EU Says MS Must Offer Other Browsers; Now What? 911
Glyn Moody writes "So the European Commission is going to require Microsoft to offer competitors' browsers with Windows. '...Microsoft will be obliged to design Windows in a way that allows users "to choose which competing web browser(s) instead of, or in addition to, Internet Explorer they want to install and which one they want to have as default..." [Microsoft] now has until mid-March to respond to the Commission, and might also ask for a hearing. Brussels will not adopt a final decision until it has received Microsoft's official reply.' But having the option to install Firefox, say, is useless unless people know what it is. The implication is that we need some kind of campaign to ensure that people understand the choices they will have. How can open source best exploit this latest EU decision?"
That's not okay. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's not okay. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's not okay. (Score:5, Funny)
I certainly notice. I just the other day got - an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?
The real question is, will the firefox use a different tube than the explorer? And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material. So I think people will know if they're using the one or the other.
Re:That's not okay. (Score:5, Insightful)
What, Opera?
Internet Explorer runs faster on Windows than Firefox does. And it works with sites that use ActiveX.
I use Firefox. But I am not deluded about the percentage of users that know what standards compliance is, let alone care about it. The only way "the other half" is going to switch to another browser is when they discover ad blocking. And if they do that, all that free content I enjoy so much is going to dry right up.
Re:That's not okay. (Score:4, Interesting)
At least, not by me. I imagine that most users will be confused by the presence of more than one "internet" on their machines, and one browser or another still has to be the default. Does MS have to make Firefox the default browser, too?
I agree. I know what I'm doing and I still find that this or that file or link opens by default in browser X when my main default browser is Y. for example Minefield grabs the firefox links some of the time etc..
As for my poor mom with a barely adequate supply of computer memory I constantly find her sluggish computer with two or three browsers running and causing page swaps. Her bookmarks scatterd on all of them and her calling me up because she can't find the one she needs.
Then there's the nag screens that ask you to make this or that your default browser. You don't dare click "don't ask me this again, because youi can never get that back again unless you know the magic about:: command on firefox.
You just don't want to that horror to come uninvited to novice users.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO they're missing the point. How about going all the way: what about shipping computers offering other OS's? Especially if the computer maker and the OS maker are not the same.
The above suggestion is much like the browser issue is to windows - the EU is ignoring the forest in favour of a few trees.
Re:That's not okay. (Score:5, Interesting)
"IMHO they're missing the point."
It seems to be you who's missing it.
"How about going all the way: what about shipping computers offering other OS's?"
This is a matter of EU anti-trust laws, under which having a monopoly in one market (personal computer operating systems in Microsoft's case) isn't illegal, but using that monopoly to try and establish another one in a different market (Internet browsers and rich Internet content) definitely is illegal. Note that the definition of "monopoly" from the EU's viewpoint only concerns their own markets, so it's irrelevant what share of other markets a company may or may not have.
"The above suggestion is much like the browser issue is to windows"
It bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the browser issue under EU anti-trust laws, which existed before Microsoft did, and were therefore also being used to curtail corporate monopoly abusers before Microsoft existed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remove calc.exe. It is the default calculator for windows and cannot be removed even if you delete the program filee manually or use add/remove programs. It uses horribly nonstandard math which forced all a lot of scientists to adopt Microsoft math standard, which is incompatible with other calculators. Ir you want your math to be compatible both with microsoft calc and mozilla firepigeon you have to design special equations for these two different programs. While you could do just the standard ones, a lot
Re:That's not okay. (Score:4, Informative)
>>>You don't dare click "don't ask me this again" because you can never get that back again unless you know the magic about:: command on firefox.
False.
Tools--->Options--->Main Tab--->click the "check now" button at bottom, and that will change all your defaults to Firefox. No need to remember text commands.
Re:That's not okay. (Score:4, Interesting)
"I doubt that MS would change anything. They'd probably rather keep paying fines while ignoring the EU ruling."
What for? If it makes more economical sense to pay the fines than comply, then they probably will do so. If it's better to comply than to pay, then they will comply.
And probably Microsft, sooner or later, will find it makes a better bet to comply than not.
What they probably won't do if they comply is offer Firefox alongside Internet Explorer. What for? Microsoft hardly have weapons to fight against copyleft opensource. Why they would allow "the enemy on their home", so to say, when they can comply on a cheap and controllable way offering Opera, for instance? They already know how to deal with other closed source companies to their advantage, don't they?
Re:That's not okay. (Score:4, Insightful)
When the user clicks a "Internet" button for the first time, they are presented with an option to either install IE or are given links to install files for a bunch of competitors browsers?
This by itself is fraught with all sorts of potential issues, but the biggest problem is probably one of liability. As I pointed out [slashdot.org] in one of the previous umpteen discussions about this, liability is a very serious matter to a commercial software company like Microsoft. Without rehashing it all, something else to consider is just what you suggested.
For example, if they had a link to SomeBrowser's website, and SomeBrowser.com was compromised in some way (hacked, registration expired, DNS compromised, whatever), all of a sudden everyone who clicks to install SomeBrowser is installed what could probably be called Microsoft-sanctioned malware. As soon as they transfer control to an external entity, they are at their mercy. Sure, mozilla.org and opera.com are probably pretty dang secure, but when you're talking about a potential class-action lawsuit, I have to think Microsoft isn't real keen on the idea of linking to a bunch of third-party executables or sites saying "Go install these programs".
Much the same can be said for bundled software. Regardless of what the EULA or any other license says, if a program comes bundled with Windows and it is discovered to have some problems, whose responsibility is it to issue a fix? Sure it might be the Firefox browser, but Microsoft shipped it with Windows. Now it's in their lap.
Regardless, I think this was a poor decision. It shows a lack of understanding and foresight into the precedent and technical/legal problems that will stem from compliance.
Re:That's not okay. (Score:4, Interesting)
They could just host a build of the browser on microsoft.com once they've done a virus scan.
Barring that, hopefully the EU will be okay with MS putting in some sort of a disclaimer about why they're doing this and how it's unsupported software.
But I agree with you. This is something that looks good on paper but there's no good way of doing this in the real world. Browser customization happens in OEM land, and it should stay there. The EU should have just made sure that MS gives OEMs more options in terms of hiding Internet Explorer. And retail version customers should be taking more of a buyer beware attitude to begin with, so this doesn't affect them in my opinion.
Re:That's not okay. (Score:5, Insightful)
None of the OEMs are bundling other browsers because IE has a zero cost to them to include, despite it being a non-zero cost to Microsoft to create. I.e., Microsoft are using their Windows monopoly to distribute their web client.
If the Windows OEM license fee was broken out into a Windows fee and an IE fee, then more OEMs would decide to skip the IE aspect and install Firefox, Chrome or Opera.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mozilla doesn't throw a fit when other OSes (Fedora, Ubuntu, etc.) host Firefox builds. In fact, Mozilla's build team does a lot of work to make that possible. I do not think that Mozilla would be particularly angry if Microsoft hosted Mozilla builds, but if they did get their nickers in a twist, Microsoft could always grab Icecat and use that instead.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It'll be a cold day in hell before Microsoft distributes Iceweasel under the GPL, and provides the source themselves.
Not actually true. ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/Interix/interix22/ [microsoft.com]
Pay attention to the copy of "GPL.TXT" and the huge fucking hulking 100MB of GPLed source code. On a Microsoft FTP server.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
This stinks... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This stinks... (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Only a small minority of existing users do not ALREADY run more than one browser
More like a large majority of existing users do not have more than IE. Of all the users in my family, none knows how to download an alternative browser like firefox. I suspect my family is representative of the typical PC-using family. They know just enough to *barely* use their computer, but not how to upgrade it with other programs.
Re:That's not okay. (Score:4, Insightful)
What next? I'll tell you what's next... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft being forced to design Windows in a way that allows users "to choose which competing operating system(s) instead of, or in addition to, Windows they want to install and which one they want to have as default..."
Re:What next? I'll tell you what's next... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you take the GNU bootloader say, it allows you to boot other operating systems that may already be installed on the machine. When you install a typical Linux distro on a Windows computer, the distro asks you nicely if you want to keep the other OS, and it makes sure not to overwrite the parts of the disk which are used by the other OS.
This is only common sense and courtesy, which Microsoft sorely lacks. I'd be in favour if they were forced to play nice in the same way with other operating systems that may be present on the system.
Re:What next? I'll tell you what's next... (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on how you define 'quality'. For maybe 80% or more of users out there, 'quality' is mostly to do with attractiveness and usability, with security and standards-compliance falling way down the priority list.
