16/2009 4:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
Apple doesn't have a monopoly with iTunes.


By amandahugnkiss on 4/16/2009 6:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
by the definition of a monopoly as it was applied to Microsoft in the late 90s they do.


By Jucken on 4/16/2009 5:13:50 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Perhaps antitrust cases against linux should arise too, as most of distros are now prepackaged with firefox.
Which is a (mostly) standards-compliant web browser and does not lock you in.


Without IE...
By dragon889 on 4/16/2009 3:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
If MS doesn't include IE, then how will Firefox, Opera, or (ugh) Safari be downloaded? Maybe it's just me, but the only way I got Firefox on my computer was by downloading it through Internet Explorer.

I guess the EU does just need some quick cash and they're looking at Microsoft. After all, if there were really anti-trust (dumbest.word.ever.) issues, they would go after Apple too for including Safari!

You go into a store and you buy a Windows product: You're paying for an operating system, a media player, and an Internet browser. The MS rep is right... are they going to require Coke to include one Pepsi in every six pack?

The EU has to stop making fun of the US for stupid decisions if they continue to pull this junk.




RE: Without IE...
By ghost101 on 4/16/2009 5:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly the same way an OS is installed. For custom builders they'd need an additional CD, for the big manufacturers, they'll preinstall what they want themselves.


RE: Without IE...
By reader1 on 4/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Without IE...
By dragon889 on 4/16/2009 6:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
We're always clamoring for Microsoft to de-bloat its software, and you're favoring the idea of including a software store?


RE: Without IE...
By JoeBanana on 4/17/2009 3:49:07 AM , Rating: 2
It's not hard to make a program that let's you choose which browser you want. The program then downloads it and installs it. Almost all programs today connect to the internet and download files(updates, patches,...) no biggie


Software stores will kill IE.
By reader1 on 4/16/09, Rating: -1
By fatedtodie on 4/16/2009 2:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
Just one question...

Are you high?


RE: Software stores will kill IE.
By omnicronx on 4/16/2009 2:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
Because software distribution is the only thing the internet is good for..


RE: Software stores will kill IE.
By smackababy on 4/16/2009 2:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I used the internet late a night, I couldn't find what I was looking for on Steam or at the AppStore. >_<


RE: Software stores will kill IE.
By FITCamaro on 4/16/2009 2:56:48 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah you can't find porn on Steam.


RE: Software stores will kill IE.
By Rhl on 4/16/2009 9:59:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Software stores like Steam, the App Store, WiiWare, XBLM, PSN, Android Market, and Windows Marketplace are the future of software distribution and will end IE's dominance. Nobody will want to use that piece of crap when they realize they don't have to.


The ironic thing about your statement is that Steam DOES use Internet Explorer as its integrated browser. Every time you browse the games on Steam, you're using Internet Explorer. ;)


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki