MS and browsers (again)

[irv]

Europe Opens New Microsoft Inquiry (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/technology/europe-reopens-antitrust-hostillities-with-microsoft.html?pagewanted=all)


The European Commission said Tuesday that it was beginning new antitrust proceedings against Microsoft, saying the company had failed to live up to a three-year-old agreement to give users of its Windows software better access to competitors’ Internet browser software.

[KiwiNZ]

Europe Opens New Microsoft Inquiry (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/technology/europe-reopens-antitrust-hostillities-with-microsoft.html?pagewanted=all)

Good grief again, I guess they need to boost their vacation fund.

[vasa1]

Good grief again, I guess they need to boost their vacation fund.

Implying it's not a justified inquiry?

[KiwiNZ]

Implying it's not a justified inquiry?


Yes, last time I checked I can install Chrome, Safari, Firefox.............. on my Windows machines.

[vasa1]

Yes, last time I checked I can install Chrome, Safari, Firefox.............. on my Windows machines.

Having the ability to install other browsers on a Windows machine is not the issue at hand. The ability to install other browsers on a Windows machine was there even before the whole browser ballot issue came up.

Would you like some links on the background?

[sffvba[e0rt]

Moved posts to their own thread.

With the decline of IE use and the prominence of Chrome I can't see this being an issue any more.


404

[vasa1]

...

With the decline of IE use and the prominence of Chrome ...


404
That's yet another controversial topic :)

There seem to be very differing views (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228317/Metrics_firms_bicker_over_which_browser_IE_or_Chro me_is_No._1) on the "market share" of browsers.

Anyway, there's also this (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229265/Microsoft_could_face_billions_in_new_fines_over_br owser_choice): "Microsoft immediately apologized, calling the failure to offer the browser choice screen to Windows 7 users a "technical error.""

And, IMO, a comment on the EU's action could possibly be a political one, which I understand is not encouraged according to Forum regulations.

[vasa1]

Not looking good:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229318/Microsoft_ignored_tip_that_it_botched_browser_choi ce_in_Windows_7_SP1?taxonomyId=89
and from there:
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-windows_update/does-windows-7-service-pack-1-include-browser/490115f6-8159-e011-8dfc-68b599b31bf5

[pqwoerituytrueiwoq]

Not looking good:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229318/Microsoft_ignored_tip_that_it_botched_browser_choi ce_in_Windows_7_SP1?taxonomyId=89
and from there:
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-windows_update/does-windows-7-service-pack-1-include-browser/490115f6-8159-e011-8dfc-68b599b31bf5

The browser choice was the result of a deal (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142360/EU_accepts_Microsoft_deal_on_browser_choice) the Redmond, Wash., developer struck with EU regulators in 2009 after critics claimed Microsoft (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137060/Microsoft_Update_Latest_news_features_reviews_opin ions_and_more)'s Internet Explorer had an unfair advantage because it was bundled with the Windows operating system.
Make OEMs offer linux systems then you can buy a system without IE then tehy will fiss at and companies like Canonical for not offering IE then Canonical can make the politicians look stupid when they say that would violate the EULA on IE

[codingman]

Yay! Kick MicroButt! Not surprised by their epic failure.

[Dr. C]

Just wait for Windows 8 RT with restricted boot and an OS that only allows applications approved by Microsoft. Then the real battle will begin. Browsers? That belongs in the past century.

[Paqman]

Yes, last time I checked I can install Chrome, Safari, Firefox.............. on my Windows machines.

I agree, but that's not the point. They were still bound by law to comply for a certain period, and they haven't done so. That could just be negligence, or it could be a cynical attempt to slime their way out of it. Either one is worth a rap on the knuckles.

FWIW, I think MS's offer to extend their compliance period by the length of time they were non-compliant is actually a fair offer, and the EU should take them up on it.

[codingman]

Just wait for Windows 8 RT with restricted boot and an OS that only allows applications approved by Microsoft. Then the real battle will begin. Browsers? That belongs in the past century.

Yeah, or pay two dollars per app monthly.

[kurt18947]

Yeah, or pay two dollars per app monthly.

I wouldn't be surprised if that is a long range goal. None of this buying an app and running it 'free' for years. Use an app for 10 years? Pay 'rent' for 10 years.

[Sendo Eevpix]

Wow, and after reading all the news of Microsoft, looking over there many ads, Microsoft is still trying to earn people's trust, by saying they are more trust-able than their competitor, and more reliable.

But honestly, calling it a mistake to disable other services with their own computers?

[codingman]

I wouldn't be surprised if that is a long range goal. None of this buying an app and running it 'free' for years. Use an app for 10 years? Pay 'rent' for 10 years.

yeah , a hollow goal that will soon make people look in the other direction.

[kestrel1]

Maybe they should get on to Apple then about Safari.
Everyone has a choice though, so just stop using IE & use a better browser (Firefox for me)

[irv]

I'm waiting for a law that will make manufactures make their products come with different OS's, software and that will include choice of browsers.
Though that will never happen because everything comes pre-installed. :D MS has many of the manufactures on their side because they have so much of the market all wrapped up. It is hard for Open source, and that includes browser to get in on this.

[kestrel1]

I'm waiting for a law that will make manufactures make their products come with different OS's, software and that will include choice of browsers.
Though that will never happen because everything comes pre-installed. :D MS has many of the manufactures on their side because they have so much of the market all wrapped up. It is hard for Open source, and that includes browser to get in on this.

Totally agree.

[bobsan]

I'm waiting for a law that will make manufactures make their products come with different OS's, software and that will include choice of browsers.
Though that will never happen because everything comes pre-installed. :D MS has many of the manufactures on their side because they have so much of the market all wrapped up. It is hard for Open source, and that includes browser to get in on this.


+1. OEM deals should be outlawed, or at least regulated.

[vasa1]

+1. OEM deals should be outlawed, or at least regulated.
Your thoughts seem to be echoed here:
http://betanews.com/2012/07/20/eu-trustbusters-tire-of-microsoft-tricks-probe-windows-8/
So it's no longer just the browser issue. I think they're addressing even more core issues (plain old illegalities easily understood by everyone).

[vasa1]

Maybe they should get on to Apple then about Safari.
...
It's a question of the numbers and whether someone files a complaint.

Someone did file a complaint re. IE. The regulator found the complaint valid and proceeded.

If nobody files a valid complaint with the regulator, it could mean several things and we can work out the meaning of that ourselves ...


...Everyone has a choice though, so just stop using IE & use a better browser (Firefox for me)...
This argument is too late. The circumstances prevailing at that time were different. People who haven't followed the whole story may ask themselves why a company chose to release their software under presumably "unfair" conditions and then "mistakenly" violate those conditions.

[kestrel1]

Yes, but that is MS all over.

[irv]

+1. OEM deals should be outlawed, or at least regulated.

Let me poss a question. Have you ever gone into a store and asked if you could get a computer with Linux and open source apps? They look at you like you are crazy. Then you say, if you can't I would like to buy a computer with no OS or software? They flat out tell you they can't do that. They tell you not to except the license agreement and ask MS for your money back. I just tell them I am not buying something I don't want and don't need.
What ever happen to "The customer is always right."
This is why I have build many of my own computers through the years.

[CharlesA]

Let me poss a question. Have you ever gone into a store and asked if you could get a computer with Linux and open source apps? They look at you like you are crazy. Then you say, if you can't I would like to buy a computer with no OS or software? They flat out tell you they can't do that. They tell you not to except the license agreement and ask MS for your money back. I just tell them I am not buying something I don't want and don't need.
What ever happen to "The customer is always right."
This is why I have build many of my own computers through the years.
You only sell what you can support.

If you want to get a machine that will run Linux, get one from ZaReason, or System76 instead of a big box store.

Same goes for Macs, do you go to the Apple store and then ask if a Macbook can run Linux??

[vasa1]

...
This is why I have build many of my own computers through the years.
Not easy with a laptop ;)

[vasa1]

You only sell what you can support.

If you want to get a machine that will run Linux, get one from ZaReason, or System76 instead of a big box store.

Same goes for Macs, do you go to the Apple store and then ask if a Macbook can run Linux??

And the article linked to here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2027807) attempts to explain the economics of "computer stores".

[CharlesA]

And the article linked to here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2027807) attempts to explain the economics of "computer stores".
Yep. That article pretty much hits the nail on the head. :)

[vasa1]

You only sell what you can support.
...
One more, somewhat tangential point, is that "Linux" is too broad. I would understand why someone who has only commercial interests at heart wouldn't bother. Supporting it at the store level is close to impossible because finding knowledgeable staff would be a real challenge, IMO.

A dev with Mozilla went on record to say that catering to the diversity of environments in the Linux world makes things so much more difficult:

Desktop environment fragmentation is actually a huge factor holding back the linux desktop. With KDE, GNOME, Unity, Unity2D, and Compiz all having a significant portion of the market, it's hard to do desktop integration in a way that will please a majority of Linux users, so most vendors just don't try (and sadly, they're right).
(comment by Benoit Jacob dated 13th October 2011 in this blog (http://blog.cornelius-schumacher.de/2011/10/demise-of-windows-platform.html))

[CharlesA]

That would be a big one too.

They would have to sell the box with a certain version if *nix on it, with a certain DE and WM and whatnot. I wouldn't want to deal with all the different flavors of *nix if I am just making peanuts at a retail store.

[irv]

Not easy with a laptop ;)

The laptop I had before this one, I got a no-name without an OS, and Installed Ubuntu 5.04 on it, back in 2005. I still have it and it is still running. I control a sound system with it and it is now running Ubuntu Studio 12.04. It has the "M" processor in it. I didn't build it, but I got what I wanted.

EDIT: Sorry, I think I got off subject. Let's get back to "MS and browsers(again)".