Even though they've been a pack of cowboys and an odious corporate citizen, MS has so often led the field with its usability paradigms - MS Word was leaps ahead of WordStar and WordPerfect, and Excel was leaps ahead of MultiCalc and Lotus. With the OS, a half-intelligent user can find their way around unfamiliar areas in minutes, versus hours of trawling through manpages, weird config files (and all too often, also source files) to do equivalent things in open source OSs.
OpenBSD might be about the world's best OS out there from an overall technical and security point of view, but to your average Joe Sixpack user, who wouldn't even be able to get through the installer, OpenBSD is a ridiculous load of shit.
Re:What next? I'll tell you what's next... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but a decade later.
They are now, but they sure weren't back in the mid-late 1990s when Windows was winning its market share.
Re:What next? I'll tell you what's next... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now you DIE, Mr. Bond!
[...]
Or you just offer weak support for bundling other browsers. If I'm not mistaken, many viewers will probably see Google Chrome ads on this page. Which is definitely a good start for getting out the word about alternative browsers. Even better is to apply peer pressure to your friends, neighbors, and relatives. Peer pressure can be an excellent tool for getting people to conform to non-conformity. (Bizarre idea, eh?) Especially when the non-conformity is actually the direction that conformity is going.
Let's just make sure we do the RIGHT thing and don't get too focused on a particular browser. As long as it's not IE, the world will be a better place. ;-)
This seems to completely miss the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
So... I really hope Microsoft says "sure" and bundles 10-20 really crappy and outdated browsers, with firefox and opera nowhere in sight. The EU deserves a clusterfuck like that for coming out with this stupid decision.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly
At the end of the day IE is still there and cannot be removed. What I hoped would come out of this was that the EU would force Microsoft to make IE removable. Ubuntu bundles Firefox, Apple bundles Safari with OS X (although the bundling with Craptunes and Craptime should not be happening) but above all else these browsers are removable. IE is the biggest security hole at work, 60% of all viruses found at work are first detected
Re:This seems to completely miss the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
During the US anti-trust trial about the same thing one expert witness demonstrated a windows install stripped of IE. It was based on CE (whatever verion was based on XP tech), but this in turn demonstrated that windows can be (and is) modular - just not the one they throw on desktops.
Or for a simpler experiment at home, look for tinyXP or nLite to get rid of IE for you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
it was windows 98, where internet explorer was removed and parts of it were replaced with parts of windows 95.
Re:This seems to completely miss the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
bundles 10-20 really crappy and outdated browsers
I've never understood why there isn't a central application installer in Windows, something similar to apt-get & Co of Linux, or the Store of the iPhone. Let 3rd party register and submit apps to it, vetted by MS, possibly payware, and in this antitrust case they can add Firefox at no charge. On first run of the OS, let the user customize the apps they want, charge them if necessary and make money along the way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did I miss something, or have you? That is exactly what my Windows does... I'm really not sure how long it's been doing it (as thats something I never do normally), wether it's because of IE8, or XP SP3, but it launches Opera (my default) for any url typed into the Explorer address bar, as well as any shortcuts with urls.
The only things that force IE, are Microsoft products (MSN, some WMP stuff)... which I'm ok with for two reasons, #1 I think they have the right to do that (provided IE is installed, otherw
Mozilla Foundation's Choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mozilla Foundation's Choice (Score:4, Interesting)
The Mozilla/FF people are all clearly [slashdot.org] on the same page [slashdot.org] about that issue. If anyone wants to know how best to exploit this, just ask 'em!
How will the decide? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not difficult to install a new browser. Someone who doesn't know about other browsers or how to install them isn't going to be installing Windows out of the box anyways. They're going to be installing a pre-packaged image from some company... or they got their computer built by some technically knowledgeable person who knows about other browsers.
IE is integrated pretty heavily into Windows as well.
I dunno, I'm all for people having choices and having knowledge... but this seems stupid. I mean, what's next, make them include iTunes with the default windows package?
As an IT professional and engineer, I'm not even sure that I would WANT them to have other browsers installed, by default, on a system... I want it to be as clean as possible by default.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How will the decide? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How will the decide? (Score:4, Informative)
The internet is my flash drive. :P
A few interesting results are sure to come (Score:5, Interesting)
Utter confusion is the first thing. Few average users are going to be able to handle the idea that there is any point to multiple browsers on one computer. Either one works and the other one does not, or there is no point. If one is broken, then it shouldn't be there.
