PDA

View Full Version : Europe hands Microsoft another Anti-Trust case



Luke has no name
January 16th, 2009, 10:39 PM
Europe says Microsoft can't include its browser in Windows

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/europe-says-microsoft-cant-include/story.aspx?guid={7DCD1150-2C3D-49F2-97D4-04481334D847}&dist=msr_4

European antitrust regulators have told Microsoft Corp. that the company's practice of including its Internet browser with its popular Windows operating system violates European competition law, Microsoft said Friday.

Next thing you know, they'll tell Microsoft they can't have the NT kernel.

As many have said: Despite many issues with MS practices, this takes the cake. How are people going to get on the internet without having a browser to start with (if for no other reason, to get another web browser)?

Fools run our nations, and this is why the best government is the one that governs least.

Joeb454
January 16th, 2009, 10:55 PM
A lot of computer makers (I know dell definitely do) ship their computers with Firefox as standard

zmjjmz
January 16th, 2009, 10:58 PM
A lot of computer makers (I know dell definitely do) ship their computers with Firefox as standard

Do they now? I remember there being a huge, flametastic thread about that on Ideastorm and Dell basically said "We'll think about it, but not really".

Grant A.
January 16th, 2009, 10:58 PM
A lot of computer makers (I know dell definitely do) ship their computers with Firefox as standard

Don't forget that Google has made deals with several manufacturers to ship with Google Chrome.

Joeb454
January 16th, 2009, 11:00 PM
Do they now? I remember there being a huge, flametastic thread about that on Ideastorm and Dell basically said "We'll think about it, but not really".


Don't forget that Google has made deals with several manufacturers to ship with Google Chrome.

The last 2 computers I've had from Dell both came with Firefox installed :)

Though as Grant A mentions, I suspect we'll be seeing quite a few with Chrome pre-installed in the near future

pp.
January 17th, 2009, 12:46 AM
How are people going to get on the internet without having a browser to start with (if for no other reason, to get another web browser)? .

Most makers of operating systems have progressed to the point where the OS actually can load additional software packages without the user having to use a web browser. If that's not possible with Windows, then Windows is seriously flawed.

-grubby
January 17th, 2009, 12:50 AM
Ok, I may hate Internet Explorer and it's bundling with Windows, but this is ridiculous. What anti-trust law is Microsoft breaking this time? Firefox has made substantial ground (around 20%, at least) without being bundled with Windows, and it continues to spread. I do not see the point of this.

handy
January 17th, 2009, 12:55 AM
In answer to the thread title, I have to ask, haven't you worked out that people make up populations, & on the whole people have proven themselves to be really quite stupid.

If you need proof, have a look around?

pp.
January 17th, 2009, 12:59 AM
Ok, I may hate Internet Explorer and it's bundling with Windows, but this is ridiculous. What anti-trust law is Microsoft breaking this time? Firefox has made substantial ground (around 20%, at least) without being bundled with Windows, and it continues to spread. I do not see the point of this.

EU objects to browser in Windows (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10144602-75.html?tag=mncol;txt)


The evidence gathered during the investigation leads the Commission to believe that the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which makes Internet Explorer available on 90 percent of the world's PCs, distorts competition on the merits between competing web browsers insofar as it provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage which other web browsers are unable to match.

The Commission is concerned that through the tying, Microsoft shields Internet Explorer from head to head competition with other browsers which is detrimental to the pace of product innovation and to the quality of products which consumers ultimately obtain.

In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers.

IOW:

It puts 'real' browser manufacturers at an unfair disadvantage; it damages the quality of the 'average' browser by stifling competition; it forces web sites to comply with non-standard implementations of the protocols involved in the WWW such as http, html and possibly even TCP or IP.

shadylookin
January 17th, 2009, 01:03 AM
is internet explorer still necessary for the OS to run? I remember hearing that it was difficult to get rid of internet explorer and could cause the OS to mess up. If that's the case then I can see why they're getting sued because it's impossible to actually get rid of their browser.

If not then I can't see why they should be sued. As much as I don't like them providing an initial browser is something that most OSes do and IE's market share has slipped anyway.

bruce89
January 17th, 2009, 01:03 AM
Don't forget that Google has made deals with several manufacturers to ship with Google Chrome.

Quite right so.

I find the title of this thread rather insulting.


is internet explorer still necessary for the OS to run? I remember hearing that it was difficult to get rid of internet explorer and could cause the OS to mess up. If that's the case then I can see why they're getting sued because it's impossible to actually get rid of their browser.


Yes, it's used all over the place. It's a core Windows component, and if it were possible to get rid of it, some programs would cease to function properly.

pp.
January 17th, 2009, 01:12 AM
It's a core Windows component

Yes, that's what the people at Microsoft keep telling in the hope that consumers and legislators will understand that it's utterly impossible for Microsoft to unbundle that software.

However, it's a bit strange that there appears to be one and only one OS which absolutely can not be run without one particular browser being present.


if it were possible to get rid of it, some programs would cease to function properly.

(Emphasis mine): That might evoke some satirical comments, as well.

bruce89
January 17th, 2009, 01:16 AM
(Emphasis mine): That might evoke some satirical comments, as well.

Heh, that was unintended. I was referring to online help things and so on.

Daveski
January 17th, 2009, 01:47 AM
is internet explorer still necessary for the OS to run? I remember hearing that it was difficult to get rid of internet explorer and could cause the OS to mess up. If that's the case then I can see why they're getting sued because it's impossible to actually get rid of their browser.

If not then I can't see why they should be sued. As much as I don't like them providing an initial browser is something that most OSes do and IE's market share has slipped anyway.

MS have pretty much entwined IE with the OS and so, yes, many OS components can't function without it. However, it wasn't always this way. When MS first started to bundle IE with Windows is was specifically to kill off the competition. This is how they won the great browser war, it is only now after many years that the market share is slipping.

Grant A.
January 17th, 2009, 01:55 AM
However, it's a bit strange that there appears to be one and only one OS which absolutely can not be run without one particular browser being present.

Actually, older KDE versions, <3.5.5, would start to malfunction if you uninstalled Konqueror. Not sure if that still exists in KDE today, however.

