browser wars!

[mess110]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8415902.stm


I am just curious.. What do you think? As a Ubuntu user I really couldn't care less but I actually think that if M$ wants to put only IE on Pindows (which is his product) it should...

What do you think?

[Fireangelazy]

Well, I think it's a good thing that the European Commission cares about that problem. It can give to lambda users new possibilities (why not try a new browser, Firefox ie and then give a look at the free software ?)

[Grenage]

I sympathised with MS on this issue, they weren't stopping users from installing another browser; all they did was provide their browser by default on their OS. The EC does a lot of good, but it also makes a lot of bad calls.

[konqueror7]

its MS' product, so they can do anything with it. MS is just doing its business selling their products. MS just took advantage of 'ignorant' users that does know nothing about web browsers.

in a way, you can say that Ubuntu is also in the same situation, wherein you are provided with a default browser, main difference is its users. Ubuntu/Linux users in general know they got choices, as in comparison to Windows users.

[benj1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8415902.stm


I am just curious.. What do you think? As a Ubuntu user I really couldn't care less but I actually think that if M$ wants to put only IE on Pindows (which is his product) it should...

What do you think?
this has been going on since netscape, at the end of the day windows has 90%+ of the desktop OS market, and hasn't exactly been responsible with that power. its taken time, and arguably this is too late now that firefox is getting decent market share, think back to before firefox when IE was absolutely rubbish, and microsoft had no reason to improve it, because it had no competition.

[Techsnap]

I really couldn't care less but I actually think that if M$ wants to put only IE on Pindows

M$ Pindows? I've never heard of that OS before please tell me more :)

Also It's Microsofts Product they can do what they like, what's the problem with including one browser, NOTHING. If they're being forced to remove IE it will just continue and continue, soon they'll be forced to remove paint for example, it's just petty and stupid.

Would there be a problem if Ubuntu ships with Firefox? No, because it already does. All you say then is, Remove Firefox if you don't like it and use something else. DO THE SAME ON WINDOWS THEN.

[Linuxforall]

I don't see anything wrong in this, Ubuntu puts Firefox by default and leaves out Opera, Chrome and others. So MS is free to bundle its browsers with its OS.

[Cursed-Reiver]

I would have to disagree with you. A web browser is an application not an integral part of an OS. It does not need to be bundled and the capacity for a market in the application should not be blocked by monopoly abuse in another (especially in the absence of significant economies of scale/scope). You may not be able to appreciate it now, but competition is a better spur to innovation than monopoly (perfect or not) ever will be. The eventual benefit will be transferred to the consumer may not be immediate but it should happen.

[Techsnap]

I would have to disagree with you. A web browser is an application not an integral part of an OS. It does not need to be bundled and the capacity for a market in the application should not be blocked by monopoly abuse in another (especially in the absence of significant economies of scale/scope). You may not be able to appreciate it now, but competition is a better spur to innovation than monopoly (perfect or not) ever will be. The eventual benefit will be transferred to the consumer may not be immediate but it should happen.

It shows you what the world is coming to when you're not even allowed to even bundle your own apps with the software that you produced doesn't it.

[Psumi]

It shows you what the world is coming to when you're not even allowed to even bundle your own apps with the software that you produced doesn't it.

Explorer.exe still is a web browser without Internet Explorer (it's also the file manager, Taskbar UI Handler and Desktop handler). If I recall correctly, Explorer.exe will fallback on Internet Explorer 6 in Windows if Internet Explorer 7 or higher does not exist.

However, ReactOS is different, they plan to strip this feature. Also, no Browser will be bundled with ReactOS, ReactOS only plans to bundle what is needed to boot and function with generic drivers.

[Techsnap]

The point is, how comes it's one rule for one company and another rule for another. It's fine for Ubuntu to include Firefox by default and not Opera, Chrome etc. But when Windows includes IE it's an immoral monopoly.

[benj1]

Would there be a problem if Ubuntu ships with Firefox? No, because it already does. All you say then is, Remove Firefox if you don't like it and use something else. DO THE SAME ON WINDOWS THEN.

have you tried removing IE from windows?

plus comparing ubuntu to windows is incorrect, you should be comparing windows to linux, where you have a choice of many browsers, although i would expect that if ubuntu gained 90%+ market share that there would be similar controls on what it distributed.

[Techsnap]

plus comparing ubuntu to windows is incorrect, you should be comparing windows to linux, where you have a choice of many browsers, although i would expect that if ubuntu gained 90%+ market share that there would be similar controls on what it distributed.

I'm going on popularity here. Ubuntu is the most popular distro apparently.

Have you tried removing Firefox from Ubuntu? Granted you can remove the browser but when you install Firefox it pulls in a whole bunch of other goodies such as xulrunner which can be very annoying to remove and usually results in me having to trick apt by editing /var/lib/dpkg/status to change the depends line so it doesn't decide to remove the whole of Gnome or something.

[del_diablo]

The point is, how comes it's one rule for one company and another rule for another. It's fine for Ubuntu to include Firefox by default and not Opera, Chrome etc. But when Windows includes IE it's an immoral monopoly.

GET THE ...... heck into a book and start learning marketing rules and regulations.
A "dominant company" may not bundle something with their product to get dominance in another marked(Ex: Bundeling IE with Windows). This is the reason EU is doing this, the real problem is that MS along with Intel(& others) is stationed in USA: Which means a lazy government which does not regulate the marked(you regulate the marked to maintain a free marked, a 100% free marked is impossible as it would collapse under its own weight).

Another theory that is proven true: "In a working marked, no company may aquire more than 90% marked share."(if you disagree, debate against it properly).

[Techsnap]

It doesn't matter if they're a monopoly or not, Windows is still the better product. If their product was crap do you really think that OEMs would have used it for so long, of course not. They would have pulled out whilst it was new.

[red_Marvin]

@Techsnap: Then, in that case it's approaching bad too, but it could be argued that it being an open source system does give the possibility of removal.
Another argument that I've seen is the fact that Microsoft's market domination does offset the rules, ie linux etc can get away with it since they are in a vast minority position.

[del_diablo]

It doesn't matter if they're a monopoly or not

It does matter.


Windows is still the better product. If their product was crap do you really think that OEMs would have used it for so long, of course not. They would have pulled out whilst it was new.

Monopoly, and a unnatural high percent of the desktop marked equals a automatic self sustainment, along with growing slowy into other markeds.
The OEM's don't break it. The entire situation along with how it happend is a complex piece, the point is that integrating IE with Windows is one of the major violations. One of many that MS has done since after starting to getting higher marked share, and its about bloody time somebody set down the boot and them and said stop properly.
Windows is at the moment an inferior product, the only superior thing they got is that D3D got tesselation before openGL(who will aquire it sooner orl ater).

Either you stop speaking non-sense or you argue properly. The reason i say so is because AFTER the entire court case went to the news i have seen idiots spewing out pure idiocy or even ignore facts, i have argued against ignorant people who got no clue on the marked or marked laws.
No, really. Argue seriously.

[Xbehave]

It doesn't matter if they're a monopoly or not
Yes it does that's why it's called monopoly law.


If their product was crap do you really think that OEMs would have used it for so long, of course not.
The point is that they threatened OEMs if they offered competing products. Not only did they do this wrt other operating systems, but when netscapre were producing a browser competing with IE, Microsoft threatened OEMs that they would be charged more for copies of windows, if OEMs shipped netscapre instead of IE. That is using market dominance in one area to hurt competitors in another, that is illegal.


Have you tried removing Firefox from Ubuntu? Granted you can remove the browser but when you install Firefox it pulls in a whole bunch of other goodies such as xulrunner which can be very annoying to remove and usually results in me having to trick apt by editing /var/lib/dpkg/status to change the depends line so it doesn't decide to remove the whole of Gnome or something.
What are you talking about

sudo apt-get remove xulrunner
IE is tied into windows.

[Techsnap]

sudo apt-get remove xulrunner

Last time I did that it wanted to remove a whole load of other stuff, perhaps it's changed now but it certainly was annoying a few years ago.

[Alex Libman]

(1) Shame on all Europeans that they've allowed their governments to become so tyrannical that it can just dictate to a private company what it can or cannot do! :(


(2) We finally have a Web browser that is truly free software - Chromium. It's still a little rough around the edges, especially when it comes to its add-on selection, but in a few months there simply won't be any good reason to use anything else!

[Marvin666]

If windows is gonna have IE they should at least avoid creating dependancies to it, and provide an uninstall mechanism for it. The same goes for windows media player, outlook, and windows messenger. It wouldn't kill them to include firefox, vlc, thunderbird, and pidgin or a similar set as alternatives though...

[Techsnap]

include firefox, vlc, thunderbird, and pidgin or a similar set as alternatives though...

Then people will complain that Windows is bloated, they simply can't win. It's their product and they'll do what they like with it..

[Colonel Kilkenny]

(1) Shame on all Europeans that they've allowed their governments to become so tyrannical that it can just dictate to a private company what it can or cannot do! :(


Shame on all americans that they've allowed their government and states to become so tyrannical that they have dictated (and tried to dictate) multiple times what a private company can do and cannot do. US of A and multiple states in the US of A have had similar antitrust cases against Microsoft multiple times. But hey, let's forget the facts.

Back to topic.
Microsoft got what they deserved. They broke the laws. Too bad this decision didn't come years ago when it was needed. During these years Microsoft managed to break the whole WWW for all of us. Microsoft actively worked so that other browser vendors wouldn't be able to compete (one example: http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2003/02/14/ ).
Now it is 2009, soon 2010, and IE (which has gotten much much better with IE8 ) is also suffering because of Microsoft's earlier actions. IE has a compatibility list because
a) they broke the web with IE6 and IE7.
b) during the IE6 era Microsoft actively worked against standards.

It's okay for me if some idiots want to use broken WWW and fight with incompatibility problems but from my point of view: thanks to EC MS probably realizes that they shouldn't have messed with my WWW.

[Xbehave]

Last time I did that it wanted to remove a whole load of other stuff, perhaps it's changed now but it certainly was annoying a few years ago.
I don't use gnome, but all it would remove are packages that need it, you can have a xuless ubuntu, you can't have an ie less windows
At a glance everything that uses xul runner seams reasonable (a few browsers, yelp and eclipse), with ie it's tied into everything (or so ms claim).


(1) Shame on all Europeans that they've allowed their governments to become so tyrannical that it can just dictate to a private company what it can or cannot do!
LOL, It's called regulation,
1) it prevents a company abusing its power [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices)
2) Lack of it is what got us into the current economic mess
3) The US has similar laws. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft)

Btw it isn't just MS that get investigated

In 2004, Which? magazine complained to the European Commission about the higher prices in UK for the same songs sold in the EU. Typically 0.99 Euro in EU and 79 pence in the UK. [1] In 2008 the Commission withdrew its investigation after Apple agreed to end the price discrimination.
Intel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corporation#Anti-competitive_allegations_by_regulatory_bodies) (japan,eu,us,south korea have all taken action/are taking against the)

[benj1]

(1) Shame on all Europeans that they've allowed their governments to become so tyrannical that it can just dictate to a private company what it can or cannot do! :(

checks and balances. they dont have the right to dictate under normal circumstances, but if MS starts dictating (which they have even less right to do) some one needs to protect the consumer and everyone else.


(2) We finally have a Web browser that is truly free software - Chromium. It's still a little rough around the edges, especially when it comes to its add-on selection, but in a few months there simply won't be any good reason to use anything else!
why is firefox not free software,(or iceweasel if you're that way inclined (or all the rest of the open source browsers))?

[Alex Libman]

Shame on all americans that they've allowed their government and states to become so tyrannical that they have dictated (and tried to dictate) multiple times what a private company can do and cannot do. US of A and multiple states in the US of A have had similar antitrust cases against Microsoft multiple times. [...]

I am not an "American", I am a sovereign individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership) and a tax resister, but even if I was, your would still be an ad hominem (by association) argument that isn't a legitimate rebuttal to my original point.



Microsoft got what they deserved. They broke the laws. [...]

If "the laws" told you to just off a bridge, or to turn in run-away slaves / minorities, would you do it?



During these years Microsoft managed to break the whole WWW for all of us.

Billions of people voluntarily chose to use Microsoft software. The only evil that Microsoft has done is used the governments to do their bidding for them through a baseless legal construct called "intellectual property" (copyright, implicit licenses, patents, etc). That evil came from the government, not Microsoft itself, which could have still made a profit through explicit business contracts, hardware bundling, education, certification, and other services.



Microsoft actively worked so that other browser vendors wouldn't be able to compete (one example: http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2003/02/14/ ).

Microsoft has no obligation to act against its self-interest for the good of Opera or anyone else, just as you have no obligation to use Microsoft software, hardware, services, Web-sites, etc. The same applies to the Webmasters who chose to design their sites for the actual standards of the marketplace.

[Alex Libman]

checks and balances. they dont have the right to dictate under normal circumstances, but if MS starts dictating (which they have even less right to do) some one needs to protect the consumer and everyone else.

I don't think any people would be willing to involuntarily pay taxes to Microsoft, use its fiat currency, or fight a war for it, as they would for a violence-based criminal monopoly that calls itself "government". Every single penny Microsoft earns in the free market is its proportional reward for bringing value to its consumers.



why is firefox not free software,(or iceweasel if you're that way inclined (or all the rest of the open source browsers))?

Firefox has a (semi)copyleft licence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox#Licensing) - one might say it's 100% "free as in beer" and about 80% "free as in freedom" - that is free until you start borrowing / imitating ideas from its source code for other projects. There are many circumstances where GPL'ed software just cannot be used, including people like me, who want to avoid it on ethical grounds whenever possible.

A BSD-licensed browser like a degooglefied Chromium fork is also 100% "free as in beer" but about 99% "free as in freedom" - the only licensing restrictions you may face is if you borrow the code without attribution, but I don't think anyone will ever lose much money in legal / enforcement costs over that.

[trixman]

its there call microsoft , but i for one would never use IE. never liked it at all. when i was using windows years ago and i found netscape in the computer stores i gladly paid for the browser and loved it.

[Skripka]

checks and balances. they dont have the right to dictate under normal circumstances, but if MS starts dictating (which they have even less right to do) some one needs to protect the consumer and everyone else.


Huh?

Just exactly how is this "protecting the consumer"?

ANY consumer can use whatever browser they want, whenever they want-especially on Windows. The only possible exception that Microsoft is directly responsible for being Windows Update. Sure it would be nice if you could fully remove IE from Windows and use another file manager, but that has NOTHING to do with web browser markets.

Microsoft includes IE by default. How is this "forcing" or "dictating" what web browser you or I use????? Installing and using Firefox instead is 3 easy steps away. It takes more effort to tie your shoes than it does to NOT-use-Internet-Explorer. Why can KDE include Konqueror by default by that reasoning? Or HaikuOS or Ubuntu include Firefox by default? How does including a default browser inhibit the consumer from choosing a better browser?

Dumb call by the EU.

[ssj6akshat]

If MS wants to bundle an OS they should bundle a quality browser that adheres to W3C Standards.

[RiceMonster]

If MS wants to bundle an OS they should bundle a quality browser that adheres to W3C Standards.

While still horribly behind, IE is slowly improving in this regard.

[newbie2]

http://www.chromefans.org/chrome-news/google-released-chromium-os-open-source-project.htm

http://www.chromeforchristmas.com/

http://www.ditii.com/2009/12/14/chrome-for-christmas-gift-site-launched/

I send me as test this 'christmas gift' ... and i must say that this Chrome browser is really fast ...
:cool:

[Xbehave]

ANY consumer can use whatever browser they want, whenever they want-especially on Windows.
You seriously need to learn to read, the point is that OEMs could not ship other browsers or other operating systems because of threats by MS (i.e if you ship with netscape we will charge you twice as much for windows)


Sure it would be nice if you could fully remove IE from Windows and use another file manager, but that has NOTHING to do with web browser markets.
Explorer != iexporer, just because they use the same frontend for their file browser doesn't mean the webbrowser should be tied to their OS

Microsoft includes IE by default. How is this "forcing" or "dictating" what web browser you or I use?????#
Again learn to read, the forcing came when they threatened OEMs


Why can KDE include Konqueror by default by that reasoning?
Call me when KDE say, fine if you ship with firefox we'll charge you more for using kwin.


Dumb call by the EU.
Again try actually reading this thread before spewing your nonsense and you'll see that there have been cases brought against MS by the US too.

[benj1]

Huh?

Just exactly how is this "protecting the consumer"?

if MS hadn't have bundled IE with windows for free do you think it would have the market share it does?
no, they have used that market share to essentially force their own web standards on us, thet isn't good for consummers. additionally up until firefox came along IE was alot worse than it is now, lack of competition meant with were stuck with a rubbish browser, again not good for the consumer




Firefox has a (semi)copyleft licence - one might say it's 100% "free as in beer" and about 80% "free as in freedom" - that is free until you start borrowing / imitating ideas from its source code for other projects. There are many circumstances where GPL'ed software just cannot be used, including people like me, who want to avoid it on ethical grounds whenever possible.

A BSD-licensed browser like a degooglefied Chromium fork is also 100% "free as in beer" but about 99% "free as in freedom" - the only licensing restrictions you may face is if you borrow the code without attribution, but I don't think anyone will ever lose much money in legal / enforcement costs over that.

thats why i included iceweasel in brackets.

im confused that that you only class firefox as 80% free but chromium as 99% free (due to code attribution), i assume firefox loses marks because you can't use the firefox name if you make changes.
to me theyre both sides of the same coin, attributing code to the correct person, and not attributing code to a person that didn't write it, which is what the mozilla license essentially does. why does firefox lose so many more marks?

[koenn]

... your would still be an ad hominem (by association) argument that isn't a legitimate rebuttal to my original point.

So you think this is a valid point :

Shame on all Europeans that they've allowed their governments to become so tyrannical that it can just dictate to a private company what it can or cannot do!


But this isn't :

Shame on all americans that they've allowed their government and states to become so tyrannical that they have dictated (and tried to dictate) multiple times what a private company can do and cannot do.


interesting.

[Skripka]

if MS hadn't have bundled IE with windows for free do you think it would have the market share it does?
no, they have used that market share to essentially force their own web standards on us, thet isn't good for consummers. additionally up until firefox came along IE was alot worse than it is now, lack of competition meant with were stuck with a rubbish browser, again not good for the consumer


I think it is TERRIBLE that all the auto companies force us into monopolies, by selling us cars with engines. If cars were sold without engines included, the market for cars and engines would be far better now.


Does that sound at all wacked? Because that is basically what this EU decision is.

People can choose at ANY time to install a different browser. Why don't they? Because they are lazy, and Internet Explorer "works good enuff". All this decision does is force consumers into making choices they aren't educated about. Most computer users out there don't know what a browser even is, much less what W3C is, or what the difference between a "good" browser and a "bad" one. All this decision does is force Microsoft to write a whole bunch more code, for negligible benefit to anyone, at great expense.

This ruling will NOT change the browser market. The EU commission is delusional for thinking it will.

Most people still using IE are using it either because of corporate IT policy, or because they downright don't care about browsers. The former will likely not care about "choices" now being offered, and it is unlikely the later will either.

[BrokenKingpin]

I think they should be able to include it in their operating system.

[benj1]

I think it is TERRIBLE that all the auto companies force us into monopolies, by selling us cars with engines. If cars were sold without engines included, the market for cars and engines would be far better now.


Does that sound at all wacked? Because that is basically what this EU decision is.

People can choose at ANY time to install a different browser. Why don't they? Because they are lazy, and Internet Explorer "works good enuff". All this decision does is force consumers into making choices they aren't educated about. Most computer users out there don't know what a browser even is, much less what W3C is, or what the difference between a "good" browser and a "bad" one. All this decision does is force Microsoft to write a whole bunch more code, for negligible benefit to anyone, at great expense.

This ruling will NOT change the browser market. The EU commission is delusional for thinking it will.

Most people still using IE are using it either because of corporate IT policy, or because they downright don't care about browsers. The former will likely not care about "choices" now being offered, and it is unlikely the later will either.

we have a choice of different cars with different engines, all cars are compatible (they can all use the same roads) we don't have a choice with windows, its a monopoly, im sure if any one car company had a monopoly governments would be much more involved in regulating them then they have with windows/microsoft up to this point.

i agree people can install different browsers, unfortunately they don't (can't?), as i said in my previous post, would IE have such a large market share if it wasn't because it was bundled in with windows, certainly the quality of it doesn't explain its dominance.

[Alex Libman]

[...] im confused that that you only class firefox as 80% free but chromium as 99% free [...]

A piece of software loses points on my "Software Freedom Scale (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=28400)" for any reliance on government force (in addition to the obvious things like DRM, EULA that forbids copying, etc). That means Public Domain is the freest, followed by the "just cover our legal butts" licenses like BSD, followed by semi-copyleft licenses like parts of Firefox, followed by GPL (with newer versions growing more restrictive), followed by things like MLPL, etc. I also considered including the history of the software into the scale, like if it its creation / open-sourcing came about as the result of government coercion (ex. publicly-funded universities, research grants, etc), but decided to let bygones be bygones.



So you think this is a valid point [...] But this isn't [...] interesting.

They are both valid points against government force, and I agree with both (except that the "shame" doesn't apply to dissidents / tax resisters like myself). However, your point is not a valid rebuttal to my point, for the reasons stated above.



[...] we don't have a choice with windows, its a monopoly, im sure if any one car company had a monopoly [...]

It most certainly is not! The only true monopoly (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/monopoly.html) that has ever existed is the regional monopoly of government. When it comes to anything else, there's always a choice. Historically there were many software packages to choose from, but Microsoft was the best (at least from the point of view of the average user).

[Skripka]

certainly the quality of it doesn't explain its dominance.

Grasshopper, as I said-there ten to be 2 groups of IE users today. Corp IT. And folks who do not care (andmost often have a bare minimum of computer knowledge/skills). That explains the dominance you continue to be mystified about.


So, Apple is allowed to sell an entire OS that only runs on their hardware...yet Microsoft can't sell a browser buindled with their OS...that a user can install and use any browser they choose at any time? I think that is FAR more of a monopoly than this ridiculous web browser thing.

Mozilla can't convert IT, and apathetic users...so they do what every company does-they use and abuse the government to do it's job for them.

[Xbehave]

I think it is TERRIBLE that all the auto companies force us into monopolies, by selling us cars with engines. If cars were sold without engines included, the market for cars and engines would be far better now.
But OEMs can ship cars with different engines and face no threats from the engine or car producers for doing so.


This ruling will NOT change the browser market. The EU commission is delusional for thinking it will.
I agree, the EU didn't have it's act together when this matter (when the crimes where actually taking place) but that doesn't mean that MS should get away with being unpunished.

[benj1]

A piece of software loses points on my "Software Freedom Scale (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=28400)" for any reliance on government force (in addition to the obvious things like DRM, EULA that forbids copying, etc). That means Public Domain is the freest, followed by the "just cover our legal butts" licenses like BSD, followed by semi-copyleft licenses like parts of Firefox, followed by GPL (with newer versions growing more restrictive), followed by things like MLPL, etc. I also considered including the history of the software into the scale, like if it its creation / open-sourcing came about as the result of government coercion (ex. publicly-funded universities, research grants, etc), but decided to let bygones be bygones.

interesting thoughts, not sure i agree, but each to their own


It most certainly is not! The only true monopoly (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/monopoly.html) that has ever existed is the regional monopoly of government. When it comes to anything else, there's always a choice. Historically there were many software packages to choose from, but Microsoft was the best (at least from the point of view of the average user).
to have a monopoly you dont need to control 100% of the market

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly)


In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

that is why they have been taken to task under anti-monopoly laws



Grasshopper, as I said-there ten to be 2 groups of IE users today. Corp IT. And folks who do not care (andmost often have a bare minimum of computer knowledge/skills). That explains the dominance you continue to be mystified about.

exactly, we need to make it easier for the 2nd group to install alternatives


So, Apple is allowed to sell an entire OS that only runs on their hardware...yet Microsoft can't sell a browser buindled with their OS...that a user can install and use any browser they choose at any time? I think that is FAR more of a monopoly than this ridiculous web browser thing.

Mozilla can't convert IT, and apathetic users...so they do what every company does-they use and abuse the government to do it's job for them.

interesting point but apple doesn't have a monopoly of the os market, this case was investigated under anti-monopoly laws, although it would be nice for the EU to look into some of the 'interesting' tactics apple use.

PS i think it was opera that brought this latest complaint, i know netscape have made a complaint in the past, im not sure that mozilla have ever instigated a complaint

[Skripka]

exactly, we need to make it easier for the 2nd group to install alternatives


Wha?

You're all for forcing Microsoft into spending millions of dollars...because downloading and double-clicking an executable installer is too hard?????

Rly?

EDIT: The complaint was made by Opera, over microsoft's refusal to comply with W3C, although I'm not entirely sure how far they were pushing the unbundling issue. ...Unbundling was 1 remedy to code compliance, having IE be W3C was the other.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/12/opera-tries-to-force-ie-into-w3c-compliance-with-eu-complaint-firefoxs-success-may-work-against-it.ars
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/02/mozilla-call-for-eu-intervention-in-browser-war-is-troubling.ars

[koenn]

The Windows monopoly in the desktop market means that a bundled IE will automatically have a large market share. Since one needs a browser to have access to the web, "compatibility with IE" becomes a major factor in the development of websites, web aplications and web services, rather than compliance with open standards and protocols. Microsoft can (and most likely will try to) use this to establish dominance in the server market by developing proprietary server side technolology that works well IE, while standard-compliant browsers lag behind. So to use "the latest technology", you'll be using both windows servers and windows clients.

And before you ask, no Open standards/source projects can't counter this or "innovate MS out of existance", not only because they're open, but also because they do not have that monopoly that is needed to bootstrap an evolution like this.

Either you consider this a good evolution, or you think that whatever the free marker leads to must be OK, or you think some body, say the EU, should try to regulate this stuff. That's a matter of opinion.
I think some regulation in cases like these is desirable.

[squilookle]

I'm a web developer and not a fan of Microsoft, and I definately can't stand Internet Explorer.

However, I believe that Microsoft make an OS, and they should have the right to bundle their own browser with it.

Users have always been free to download and install any other browser they wish, and I don't think this will make things better anyway. When some people start their shiney new Windows and find a ballot screen asking what browser they want to use, surely they'll choose the blue e theyre familiar with anyway and we'll be in same position we are now.

If we want to look at monopolies, how about we get Apple to allow browsers other than Safari in the App store? I do believe you still do not have the freedom to choose you browser on the iphone?

[koenn]

If we want to look at monopolies, how about we get Apple to allow browsers other than Safari in the App store? I do believe you still do not have the freedom to choose you browser on the iphone?
that's just about bundling, not about monopoly.

[user11]

You all keep saying that the operating system is their product, over, and over, and over...what you are all forgetting is the IE is also their "product"...a separate product.

The problem is that many people don't even now other browsers exist, which is sad but true. This is due to MS monopolization of institutions where people learn about such applications. So as a result, many people out there still go "what's a Firefox? Is it an Explorer?" The right thing to do is to correct this by ripping out Microsoft's claws of misinformation and corruption in every learning institution and work environment, such as places that BAN Firefox (ex: City University of New York)

Going after MS for bundling multiple products into one package guised as just an OS is kind of a jack-***** way of going about it, but it is approaching an important problem none the less.

[Skripka]

You all keep saying that the operating system is their product, over, and over, and over...what you are all forgetting is the IE is also their "product"...a separate product.

The problem is that many people don't even now other browsers exist, which is sad but true. This is due to MS monopolization of institutions where people learn about such applications. So as a result, many people out there still go "what's a Firefox? Is it an Explorer?" The right thing to do is to correct this by ripping out Microsoft's claws of misinformation and corruption in every learning institution and work environment, such as places that BAN Firefox (ex: City University of New York)

Going after MS for bundling multiple products into one package guised as just an OS is kind of a jack-***** way of going about it, but it is approaching an important problem none the less.

And giving a browser selection dialogue on 1st boot is going to magically cure operator ignorance? You folks are funny.

[user1397]

I think if they are forced to not install something by default it should be windows...

Maybe MS should be forced to build their own hardware/software PCs like Apple, and then leave the rest of the PC market on its own...and then maybe linux would be more popular?

Like you would go into BestBuy and see one isle with macs, one isle with microsoft PCs, and thirteen isles of linux boxes...:)

[squilookle]

W
that's just about bundling, not about monopoly.

sorry koenn, I don't quite understand what you are wsaying there.

To clarify what I am saying, although I am aware the pc and phone browser markets are not the same, is ms have the dominant browser and os in the pc market and can now not simply bundle the browser with the os because they have a monopoly. however, you could always easily install alternative software.

Apple have a very popular phone with its os (I read today that the use of the iphone has now overtaken that of windows mobile, I'll post the link when I'm next at the pc if anyone wants it) and they bundle a browser with the phone. you cannot replace that browser.
Other browsers exist and other phone os's allow different browsers to be installed, so even though I'm comparing apples with pears here, I don't see why apples practice of keeping other browsers out of the app store is ok, but microsoft bundling a popular browser that can easily be replaced anyway, is not ok.

[Xbehave]

Apple have a very popular phone with its os (I read today that the use of the iphone has now overtaken that of windows mobile, I'll post the link when I'm next at the pc if anyone wants it)
You are still talking about very little market share 14% (iphone) vs 9% (windows) and the having of the share itself isn't the problem it's the illegal tricks (i.e breaking interoperability once they had dominance and threatening OEMs to not ship with alternative browsers) that have cause the problems. In the unlikely event that the iphone every gets >70% smartphone market share, then perhaps the two situations would be comparable, but they do not so the situations are not. A more fair compassion would be windows to symbian = windows, but Nokia did not own symbian until recently and they have not been caught harassing OEMs, so even in that comparision it's clear why MS deserved to be fined and not nokia.


I don't see why apples practice of keeping other browsers out of the app store is ok, but microsoft bundling a popular browser that can easily be replaced anyway, is not ok.
The main difference (there are others) is that apple have 14% (smart phones) market share and windows have 88% (desktop).

edit: just to make it clear apple (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=apple+anti-trust) do get looked at for anti-trust cases but haven't been caught doing anything wrong yet (AFAIK)

[starcannon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8415902.stm


I am just curious.. What do you think? As a Ubuntu user I really couldn't care less but I actually think that if M$ wants to put only IE on Pindows (which is his product) it should...

What do you think?
I think that monopolies are very dangerous, and that corporations like MS must be kept in check. I thank the EU for doing what could never be done here in the U.S.

I do not want to see MS destroyed, but I would like to see them reigned in. I also hope that Apple is being watch closely; it seems to me some of their tactics make MS's past business ethics look angelic in comparison.

I don't begrudge anyone making money, it is how the world works; I do begrudge someone trying to muscle my hardware though. I use Linux, it lets me own my hardware; and I can use any browser I wish, even IE, though I only find it useful for testing webpages(I actually resent that I have to use it for that much).