Next, if MS, Dell or any other large OEM is going to be including FireFox, Opera, Safari and others on a computer they are going to require some pretty stringent requirements on release planning and QA. If these aren't present in the organization supporting them the OEM will introduce these. This means there will be a "official" release and a Dell release. That is going to help, isn't it?
Since the HTML rendering engine and a good part of the browser is used for displaying lots of other stuff besides web pages, this is going to make for some interesting times. Some HTML that displays differently between the "source" and the actual rendering.
Certainly going to be interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Next, if MS, Dell or any other large OEM is going to be including FireFox, Opera, Safari and others on a computer they are going to require some pretty stringent requirements on release planning and QA.
You mean like the QA and Release planning we've had with the last 12 years from Microsoft?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A good part of the browser is *NOT* used for displaying other stuff besides web pages.
IEXPLORE.EXE is the browser. That's used by almost nothing. Almost all applications that use the browser use it by doing ShellExecute("mydoc.html"), which opens the html document in whichever browser the user has selected as default.
MSHTML.DLL is Microsoft's html/javascript rendering engine. All applications that use it, including iexplore.exe and Help, create it by doing CoCreateInstance(CLSID_WebBrowser). It has a very c
You want some ideas? (Score:3, Funny)
How about this:
Bill Nigh kicks Chuck Norris' ass before breakfast [ebaumsworld.com]
Now, just start one about FireFox
Firefox is so badass that it doesn't care what OS it runs over .....
Firefox invented the Internet
Firefox killed the blue screen of death
your turn
Just another thing to click "next" on? (Score:2)
Not only would we have to make sure people understand the choices, but we should let them know why they should actually CARE.
I can imagine someone who simply doesn't care... setting up their computer. They are prompted.. and all they will see is:
Choose one:
Microsoft Internet Explorer
Choose this to install the Internet
Firefox
Choose this to also install the Internet
This is an important choice. Both will allow you to do email and porn.
Am I missing something? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A little information can be a dangerous thing. Hint: RTFA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The market is already doing what they hope to achieve, and it got a nice head start. They should just let it happen instead of legislating it, we're already halfway there.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
I make a competing calculator (hypothetically). I want an icon on the desktop for the Windows Calculator, Maxima, Octave and Mathematica.
I also (again, hypothetically) make a notepad replacement. I want my product, Notepad++, Wordpad, Microsoft Word, and a half dozen scintilla-based knockoffs.
I also hypothetically make an alternative desktop shell. Because Microsoft FORCES you to use theirs, before you even get to see all of the five BILLION other fucking icons, I want a screen to pop up with only a mouse, and a choice of shells. Mine, which doesn't support UAC, separation of privileges, explorer shells (which will confuse the heck out of people,) explorer extensions (bye-bye TortoiseSVN, TortoiseHG, etc,) or other features. Also included should be shells that barely work.
And finally, after booting into Windows becomes a clusterfuck of choosing about eighteen trillion defaults, I as a developer expect my users to have a relatively stable and ubiquitous set of APIs available.
Oh wait, we threw that out the window.
Fuck.
Here's an idea. Let Microsoft keep doing what they're doing and easily choose between default programs, and even allow those programs to prompt the user to alter their default. Because any other option is fraught with favoritism and is just going to cram OEM desktops with more bullshit than ever before, and make the idea of targeting the Windows desktop from a developer or support perspective laughable.
What your missing.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the history of browsers and how Microsoft killed the ones before it.. not by making a better one (actually they did at the beginning), but by first of all Including it with the OS, and secondly tightly integrating it into the OS.. When IE was started, it was a separate but free download.. if they had kept it that way, much trouble would have been avoided.
Your calculator and notepad examples are relevant.. IF Microsoft had not been suppling these apps since the 3.0 days and there where people selling them
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> What about Ubuntu? Does it have to offer a choice as well?
You don't force Ubuntu to offer a choice. You package it up and agree to maintain the package. It then gets placed into a repo or onto the base install CD depending on its license, legal status and popularity. I suspect that were Microsoft to package a native IE and offer to maintain it in Ubuntu's distribution that it would be accepted. A Winelib port wouldn't be quite as welcome but would be allowed into the online repos. If it were relea
This is a really bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
New browsers won't appear for years (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"What is next Toyota being forced to put other manufacturers parts in their cars?"
Perhaps you should do a bit of fact checking before bleating out yet another inappropriate car analogy, because car manufacturers, like manufacturers of everything else from bread to nuclear submarines, use components made by third parties in every product they sell.
With cars in particular, third-party components make up a very large proportion of the final product, hence the fact that governments in many parts of the world ar
You guys sure coddle users too much.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Everyone here seems to be acting as if consumers don't understand how to download, install or use some alternative program. Yet, everyone has been buying programs for video game consoles for almost 30 years, and has been buying software for PCs for nearly as long. Yet, somehow consumers are to notice that there is a choice in browsers.
For the EU, if they are looking to protect their way into developing a domestic desktop industry, the problem is that the ideology that permeates the continent, utterly pre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, everyone has been buying programs for video game consoles for almost 30 years
I think this statement best summarises where you are wrong. You do realise that most people have never owned a console. I am talking about the majority of computer users, not people in some African nation. You really do have a very warped view of the world, if you think 50% of people using computers even know what a browser is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple Solution (Score:2)
Just put a link that opens a Live.com search for "web browser"! Not only is Live.com completely unbiased, but the link will open in the default system web browser!
Are you for freedom or not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are you for freedom or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear god, how this got a +4 Insightful I'll never know.
Madness? Using an illegal monopoly to muscle into other markets is madness. You're saying you'd be quite happy for the electric company to bundle a crappy washing machine that tears your clothes with your electricity bill?
Oh, and the electric company have ensured that even if you buy another washing machine, you can't remove theirs. And theirs insists on washing your clothes from time to time, no matter how hard you try to remove it. That's what MS did here - they used one product that you pretty much *had* to buy to bundle in a bug ridden piece of crap and force it on customers.
You can't remove IE from a system, they managed to bodge it in pretty well. And no matter how many competitors products you install, from time to time IE will pop up again.
If you're going to talk about the freedom of a company to sell it's product without interference, go speak to Netscape. They deserved to be able to sell their product without Microsoft illegally killing their market. And yes, it was illegal. Both the US and the EU have ruled on that now.
Calling decisions by some of the top courts on two continents insane just shows how much you're missing the point here. You're right about a line needing to be drawn though; the courts are telling Microsoft they've stepped over it, and it's about time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since they had a monopoly on operating systems (not entirely true, but they were so dominant the difference is unimportant) they had effectivel
Browser is not part of your OS. (Score:4, Insightful)
Every OS in the market probes this, with the glaring exception of MS OSes.
You can remove the browser in any other kind of machine and your computer will sit there, happily doing anything else you asking it to do, because the browser is an *user level* application.
If the brilliant Software Engineers at MS do not understand this (ha! As if...) it is not the market's fall.
Also some people here are way too young to remember how MS *abused* their monopoly in order to obliterate the competition, who were selling a product that threatened to make the Windows platform irrelevant. The threat was so real that now Google may bring that promise to fruition in spite of MS's interference.
That is what monopolies do, which is illegal, and why governments need to intervene, otherwise such companies would continue to stifle progress and innovation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You cannot remove Safari in OSX. As many have pointed out, OSX needs the webkit rendering engine to function.
You bring up Google. Why should we be happy replacing one monopoly with another, especially one using it's dominance in the search engine market to conquer other markets?
Re:Browser is not part of your OS. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe. But despite that being the headline, that IS NOT what is being mandated. From TFA:
"To this end, Microsoft will be obliged to design Windows in a way that allows users "to choose which competing web browser(s) instead of, or in addition to, Internet Explorer they want to install and which one they want to have as default".
So, the final result - Microsoft eventually just removes all browsers from Windows, including
alternative browser campaign (Score:2)
I don't know how effective a 'spread the word about alternative browsers' campaign would be.
To you and I, doing a quick google search about web browsers to learn the pros and cons of each is no big deal. but to non-techie people, they would not even think about doing this.
we could have a massive online campaign running, radio ads, TV spots, and beat people over the head with the idea that 'web browser x' is better than IE, and it won't mean anything to them because they don't know what a web browser is. To
Be careful what you wish for (Score:5, Insightful)
If the geek had an once of sense he'd put more distance between himself and the EU bureaucrat.
There is precedent now for government to add or subtract - mandate anything it wants from any OS distribution - depending on which way the political winds are blowing.
I'll sing it to you (Score:3, Insightful)
More to the point, how is Microsoft going to exploit it? I'm not an anti-MS zealot, but I can completely see them bundling some third-rate thing that still uses the IE rendering engine or something like Safari that's nowhere near usable on Win32.
That said, if IE is still the default option (or from the user's perspective appears to be), then this judgement really amounts to zilch no matter which side of the debate you're on.
Glyn Moody hit and missed the point simultaneously (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the most significant line in the slashdot article is this:
"But having the option to install Firefox, say, is useless unless people know what it is."
But Glyn then goes on to suggest some kind of publicity campaign, which misses the point of this entire inane EU process. Because if a publicity campaign were useful, it should be done regardless of this ruling.
The average user does not, and continues to not, care. For those of us who do care, we know how to install Firefox and don't need Microsoft or the European governments to hand-hold us through the process. This EU process been one big, fat waste of time.
Even if Microsoft offers a version of Windows that lets users choose explicitly to install IE or Firefox (and I guess, what, Opera as well? Safari? Chrome?), I bet you good money that most users will choose "Microsoft Internet Explorer" because it has Microsoft in the title. As in, faced with this bogus non-option, an ignorant user will choose the program that was written by the operating system vendor.
And I mean this bet literally, because when I write web browser plugins I make sure they support IE first. It's the browser most people have because most people don't care. Until and unless the EU makes Microsoft bundle Firefox to the exclusion of IE---a move that hardly seems fair by any rational metric---most users will still use the most convenient option, because most users simply don't care. End of story.
An advertising campaign that would sell Firefox needs to begin by making people care about their web browser as an application, then explain why Firefox is a better application for browsing the web. History suggests it's an uphill battle.
Incidentally, the fortune file entry at the bottom of my article listing right now is "bureaucracy, n: A method for transforming energy into solid waste." How appropriate.
What about Apple then? (Score:4, Insightful)
What about the iPhone, which does not even allow other browsers to be used in its OS?
I'm not in favor of Microsoft, but Apple is not that much different.
Re:What about Apple then? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, obviously, Apple isn't in a monopoly position, and has not been shown to have criminal intent to abuse such a monopoly.
Microsoft, however, has been found in criminal breach of monopoly and other laws.
That's a pretty basic difference, right there.
Leave fanboyism out of it.
At first... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:At first... (Score:4, Informative)
I know it is common to get mixed up between the EU and Europe, but you do know that Opera is Norwegian, and Norway is not a part of the EU, right?
Shadows of DR-DOS Java I see (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft had found ways to make Java under-perform while promoting their own proprietary and non-compliant Java VM. Microsoft did similar things against DR-DOS. I expect to see the same of any co-bundled browser.
Any implementation of a browser alternative should be written as a drop-in replacement for the trident rendering engine, not merely the inclusion of some alternative browser package in the add/remove programs list. Part of what is wrong is that too many applications become vulnerabilities by virtue of trident's own vulnerabilities. But if those same API handles were linked over to webkit or something else, then people would have a true alternative that fixes problems not only with the browsers, but within applications that use the rendering of them.
Re:Wanna really punish Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that you understand where I'm coming from, let me say that you're partially right when you assert that crippling Microsoft's software is stupid. The fact is, this whole thing is insanely stupid, and reeks of socialism. I've been through Microsoft's lengthy history of pushing shitty software on the masses using grossly unethical business methods, and I still strenuously object to this course of action.
The fact that you would even suggest forcibly placing a corporation's patents and copyrights into the public domain indicates you're either (a) incredibly young and naive, (b) stupid, or (c) an unfortunate combination of the first two options. Nobody has the right to tell anyone else what to do with the works they create; I'll be damned if anyone's going to restrict my right to license my works as I see fit. I may not like Microsoft as a general rule, but they deserve the same treatment I enjoy under the law.
I would recommend attending a reputable university to enhance your understanding of basic economics and IP law, but it seems to backfire for a lot of folks who already have warped perceptions in these areas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you to a point. The issue that the EU is trying to redress is really a long-past issue of the 1990s. Microsoft's practices wiped out Netscape, but that's ancient history. Firefox, as IE's chief competitor, has made great strides in the market without any help from the EU or anyone else, but by simply being a damned good browser with a good feature set, easy expandability with dozens of rather good extensions. In a real way, the market itself ultimately is correcting the issue.
But there is a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wanna really punish Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Grow up. Might as well say most families are socialist. Children do not contribute and yet they get all these free handouts where the parents will go to jail if they don't. Absolutely terrible.
Nobody has the right to tell anyone else what to do with the works they create
Faulty logic. Ownership, by definition, is the right to control something. Any ethical, not legal, argument saying "because they own it" is meaningless.
All he's suggesting is another, possibly appropriate, way to fine M$ by taking something of value (the monopoly a gift from society at large in the first place) away from them.
As an aside it is also not unreasonable to say that when patents and copyrights become de facto or de jure standards, just like trademarks and for much the same reasons, they should be lost. Monopolies (i.e. market failure) are unhealthy for exactly the same reason any centralized power is unhealthy and are an unfortunate byproduct of current unstable, winner-take-all intellectual property market structures (it's always going to be more efficient to create "IP" once and copy it n times than to create it m times and copy each n/m times) and we need to find ways of fixing that.
---
You communist! Breathing shared air!
Re:interesting times (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:interesting times (Score:5, Informative)
The problem isn't bundling. The problem is using an OS monopoly as leverage to foist an inferior Web browser on consumers. This is all to stop development of the Web because it threatens to replace the Win32 API for most applications.
As a Web developer who's wasted hundreds of hours on that inferior browser, I welcome this decision.
Just so you know that I'm not a hypocrite: if Apple were in the same position, of having an OS monopoly and using it for nefarious purposes, I would equally support an EU decision against them.
Remember: the problem isn't bundling, it's leveraging a monopoly in one market to gain one in another. This is particularly important in the case of IE, as it's holding back the an important part in the development of the Web and computing as a whole. It's also still relevant, due to the release of Silverlight and that Microsoft has and will continue to hold back support for competing, open technologies like Javascript and SVG.
What's wrong with the people opposing this, do they want Microsoft to tie-up the Web with their shitty, proprietary cruft al la Silverlight?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The real problem is that this decision should have been handed down ten years ago. It's irrelevant now. And who gets to decide what browsers come installed?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try asking yourself one question: If IE was currently the best browser by your definition would that make it ok for Microsoft to bundle it? If the answer is no then your three questions don't matter.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
After they crushed Netscape? Maybe you're too young to remember, but Netscape 4 was truly far superior to anything Microsoft had developed up to that point.
All technical factors considered, IE should have died a slow death, not Netscape. The only reason it continued to dominate was due to bundling with Windows, which attained monopoly status illegally. This is all well documented in the DOJ antitrust suit.
Re:interesting times (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:interesting times (Score:5, Funny)
Safari is good!
You obviously haven't used it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well they could simply force any browser on the market to respect standards. A bit like the Euro safety standard: Euro NCAP for cars.
If the new browser do not respect the current standard like HTML 5 in 2009, it can't be bundled with an operating system.
Prolem solved. IMHO.
As a web developer I couldn't care less about browser brand. It can be named Safari, Internet Explorer,Opera or Firefox. Open source or not. I don't care. What matters is the compatibility with standards. Then people could choose their
Re: (Score:3)
Well they could simply force any browser on the market to respect standards. A bit like the Euro safety standard: Euro NCAP for cars.
If the new browser do not respect the current standard like HTML 5 in 2009, it can't be bundled with an operating system.
Prolem solved. IMHO.
Well, I guess it would be "problem solved", in a sense that no browser would be allowed to be bundled with Windows at all. I don't know any browsers today that are 100% compliant with HTML and CSS specs. IE is obvious, but for Firefox, you can still dig out some obscure stuff in the bug tracker, and I'm sure Opera has its quirks, too.
Besides, who'd determine compliance? Some government agency? I can imagine that - "100% HTML4/CSS2.1/ECMAScript3 compliant - EU certified". Not for free, of course...
Re: (Score:3)
thx for the info. HTML 5 is under work for...6 years (IMHO it all started in 2003?) and all they can provide is a "draft".
Then we bitch companies like Microsoft because they don't respect standards but if they did all you would have is HTML 4.01 and CSS 1.
How could you possibly respect standards when there is none or only obsolete ones are available?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but this is the same argument as saying "it's okay to commit a crime, just don't get caught".
So Apple, Firefox, whoever, can leverage THEIR market share at the detriment of MS, until they are in a position of 49% dominance, and MS is on 51% dominance ?
It's okay to leverage and foist your product using bundling No matter how shitty / proprietary ala iTunes, Adobe etc), provided you don't step over the magic line, is that it ?
You have a strange world view my friend.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No ! It absolutely isn't the same argument.
Because Microsoft are a convicted monopolist they have to live by different rules, rules which govern monopolists and their behaviour.
These rules do not apply to companies who are not monopolists, Apple is not a monopolist so these rules do not apply to Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
Second, every single business strives to be a monopoly, at which
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong !
Microsoft has been found guily of "[abusing] its dominant market position to crush rivals" in the EU by the EU Competition Comission. It has taken the appeals process against this judgment all the way to the top and it lost.
So once again, and it really really is not that hard. Microsoft have to abide by different rules because they have been convicted of abusing their monopolists position in the market. Companies who have not been convicted of this do not to abide by these restrictions.
Do you underst
Re:interesting times (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh ! Whine, whine ... moan, moan ... cry, cry. Poor little cruelly victimised US.
Absolute bollocks, the EU fines far more European companies than it does US ones.
Stop wimpering like a girl and stand up for yourself for goodness sake you whinging loser.
Re: (Score:3)
"here are two sets of rules, those for Microsoft, and those for Apple."
No, there is the set of rules for the convicted monopolist Microsoft, and then no rules for anybody else, including Apple, Linux (distributions thereof), BSD (distributions thereof), Sun, ...
And I agree with the grand-parent-post that having one rule set of rules for Microsoft, and a different set of rules (call it the "null set", if you like) for "anybody else" kind of sucks. I fully understand the argument behind it, but I still think it's a bad idea.
I think the GPP's core arguments still apply and are left unaddressed:
Sure, Microsoft killed off Netscape in the past. But Netscape was a "for-profit" project. You had to actually pay money to run a copy of the "Netscape Navigator Gold" webbrowse
Re: (Score:3)
IE8 - what number should I call to let you know?
It has incomplete (barely there) support for all the weirdness that goes into ACID3, but the XHTML and CSS2.1 support is very good now. I design for IE8 and completely ignore IE7, and I find that my pages work just fine in Firefox and Safari without a single modification now.
Stupid and pointless (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet, knowledgeable users are not restricted from installing their own choice of browser, e.g. Firefox, and just ignoring IE completely. So, the main thrust of the EC's argument is that ignorant users need to have a choice put right in front o
Re:Stupid and pointless (Score:5, Interesting)
What they should be clamping down on are the "forced bundling strategies". Where Microsoft coerces manufacturers to NOT supply competing O/S on their computer hardware - by having preferential pricing if they don't.
After all it's software. Whether it's 1000 or 100 copies, no big diff in cost to Microsoft. All it affects is their long term strategic stuff.
Basically if Windows-only OEM PC Maker gets charged price X for windows per laptop, the rest should get the same price, and not higher just because they also have Linux/BSD/FreeDOS options. Same goes for Microsoft Works, Office etc.
No funny games like that, and it stays that way till Microsoft no longer has "monopoly" status.
If Microsoft wants to supply stuff for free that's fine, but then they have to offer that option to all in the same category (I say "same category" because I haven't considered the ramifications of a "if you offer it free to any one except charities, it has to be free to all others too" policy).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The EC is demanding that Microsoft "redesign" its OS to allow equal competition of browsers on the desktop. This is sort of like the FTC ordering GM to allow a free choice of stereos in its cars, rather than ship cars with only its (former) in-house brand of Delco.
No - it's like ordering GM not to weld their stereos to essential parts of the car in a way that the engine dies if it is ever removed.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue is that you CANNOT uninstall IE. It's been deliberately entangled coreward to prevent that from being doable, even with third party tools.
I'm not sure where you get this FUD, but yes, you can uninstall it. I think the "entanglement" you're referring to is the fact that there are several DLLs that provide the Windows HTML rendering engine that don't disappear when you uninstall IE. They don't go away because other applications use them. ... *grumble*
I mean, you're just talking about the small potatoes, here! What about all the other crap that IE leaves laying around? What about that pesky TCP/IP implementation!? You wouldn't believe
Re: (Score:3)
So it'll encourage Microsoft to release IE8 then?
Oh wait...