Moustacha
January 17th, 2009, 03:14 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

It's been done before and didn't work. *sigh*

phrostbyte
January 17th, 2009, 04:13 AM
The title of this thread is very lame.

But anyway if EU wants to encourage competition I think the best way would to be to make the backroom deals Microsoft makes with OEMs public. And also require OEMs to offer a no-OS option with computers that removes the license fees Microsoft gets from the OEM.

cardinals_fan
January 17th, 2009, 05:01 AM
To misquote Linus Torvalds, even in an alternate universe in which this were right, it would still be wrong.

handy
January 17th, 2009, 10:13 AM
It has been over 3 years since I finished with windows, & therefore finished using nlite (http://www.nliteos.com/index.html), I don't recall whether it could remove IE from XP or not?

billgoldberg
January 17th, 2009, 10:19 AM
Europe says Microsoft can't include its browser in Windows

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/europe-says-microsoft-cant-include/story.aspx?guid={7DCD1150-2C3D-49F2-97D4-04481334D847}&dist=msr_4

European antitrust regulators have told Microsoft Corp. that the company's practice of including its Internet browser with its popular Windows operating system violates European competition law, Microsoft said Friday.

Next thing you know, they'll tell Microsoft they can't have the NT kernel.

As many have said: Despite many issues with MS practices, this takes the cake. How are people going to get on the internet without having a browser to start with (if for no other reason, to get another web browser)?

Fools run our nations, and this is why the best government is the one that governs least.

This is a good thing, buddy.

MS has kind of an monopoly on OSs. Because of that they can promote their own programs.

This isn't good for the competition.

Internet Explorer is dropping in market share here.

Here it only has a 65% market share.

billgoldberg
January 17th, 2009, 10:21 AM
Actually, older KDE versions, <3.5.5, would start to malfunction if you uninstalled Konqueror. Not sure if that still exists in KDE today, however.

KDE isn't an Operating System.

Cannaregio
January 17th, 2009, 10:50 AM
"Anyone that uses MSIE to browse the web is looking for troubles.
Its' like walking barefoot in a minefield"

I don't really understand all this fuss.
It follows the same principles applied by the EU in 2004, when it held that Microsoft could not tie its media player to Windows and ordered the software maker to offer a version with the media player stripped out. Rightly so.

Also note that the EU can pretty well do whatever it wants in order to protect the European consumers, with bona pace of our american friends, that should thank the EU for this initiative and try to emulate.

Again: methinks the EU is dead right in trying to reduce the fully undeserved dominance in the browser market of MSIE, due ONLY to the fact that it is installed in (almost) all new computers and used by (almost) all workplaces, also having a big market share for the same reasons that make windows so ubiquitous: inertia, forced market dominance and ignorance combined.

MSIExplorer is one of the worst browsers around, a pretty obvious fact for anyone that had enough intelligence to make a comparison. Once you have used firefox (or -even better, more secure and FAST- opera) you'll never go back to that MS-crapola again.

So imho Microsoft should be punished much more for bundling its awful, slow, intrusive and buggy browser with its awful, slow, intrusive and buggy operating system.

Finally: Jon von Tetzchner, Opera's CEO:

"On behalf of all Internet users, we commend the Commission for taking the next step towards restoring competition in a market that Microsoft has strangled for more than a decade. The Commission's Statement of Objections demonstrates that the Commission is serious about getting Microsoft to start competing on the merits in the browser market and letting consumers have a real choice of Internet browsers"

Martje_001
January 17th, 2009, 11:01 AM
I think the problem is that IE cannot be removed. If it could just be easily removed and another browser could be used as default, well, then it's OK.

That's what this law is saying (I think).

mips
January 17th, 2009, 11:33 AM
It has been over 3 years since I finished with windows, & therefore finished using nlite (http://www.nliteos.com/index.html), I don't recall whether it could remove IE from XP or not?

You can remove IE from XP but somewhere along the line you are going to need it for some MS updates stuff if I recall correctly. Been there, done that :)

mips
January 17th, 2009, 11:35 AM
Yes, that's what the people at Microsoft keep telling in the hope that consumers and legislators will understand that it's utterly impossible for Microsoft to unbundle that software.

However, it's a bit strange that there appears to be one and only one OS which absolutely can not be run without one particular browser being present.


It's not impossible to unbundle IE without affecting the OS/Apps. This is done by design and pretty clever of MS if you ask me. This way they use it as an excuse to force the software on users.

pp.
January 17th, 2009, 11:39 AM
This is done by design and pretty clever of MS if you ask me.

I don't think that "clever" but pretty transparent. Anyone involved in constructing software or indeed in any kind of engineering will quite see through that argument, as would any parent of small children. Apparently, makers and enforcers of laws lack that capability.

bash
January 17th, 2009, 11:46 AM
.

RaZe42
January 17th, 2009, 11:46 AM
Well if IE can't be removed from Windows, then shouldn't Windows be illegalized within the EU ;)

tom66
January 17th, 2009, 11:53 AM
Couldn't they just remove the binary iexplorer.exe (the browser's chrome) so that there is still mshtml.dll which does the HTML rendering, such that programs can still do HTML rendering, but users can't actually browse the web.

Chame_Wizard
January 17th, 2009, 12:12 PM
we all love to bash M$:P

Swagman
January 17th, 2009, 12:25 PM
I don't think Microsoft has paid the last fine anyway so what difference will the a new ruling make ?

IF the fine could be enforced on them THEN it would be poetic justice.

Explanation. =



Spyglass licensed the source code for Mosaic to Microsoft and Internet Explorer was born
.
quoted from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/historyofie.mspx

And if I remember correctly Microsoft never bothered paying the license fee's. Instead bastardizing the code and then claiming they had invented a different product. Sound familiar ?




By October of 1994 early Internauts were treated to the initial release of Mosaic Netscape 0.9, the first widely successful graphical Web browser. Pioneered by Marc Andreessen and Jim Clark, the browser would eventually become Netscape Navigator, the toast of the Internet. Microsoft soon released Internet Explorer 1.0, though Netscape Navigator held favor until Microsoft began integrating its browser into the ubiquitous Windows operating systems.


http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the...e-internet.htm

And by doing so they cornered (monopolised) the market. In fact .. they destroyed the market by that action. Put a Big blue e on the desktop with the words Internet in its name and why would anyone bother to purchase something that came free in the O/s ?

pp.
January 17th, 2009, 12:31 PM
Since apperently there is no report button

Off topic - the report button is to the left of each post, one of the two tiny images at the bottom

bash
January 17th, 2009, 12:41 PM
Off topic - the report button is to the left of each post, one of the two tiny images at the bottom

Oh I thought that was the user profile. Thanks for pointing that out

*g!t5^_)*(H
January 17th, 2009, 12:42 PM
Even if IEexplorer is necessary to run Windows, the links to IE navigator should be removed by default.

Microsoft is not winning the 'Internet race', they know it, and their best weapon to fight is a bad browser, and go away from the standards.

EU can obligate all the OS to include an 'Internet button' witch opens a default location with a list of available browsers, and information (security, usability, ...) about them.

Obligate users choose a browser can be considered education, and this obligate users to get some responsibility about how they access the network.

IExplorer is hardly damaging Internet, this is not Microsoft responsibility only, also people/brands who develop Internet sites, applications or RIA, are guilty, promoting IExplorer patches and hacks to skip its limitations. They must warn users about IExplorer limitations, and (if necessary) explain them why another browser is better.

It can be done just with a warning message; "Your browser sucks, if you change it you will be able to watch a <video> or interact with a chart <canvas> or ... ".

This is exactly what happened at the beginning with "Flash player" and "Java applets", people is not stupid and they want the best for them, but education doesn't comes magically, they need warning and messages informing why they can't do with IExplorer what others do with another browser.

MisterFlibble84
January 17th, 2009, 12:45 PM
Europe says Microsoft can't include its browser in Windows

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/europe-says-microsoft-cant-include/story.aspx?guid={7DCD1150-2C3D-49F2-97D4-04481334D847}&dist=msr_4

European antitrust regulators have told Microsoft Corp. that the company's practice of including its Internet browser with its popular Windows operating system violates European competition law, Microsoft said Friday.

Next thing you know, they'll tell Microsoft they can't have the NT kernel.

As many have said: Despite many issues with MS practices, this takes the cake. How are people going to get on the internet without having a browser to start with (if for no other reason, to get another web browser)?

Fools run our nations, and this is why the best government is the one that governs least.

The issue at hand is not bundling it, any modern OS will do that, the issue is making it a mandatory component with no uninstaller.

geoken
January 17th, 2009, 02:57 PM
Suing MS is dumb. Windows is useless without a browser because that would make it impossible to get a different browser.

It would be a lot more productive to mandate resellers to install another browser.

geoken
January 17th, 2009, 03:09 PM
The issue at hand is not bundling it, any modern OS will do that, the issue is making it a mandatory component with no uninstaller.

Then the argument becomes so semantic that it's lost any grounding in the morals that the laws are based on.

The monopoly laws are meant to stop companies from proliferating products by virtue of a monopoly they hold with a completely unrelated product or an unnecessary product. If Microsoft bundles an app, but buries it so deep in the OS that it isn't user visible then it, by extension, isn't aiding in the proliferation of that app.

For example, MS must offer Windows without Media Player because it's stifles competition amongst media players. Now, if they removed all user visible traces of media player (no short cuts, no start menu entries, opening any media file directs you to the "find ann app to open this file" dialog), but kept the app on the system because it's video thumbnails are generated through said app would that stifle competition?

MisterFlibble84
January 17th, 2009, 04:47 PM
Then the argument becomes so semantic that it's lost any grounding in the morals that the laws are based on.

The monopoly laws are meant to stop companies from proliferating products by virtue of a monopoly they hold with a completely unrelated product or an unnecessary product. If Microsoft bundles an app, but buries it so deep in the OS that it isn't user visible then it, by extension, isn't aiding in the proliferation of that app.

For example, MS must offer Windows without Media Player because it's stifles competition amongst media players. Now, if they removed all user visible traces of media player (no short cuts, no start menu entries, opening any media file directs you to the "find ann app to open this file" dialog), but kept the app on the system because it's video thumbnails are generated through said app would that stifle competition?

In that case, why don't they sue Apple for Safari or KDE for Konqueror?

blastus
January 17th, 2009, 06:03 PM
Internet Explorer is so bound to Windows that it would probably take a team of 250 people two years to unbind it. This would still be cheaper than any possible EU fine. But Microsoft will never unbind IE because they would have not just another version of Windows to maintain, they would have an OS that would be really architecturally different from the others.

This is all Microsoft's fault. There was no good technical reason to bind Internet Explorer to Windows.

zekopeko
January 17th, 2009, 06:28 PM
Suing MS is dumb. Windows is useless without a browser because that would make it impossible to get a different browser.

It would be a lot more productive to mandate resellers to install another browser.

hahahahaha!!! and what does synaptic do? fetches the programs from the net. no web browser involved.

MikeTheC
January 17th, 2009, 06:59 PM
Some thoughts:

Win3.x and Win95 code (for certain) and possibly Win9x code beyond it did not truly have IE so tightly bundled it was impossible for Microsoft to stop including it. But somewhere along the way, they got the bright idea to use IE as a sub-platform for doing other things.

From what I can tell, Microsoft would need to do a considerable re-write of Windows to account for the absence of Internet Explorer, assuming that: 1. Microsoft bows to the EU's wishes, and 2. Microsoft feels they can somehow recoup the cost.

By all rights, Microsoft (from their perspective) should just tell the EU that this is how it is, and that they should see how it is to do without Windows accessibility for their citizen constituents and business entity residents (that is, companies, since a company is not a "natural person").

Of course, this would simply speed the adoption of Linux and possibly Mac OS X, and I think Microsoft knows this. How quickly Microsoft responds (regardless the means) serves at least in part as proof of their acknowledgment that Linux is a serious threat.

Simultaneously, I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft start doing everything they can to try and kill Linux in both the U.S. and in other "hot spots" around the world. I mean, they're going to have to do this just to hold onto their place.

We really have the F/OSS developers and framers to thank for this, because without Linux, Microsoft could basically just cut the EU off at their digital knee-caps.

However, I think you folks are all missing something that's really important.

Everyone out there in Windows land knows what Internet Explorer is, and frankly most Windows users don't use anything *but* Internet Explorer. So, if IE is successfully "unbundled", then it will become yet another browser "choice" for Windows users. What's to stop a given computer retailer (Gateway, etc.) from "choosing" to bundle IE? Hmm? And what's to stop Microsoft from doing back-room deals with the various PC makers to get them to "pick" IE, and therefore perpetuate IE's ubiquity anyhow?

Remember, there's quite a difference between a computer maker saying "We include Firefox on our system, but IE is still there" and "We only have Firefox, since we don't include IE any more". The first option is likely to keep the dumb masses out there happy because they'll think "I use IE. I don't know what that Firefox thingy is" or maybe "Hmm, let me try Firefox, but at least IE is still there". The second one is far more likely to scare users who will think, "You don't put IE on your computers? How am I supposed to get on the Internet? Thanks, but I'll go with someone else."

I am not convinced this is necessarily the best business choice, from a certain point of view, and Microsoft will move to take advantage of this.

Sense
January 17th, 2009, 07:12 PM
(...)
Fools run our nations, and this is why the best government is the one that governs least.
Like we see in the US, you can also govern too few.

I don't have a problem with bundling IE with Microsoft. It's their product and they want to make it smooth -- according to their standards -- and finished by including a browser.
However, I do have a problem with their lack of standards compliance and the requirement of IE for getting updates. The EU should force Microsoft to change those two things. They should also make it easy and possible to uninstall the browser.

Why not sue KDE or Apple for Konqueror/Dolphin or Safari? They are no monopolists. The reason why Microsoft is sued is because it has almost a monopoly. Thanks to their work, webdevelopers now have to add all kinds of dirty hacks to their webpages. If Apple would do that, all Apple users would get badly rendered pages. Microsoft users wouldn't have much problems, since they're such a large part of the internet population, the websites want to adapt as soon as possible.

KiwiNZ
January 17th, 2009, 08:27 PM
I can think of only two words to describe this ....

Pure stupidity

I guess it goes along with their comments regarding big screen TV's:rolleyes:

tsali
January 17th, 2009, 09:43 PM
I am having what I think is an anti-trust issue with Ubuntu.

It appears that this operating system is specifically designed to prevent me from running some of my favorite programs like iTunes and uTorrent but it comes bundled with it's own versions.

Perhaps I should petition my Attorney General?

geoken
January 17th, 2009, 09:47 PM
hahahahaha!!! and what does synaptic do? fetches the programs from the net. no web browser involved.

Synaptic doesn't exist on windows, I don't see what relevance it has in the discussion.

geoken
January 17th, 2009, 09:54 PM
In that case, why don't they sue Apple for Safari or KDE for Konqueror?

Because OS X and KDE don't have monopolies in the operating system market.

jrusso2
January 17th, 2009, 09:55 PM
Opera was the one that brought this before the European authorities and asked for a ruling.

I-75
January 17th, 2009, 10:20 PM
Simultaneously, I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft start doing everything they can to try and kill Linux in both the U.S. and in other "hot spots" around the world. I mean, they're going to have to do this just to hold onto their place.

They can't, there are Open Source mandates now and these are growing all around the globe. Russia was the biggest and most recent example with a mandate that schools in all regions most use open source...or pay for the programs themselves.

Then you have the economic conditions, the most recent example was Xavier School in the Philippines where it was costing them $40 per computer per year x 800 computers just to run Windows and that didn't include base licenses. The school dropped Windows for Ubuntu and will save the school money.

And these are not isolated events, these shifts away from Windows are growing across the globe every day.

albinootje
January 17th, 2009, 10:54 PM
The second one is far more likely to scare users who will think, "You don't put IE on your computers? How am I supposed to get on the Internet? Thanks, but I'll go with someone else."


Indeed, I've seen MS-Windows using MS-IE to set up their Internet connection. Without that I'm sure some users would be "lost".

I've seen several software installations in the past which would not install because MS IE was not available (Not really a problem in Wine anymore, since Wine has some IE dummy pre-installed).

But also some "online anti-virus scanners" will happily lead you to their test page, only to bail out in the very end because you don't have MS-IE, and they have build their scanning on top of some active-x requirement..

DMcA
January 17th, 2009, 11:06 PM
Firstly, for anyone saying how do you install a browser without having one already, wget? cURL? I mean really

Anyway, the main problem with IE as I see it is its non-adherence to standards, which leads to some people designing broken websites that only function as intended or at all with one browser.

As far anti-competitive behaviour goes, it ought to be illegal to sell computers with operating systems pre-installed or bundled at all. I believe this has actually been proposed at some point within the EU although I'm not exactly optimistic of it going anywhere

geoken
January 17th, 2009, 11:22 PM
Firstly, for anyone saying how do you install a browser without having one already, wget? cURL? I mean really



Are you honestly suggesting that a company like Dell, ship a Windows computer with no browser, then expect it's customers to use wget to pull down a Firefox 3 installer, then install that.




As far anti-competitive behaviour goes, it ought to be illegal to sell computers with operating systems pre-installed or bundled at all.


Why should it be illegal for me to go to a computer retailer and ask them to supply me a computer that falls within my definitions of usable? It may come as a shock to people like us who pice together our computers from a stack of components, but to most users, a computer lacking a fully functional GUI w/ a browser and a file manager is essentially broken.

phrostbyte
January 17th, 2009, 11:29 PM
Well really I think this would be a positive thing in a way. Because if IE marketshare drops it means more web designers will stop coding directly for IE and code to web standards. I don't know if this will cause IE marketshare to drop, that really depends how it's implemented.

But again this isn't addressing the MAJOR anti-trust issue with Microsoft. Really the deals they do with OEMs to bundle MS Windows should be out in the open. We don't know much about these deals, they seem to be mostly secret.

What the EU or USA have to question why most OEMs don't offer alternative operating systems or a no OS option (not necessarily by default, I can see why they wouldn't by default). I am not all out for downright killing Microsoft by the strong arm of the law, but at least making it easier for consumers who genuinely do not want to purchase Windows to make it easier for them to do so. It's kind of depressing when it's so easy to buy Nvidia or ATI, AMD or Intel, but if you want to avoid buying Windows, you have much fewer options. This needs to be investigated.

MikeTheC
January 17th, 2009, 11:31 PM
Firstly, for anyone saying how do you install a browser without having one already, wget? cURL? I mean really
And how exactly does that apply to the situation at hand? How do you get them?

albinootje
January 17th, 2009, 11:35 PM
And how exactly does that apply to the situation at hand? How do you get them?

Microsoft would be forced to have cygwin pre-installed with wget and curl, of course :)

http://cygwin.com/

spoons
January 17th, 2009, 11:38 PM
How about, Windows is optional in the cost of the PC, the PC is the £50 cheaper, and if you don't pay the £50 it just comes with Linux?

geoken
January 18th, 2009, 12:26 AM
What the EU or USA have to question why most OEMs don't offer alternative operating systems or a no OS option (not necessarily by default, I can see why they wouldn't by default). I am not all out for downright killing Microsoft by the strong arm of the law, but at least making it easier for consumers who genuinely do not want to purchase Windows to make it easier for them to do so. It's kind of depressing when it's so easy to buy Nvidia or ATI, AMD or Intel, but if you want to avoid buying Windows, you have much fewer options. This needs to be investigated.

Nothing to investigate. They get greater deals on Windows for agreeing to be MS exclusive. Not arguing on the morality of that situation, just pointing out that it's a known practice. The grocery store I used to work at had an exclusivity deal with Coke whereby they wouldn't sell any Pepsi products. It's a common practice among many industries.

My current company has exclusivity deals in almost everything we do. All our office supplies/furniture come from one place. Our shipments go with limited set of couriers (depending on their size, weight, distance). Our computers are all Dell. Our phone system comes from a certain company and our contract says we need to go to them even to buy a single handset.

cardinals_fan
January 18th, 2009, 01:19 AM
Well really I think this would be a positive thing in a way. Because if IE marketshare drops it means more web designers will stop coding directly for IE and code to web standards. I don't know if this will cause IE marketshare to drop, that really depends how it's implemented.

This is more of a "the end justifies the means" consequentialist ideal. I certainly agree that it would be good for IE to lose market share, so that standards compliance becomes more of a priority. The question is whether the legitimacy of the means matters.

mister_pink
January 18th, 2009, 01:51 AM
Microsoft bashing aside, I think they need to go further. They should be banned from distributing it altogether until such time as they can make it standards compliant. They even admit at the moment that they aren't even trying.

I also think that computer retailers should be required to sell you the computer with no OS on it if you so desire. This would be easy for them to do (compared with having to install a different one). This in my books is at least as annoying as selling you a computer with windows but refusing to give you an install disk.

oldsoundguy
January 18th, 2009, 01:58 AM
Actually this is a relatively moot point since IE no longer holds the majority (over 50%) of the browser market and is losing market share every month. (as is their OS .. 5% loss over the past two months!!)

The latest figures:
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

uberdonkey5
January 18th, 2009, 02:11 AM
Well, Evolution can't be removed from Ubuntu without it messing up (I've tried!).. damn waste of space, huff

geoken
January 18th, 2009, 02:21 AM
Microsoft bashing aside, I think they need to go further. They should be banned from distributing it altogether until such time as they can make it standards compliant. They even admit at the moment that they aren't even trying.


So then what happens next? After we ban IE for not being able to meet some arbitrary level of standards compliance can Opera then petition to have Firefox banned until it can render Acid 3 as well as Opera? Can Opera request that Firefox get blocked until it can support SVG at a level that Opera can?






I also think that computer retailers should be required to sell you the computer with no OS on it if you so desire. This would be easy for them to do (compared with having to install a different one). This in my books is at least as annoying as selling you a computer with windows but refusing to give you an install disk.

Why shouldn't a computer retailer have the freedom to customize the systems he sells in the manner he wishes? Why should you have the right to engage a retailer and mandate they sell a product that they don't want to sell? Should I be able to go to a local clothing retailer and mandate them to sell pants made of a specific fabric because I want to pay less for their garments?

Grant A.
January 18th, 2009, 02:25 AM
So then what happens next? After we ban IE for not being able to meet some arbitrary level of standards compliance can Opera then petition to have Firefox banned until it can render Acid 3 as well as Opera? Can Opera request that Firefox get blocked until it can support SVG at a level that Opera can?


Sounds good to me, I'm getting tired of these "rebel" browsers.






Why shouldn't a computer retailer have the freedom to customize the systems he sells in the manner he wishes? Why should you have the right to engage a retailer and mandate they sell a product that they don't want to sell? Should I be able to go to a local clothing retailer and mandate them to sell pants made of a specific fabric because I want to pay less for their garments?

Because Microsoft has a monopoly, and is essentially using it to push their other services (cloud, live, etc.), which is totally unacceptable, and very unfair to other businesses. How are people supposed to compete with someone who doesn't have to advertise to get word out about their cloud or services?

albinootje
January 18th, 2009, 02:27 AM
They should be banned from distributing it altogether until such time as they can make it standards compliant. They even admit at the moment that they aren't even trying.

MS is still not even trying to follow the web standards ?
Where did you read that ? Please provide a link, thanks.

geoken
January 18th, 2009, 02:28 AM
For the record, IE8 passes Acid 2 now.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/geoken/IE8_ACID2.jpg

Grant A.
January 18th, 2009, 02:32 AM
For the record, IE8 passes Acid 2 now.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/geoken/IE8_ACID2.jpg

*sigh* I wish Microsoft wasn't so hard-headed and would actually use some Free software like webkit to improve Internet Explorer.

Corporations + Free Software Community = Everyone Wins.

cardinals_fan
January 18th, 2009, 02:32 AM
Well, Evolution can't be removed from Ubuntu without it messing up (I've tried!).. damn waste of space, huff
What?!

So then what happens next? After we ban IE for not being able to meet some arbitrary level of standards compliance can Opera then petition to have Firefox banned until it can render Acid 3 as well as Opera? Can Opera request that Firefox get blocked until it can support SVG at a level that Opera can?

+1

Sounds good to me, I'm getting tired of these "rebel" browsers.
Ah, so you use Amaya?

For the record, IE8 passes Acid 2 now.

How...nice.

albinootje
January 18th, 2009, 02:33 AM
So then what happens next? After we ban IE for not being able to meet some arbitrary level of standards compliance can Opera then petition to have Firefox banned until it can render Acid 3 as well as Opera? Can Opera request that Firefox get blocked until it can support SVG at a level that Opera can?

MS has managed in the past to let users use MS FrontPage (and I assume some other software has been doing this too) to create MS-IE "optimized" webpages.
That has been a mayor problem for non MS-IE users.
MS had and still has a majority of the Internet users use MS-IE.
Has anyone had mayor troubles displaying Firefox or Opera "optimized" webpages lately in other browsers ?

geoken
January 18th, 2009, 02:42 AM
Because Microsoft has a monopoly, and is essentially using it to push their other services (cloud, live, etc.), which is totally unacceptable, and very unfair to other businesses. How are people supposed to compete with someone who doesn't have to advertise to get word out about their cloud or services?

What's the difference between paying money for advertising and paying money to enter into exclusivity deals?

geoken
January 18th, 2009, 02:47 AM
MS has managed in the past to let users use MS FrontPage (and I assume some other software has been doing this too) to create MS-IE "optimized" webpages.
That has been a mayor problem for non MS-IE users.
MS had and still has a majority of the Internet users use MS-IE.
Has anyone had mayor troubles displaying Firefox or Opera "optimized" webpages lately in other browsers ?

So I guess you don't know about the subset of CSS3 that Firefox supports via the proprietary "moz-" css rule prefix? For example, the following code will create a special version of the page for Firefox and another special version for webkit based browsers;

-moz-border-radius: 10px;
-webkit-border-radius: 10px;

cardinals_fan
January 18th, 2009, 02:49 AM
*sigh* I wish Microsoft wasn't so hard-headed and would actually use some Free software like webkit to improve Internet Explorer.

Corporations + Free Software Community = Everyone Wins.
+1

WebKit is BSD licensed; they could use it easily.

Grant A.
January 18th, 2009, 02:51 AM
What's the difference between paying money for advertising and paying money to enter into exclusivity deals?

Because they are using their monopoly to try and suffocate the competitors, which is not right. It's essentially setting up other small companies just trying to get their start to fail.

albinootje
January 18th, 2009, 02:53 AM
So I guess you don't know about the subset of CSS3 that Firefox supports via the proprietary "moz-" css rule prefix? For example, the following code will create a special version of the page for Firefox and another special version for webkit based browsers;

-moz-border-radius: 10px;
-webkit-border-radius: 10px;

And has that causes big trouble for a lot of people, as in not being able to use online banking or look up the train departure times ?

That last thing happened in Holland years ago.
After a noisy protest from various computer users the railway company promised to make their website no longer MS-IE only.
And they did, now it works without problems in other browsers.

geoken
January 18th, 2009, 02:56 AM
I disagree.

I think it's wrong for a company to use an existing monopoly to hurt other products.

But paying money to keep market share is not abusing a monopoly. Should a monopoly be banned from using it's money to advertise it's product? What's the difference between paying money to advertise your product and paying money to get retailers to enter into exclusivity contracts?

geoken
January 18th, 2009, 03:04 AM
And has that causes big trouble for a lot of people, as in not being able to use online banking or look up the train departure times ?

That last thing happened in Holland years ago.
After a noisy protest from various computer users the railway company promised to make their website no longer MS-IE only.
And they did, now it works without problems in other browsers.

Your argument is no longer relevant. You initially argued against MS because their browser and related apps supported proprietary MS code. I just showed you how all the major rendering engines support proprietary code. Whether or not someone used that code is completely irrelevant.

Grant A.
January 18th, 2009, 03:06 AM
I disagree.

I think it's wrong for a company to use an existing monopoly to hurt other products.

But paying money to keep market share is not abusing a monopoly. Should a monopoly be banned from using it's money to advertise it's product? What's the difference between paying money to advertise your product and paying money to get retailers to enter into exclusivity contracts?

The fact that IE is on nearly every computer on the planet, they can constantly integrate web services into their web browser that other companies have to work hard to advertise for and spend tons of money doing. I don't think it is right at all for a big corporation to spend $0 on marketing, while the little companies have to spend thousands of dollars on advertising, and go bankrupt as a result.

BTW, Microsoft doesn't spend any money on contracts infact, OEMs pay them.

geoken
January 18th, 2009, 03:13 AM
The fact that IE is on nearly every computer on the planet, they can constantly integrate web services into their web browser that other companies have to work hard to advertise for and spend tons of money doing. I don't think it is right at all for a big corporation to spend $0 on marketing, while the little companies have to spend thousands of dollars on advertising, and go bankrupt as a result.

I agree with you. I think other browsers should be bundled as well.

I was arguing against the person who said computer makers should be mandated to provide systems without Windows installed on them.



BTW, Microsoft doesn't spend any money on contracts infact, OEMs pay them.

I realize that. I was saying spend money to simplify the argument since a business would technically consider a discount given as a promotional cost. For example, when a company hands out coupons they wright them out as promotional costs even though they technically aren't spending any money.

albinootje
January 18th, 2009, 03:20 AM
Your argument is no longer relevant. You initially argued against MS because their browser and related apps supported proprietary MS code. I just showed you how all the major rendering engines support proprietary code. Whether or not someone used that code is completely irrelevant.

There's clearly a difference between a lot of violations, and not so many violations.
Thanks for pointing out the fact that Firefox is violating some web standard though.

speedwell68
January 18th, 2009, 03:20 AM
I think the fairest thing for MS to do would simply bundle another browser and give the users their choice of default at first start. I think it would also be in their best interest if the Windows update website could be accessed by other browsers for people that want to install their updates manually, people that want auto updates could still use the Automatic updates gadget.

lakersforce
January 18th, 2009, 03:22 AM
The last 2 computers I've had from Dell both came with Firefox installed :)

Who cares!?! The first thing you do is to wipe it anyway (the computers harddrive) :)

geoken
January 18th, 2009, 04:40 AM
I think it would also be in their best interest if the Windows update website could be accessed by other browsers for people that want to install their updates manually, people that want auto updates could still use the Automatic updates gadget.

I think that is the case now. I can't speak for Windows updates in specific, but I've downloaded individual files that required validation of windows and I was able to do it from within Firefox.

I think there updates use the same validation scheme that their protected downloads do, so I'd assume that the updates can also be downloaded through firefox although I'm not 100% sure.

quinnten83
January 18th, 2009, 10:45 AM
Are you honestly suggesting that a company like Dell, ship a Windows computer with no browser, then expect it's customers to use wget to pull down a Firefox 3 installer, then install that.




Why should it be illegal for me to go to a computer retailer and ask them to supply me a computer that falls within my definitions of usable? It may come as a shock to people like us who pice together our computers from a stack of components, but to most users, a computer lacking a fully functional GUI w/ a browser and a file manager is essentially broken.

Well,
much like a graphics card or memory, you can select which OS you want when ordering your computer.I believe this is already the case in Belgium, where OS bundling is illegal. So that solves that problem you describe and makes your point moot.
They can also apply this principle to browsers. We might even get to see a MSIE for linux.

stinger30au
January 18th, 2009, 10:50 AM
correct me if im wrong, but wasnt microsoft hauled thru the courts about interent explorer being built in to windows years ago ...

im sure it was around windows 95 or windows 98 and it was the same thing????

quinnten83
January 18th, 2009, 10:57 AM
correct me if im wrong, but wasnt microsoft hauled thru the courts about interent explorer being built in to windows years ago ...

im sure it was around windows 95 or windows 98 and it was the same thing????

Yes, that was in the states, though.

mister_pink
January 18th, 2009, 01:21 PM
Well, Evolution can't be removed from Ubuntu without it messing up (I've tried!).. damn waste of space, huff

It can, you have to leave one componant though (the data server I believe) as it is required by other things.


So then what happens next? After we ban IE for not being able to meet some arbitrary level of standards compliance can Opera then petition to have Firefox banned until it can render Acid 3 as well as Opera? Can Opera request that Firefox get blocked until it can support SVG at a level that Opera can?


The firefox devs work hard to comply to the current standards. The acid tests are designed specifically to not work with any current browsers so that the browser devs have some work to do to catch up. IE doesn't even do acid2 yet (on non beta version).

This is all by the wayside though. The difference is that IE is designed to not be standards compliant on purpose. The large market share it has means that website makers are forced to try and build around their deliberate mistakes. Look at any mediawiki powered website and you'll see in the source that they have to include various javascript and css fixes depending on which version of IE is being used.



Why shouldn't a computer retailer have the freedom to customize the systems he sells in the manner he wishes? Why should you have the right to engage a retailer and mandate they sell a product that they don't want to sell? Should I be able to go to a local clothing retailer and mandate them to sell pants made of a specific fabric because I want to pay less for their garments?

As previously stated, the issue is that they have a monopoly. I'm not actually asking that retailers be made to do anything, all they have to do is NOT do something, which is far easier. The point is that if you don't like the stores trousers you go somewhere else. If I don't like a stores PCs I'll go somewhere else, but wherever I go they'll still be loaded with an OS I don't want or need.


MS is still not even trying to follow the web standards ?
Where did you read that ? Please provide a link, thanks.

Can't remember where I saw it originally (where it was worded more strongly than here) but they basically say it here: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/chats/transcripts/08_0320_ez_ie8.mspx


So I guess you don't know about the subset of CSS3 that Firefox supports via the proprietary "moz-" css rule prefix? For example, the following code will create a special version of the page for Firefox and another special version for webkit based browsers;

-moz-border-radius: 10px;
-webkit-border-radius: 10px;

Again, missing the point. They implement the standards then provide their own extensions. That's acceptable, you don't need to use them if you don't want to, a standards compliant site should render fine.


I think that is the case now. I can't speak for Windows updates in specific, but I've downloaded individual files that required validation of windows and I was able to do it from within Firefox.

I think there updates use the same validation scheme that their protected downloads do, so I'd assume that the updates can also be downloaded through firefox although I'm not 100% sure.

As far as I can tell this isn't the case:

http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2007/04/update-windows-within-firefox/

Although you can always use http://windizupdate.com/

fatality_uk
January 18th, 2009, 01:51 PM
Congrats EU. The point is NOT that the EU doesn't like IE. The point is that Microsoft has a HUGE monopoly in both the browser and OS markets. A monopoly has never and will never be good for consumers.

Microsoft has stiffled inovation on the web. What's the point of a standards body that can be ignored by the dominant browser creator!

spcwingo
January 18th, 2009, 03:08 PM
I think the fairest thing for MS to do would simply bundle another browser and give the users their choice of default at first start. I think it would also be in their best interest if the Windows update website could be accessed by other browsers for people that want to install their updates manually, people that want auto updates could still use the Automatic updates gadget.

On my single remaining win machine I use a three-way combo to update my system: Firefox, IE tab plugin, and Shenz Browser. I have ie tab installed in firefox for ie rendering. To do that lighter and faster I have ie tab pointing to shenz. To update just open Firefox, go to windows update site and middle click the ie icon at the bottom of firefox. then update as normal. The only bad part is shenz still requires ie core to function.:(

geoken
January 18th, 2009, 05:03 PM
The firefox devs work hard to comply to the current standards. The acid tests are designed specifically to not work with any current browsers so that the browser devs have some work to do to catch up. IE doesn't even do acid2 yet (on non beta version).


When IE7 was released Firefox didn't pass Acid 2 either. Both of their then-current+1 browsers do. What's the difference?




As previously stated, the issue is that they have a monopoly. I'm not actually asking that retailers be made to do anything, all they have to do is NOT do something, which is far easier. The point is that if you don't like the stores trousers you go somewhere else. If I don't like a stores PCs I'll go somewhere else, but wherever I go they'll still be loaded with an OS I don't want or need.


No they won't. System 76, Dell, various others. That's not even taking into account corner shops or building yourself. The suggestion that you can't find a computer without Windows is extremely disingenuous.





Again, missing the point. They implement the standards then provide their own extensions. That's acceptable, you don't need to use them if you don't want to, a standards compliant site should render fine.


No, I think you misread the argument I was responding to. The person was saying it was wrong for Microsoft to make proprietary rules (like their text shadow rules). Firefox also has proprietary rules for yet to be standardized features.

blastus
January 18th, 2009, 07:10 PM
No they won't. System 76, Dell, various others. That's not even taking into account corner shops or building yourself. The suggestion that you can't find a computer without Windows is extremely disingenuous.

I live in Canada. No-one sells laptops without an OS on it. I found a small shop locally that I could order an MSI laptop with FreeDOS on it but there was no option for a no-OS install so I bought the laptop. The point is is that I was forced to pay for something I don't need; FreeDOS.

Not only that there was only one MSI laptop model I could choose from and it was the one with LOWEST SPECIFICATIONS and the POOREST PERFORMING of the other models. All the other models including anything with an NVIDIA or ATI chipset had Windows on them. What kind of choice is that?

The point is is that there are NO REAL CHOICES for people who want to buy a computer (especially a laptop) without Windows on it. Dell doesn't ship Ubuntu computers to Canada. System76 ships to Canada but who on earth would buy a computer from another country and end up paying a lot more for it? Unless it is shipped within Canada I would pay through the roof for shipping and then I'd have to pay the CCRA brokerage and taxes on top of that.

What would it hurt a laptop manufacturer to offer laptops without Windows (or FreeDOS) on them? Nothing. Manufacturers certainly have the option of not providing software support (my MSI FreeDOS laptop has NO SOFTWARE SUPPORT), so it would cost manufacturers almost nothing to be able to offer PCs (especially laptops) without an OS on them. If they already offer customized PCs and laptops, one without an OS is just another customization that's all. It's not like manufacturers use Windows to test their hardware because they don't so there is no technical requirement for Windows.

I built my desktop PCs from scratch so there was no issue there. But for my laptop, forget it, I had no REAL CHOICE.

Correction: Dell ships Ubuntu computers to Canada now but they didn't when I bought my laptop in spring 2008. Computers these days are a commodity (like batteries) and not being able to buy a specific-type of it locally let alone having to buy it from another country is ridiculous. I can't help but think that manufacturers would come under heavy criticism and pressure from Microsoft if they all started offering computers without an OS on them because Microsoft would claim that they were all being used to pirate Windows.

cardinals_fan
January 18th, 2009, 07:45 PM
The point is is that I was forced to pay for something I don't need; FreeDOS.

Quoted for irony.

blueturtl
January 18th, 2009, 07:52 PM
Too little too late, but fortunately the web has been saved. It did not become something you could only do on Windows. I for one have not noticed web surfing to be a poorer experience on any of the popular (alternative) platforms.

Using the tax payer's money to force Microsoft out of bad design decisions is not perhaps the best thing, but then again it could do wonders to the fight against viruses and malware. So many security flaws in Windows are in fact exploits to IE.

I do find it just a bit ironic that Microsoft's gamble didn't pay off -- but also that they are getting their karmic answer as well:

They drove Netscape to ruins by giving away their browser for free. Now the same thing is happening to them. A free capable replacement for their core product -- the operating system -- is spreading and all they can do is try hold on to what they've got. Almost makes me feel a bit sympathetic for them, almost. ;)

DMcA
January 18th, 2009, 08:38 PM
Are you honestly suggesting that a company like Dell, ship a Windows computer with no browser, then expect it's customers to use wget to pull down a Firefox 3 installer, then install that.

yes



Why should it be illegal for me to go to a computer retailer and ask them to supply me a computer that falls within my definitions of usable? It may come as a shock to people like us who pice together our computers from a stack of components, but to most users, a computer lacking a fully functional GUI w/ a browser and a file manager is essentially broken.

A computer is, essentially, a piece of hardware which is compatible with many operating systems. Why should it be practically impossible for me to buy a computer without also buying a piece of software I do not need or want? Really, how difficult would it be for an hardware shop to also offer install CDs which the user has to click through a few screens with before starting? You usually have to do this when you first run windows anyway.



And how exactly does that apply to the situation at hand? How do you get them?

I'm sure all decent operating systems ought to come with basic file retrieval software. You could of course argue the same for a browser, although there is a massive difference in complexity between the two. Regardless, I'm not particularly interested in whether Microsoft chooses to bundle a browser with their OS, so long as it's standard compliant and that I don't have to buy said OS when I buy a new computer.



Microsoft would be forced to have cygwin pre-installed with wget and curl, of course

nonsense, they're both open source and have windows binaries. I assume windows comes with some sort of basic equivalent anyway.

cardinals_fan
January 18th, 2009, 08:39 PM
A computer is, essentially, a piece of hardware which is compatible with many operating systems. Why should it be practically impossible for me to buy a computer without also buying a piece of software I do not need or want? Really, how difficult would it be for an hardware shop to also offer install CDs which the user has to click through a few screens with before starting? You usually have to do this when you first run windows anyway.

Preinstalled systems avoid the need to configure hardware drivers, which can be quite a task on any system.

oasmar1
January 18th, 2009, 08:50 PM
Microsoft should be allowed to include IE with their operating system, seeing as though the customer would be paying £150 for the Operating System and would expect to have this functionality. I think if the computer is going to include Windows, then Microsoft should be allowed to include Internet Explorer, if Firefox is included and there is something wrong, then Microsoft is giving the customer a product which they can not provide direct support for, they can not guarrantee it will be kept up to date and secure, and in the end it would be Microsoft who gets the blame.

fatality_uk
January 18th, 2009, 11:06 PM
If you actually look at what Microsoft AGREED to:

"Under that ruling, Microsoft agreed to separate IE from Windows and allow users to de-select IE as their chosen browser. The idea was that users didn't get IE as a default from start up."

So NO ONE is saying that they should remove IE altogether.

I think an easy option is to have a page during install that links to http://search.live.com/ with a serach for web browsers. IE lets you select from a range of browsers so why not let Windows users choose their browser?

Daveski
January 19th, 2009, 01:27 AM
Well if IE can't be removed from Windows, then shouldn't Windows be illegalized within the EU ;)

Excellent. This would be a bit more of a kick that just imposing a fine. I thought that this has all happened before and MS happily paid enormous fines every day just to keep their current campaign working. By the time the ruling is 'actioned', the war is usually won and MS gets good value for the money it paid while it crushed the competition.

amitabhishek
January 19th, 2009, 07:19 AM
A lot of computer makers (I know dell definitely do) ship their computers with Firefox as standard

Do they? I have Dell D630, I didn't get any?

As far as this litigation goes it does have some truth in it.