Anyway, I think more needs done, and I have no problem at all with government telling a corporation what it may, and may not do; indeed, it is a function of government that all to often is not used when it should be, particularly in the computer/tech/IT world.

[squilookle]

The main difference (there are others) is that apple have 14% (smart phones) market share and windows have 88% (desktop).


You are not wrong. :)

[mess110]

after reading different opinions I kinda altered my own..

Come to thing of it I never managed to remove IE from Windows.. When I did windows stopped working.

On the other hand I also find it stupid that EU can dictate to a private company..

On a programming point of view. I hate IE because it really doesn't respect the WWW standards.They are using their "popularity" to force programmers to write websites according to "their" standards. If this is why EU made that change than there actually is hope for humanity.

mess110 out

[jtuchscherer]

Somehow I have the feeling that most of the people here don't have a historical perspective.

The Trace Commission failed to recognize how Microsoft was abusing its monopoly in the OS market during the first real browser war (IE vs Netscape). Netscape basically seized to exist, because they had no chance against Microsoft's preinstalled browser. If the EU had forced MS to integrate a browser option screen during the windows install process, we all would benefit from more competition and innovation in the browser market. We probably lost three or four years where no innovation happened in the browser market while IE had a share of 95%.

Read this for more details on the browser war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars

[AndThenWhat]

Ever since Google Chrome for Linux has been out, the battle has been won for me.

[konqueror7]

Ever since Google Chrome for Linux has been out, the battle has been won for me.

that is a purely subjective conclusion...without these 'wars', browsers today wouldn't be this function rich.

[Kazade]

On the other hand I also find it stupid that EU can dictate to a private company..

They sell in the EU, they have to follow their rules.

Microsoft is a monopoly in the OS market, they should NOT install IE by default in Windows AND make it un-removable. That is using their OS monopoly to leverage their browser share. That is against the law.

That said, they should have been punished a few years earlier, when IE6 had 90% of the market. Not now that the browser monopoly has been broken.

Now, the REAL problem of course, is we have a monopoly in the OS market in the first place. If you think how much the web stagnated when IE6 had no sizable competition, now imagine where we could be if Windows was having to innovate and compete to stay alive.

[yester64]

I welcome the EU ruling.
MS uses his monopoly to integrate their product and to limit your choices in what to use.
No other company forces you to use their products. You will not find a standart brower in the Mac OS or Linux. Or any other OS out there.
The Internet Explorer is so integral to the OS that it is virtually impossible to live with out it.
You can not update your OS without using IE. It is just not possible.
Of course you can argue that it is MS product and as such, it has the right to impose limiting choices of consumers.
Is that what people want? Or should live with?
Not to forget that you get a bug ridden product which compromises your system.
I don't know why our watchdogs don't limit MS's position to give people real choices. I'll guess that it is only possible outside of america.

[yester64]

after reading different opinions I kinda altered my own..

Come to thing of it I never managed to remove IE from Windows.. When I did windows stopped working.

On the other hand I also find it stupid that EU can dictate to a private company..

On a programming point of view. I hate IE because it really doesn't respect the WWW standards.They are using their "popularity" to force programmers to write websites according to "their" standards. If this is why EU made that change than there actually is hope for humanity.

mess110 out

MS declares standarts as in we own the biggest marketshare. MS is the big brother of today.

[Pogeymanz]

I sympathised with MS on this issue, they weren't stopping users from installing another browser; all they did was provide their browser by default on their OS. The EC does a lot of good, but it also makes a lot of bad calls.

I agree. The issue I had with the "Browser wars" was that Microsoft intentionally changed the Windows API to not work well with third-party browsers. THAT was anti-competitive; not the stupid IE installed by default thing.

[gjoellee]

Does not Mac come with Safari installed. It's the same thing there...

Ubuntu comes with Firefox, it is kind of the same thing, but it is not maintained by Mozilla.

By the way...Internet Explorer does not completely uninstall if you remove it in with the remove windows software tool. It is located in Programfiles\Internet Explorer. And even though I have it "uninstalled" and never use it, it somehow creates cookies/history for some reason.

[yester64]

Does not Mac come with Safari installed. It's the same thing there...

Ubuntu comes with Firefox, it is kind of the same thing, but it is not maintained by Mozilla.

By the way...Internet Explorer does not completely uninstall if you remove it in with the remove windows software tool. It is located in Programfiles\Internet Explorer. And even though I have it "uninstalled" and never use it, it somehow creates cookies/history for some reason.

Well, yes it does. But you can toss them away and use something different.
I use Epiphany and not Firefox.

[Jekshadow]

IE is integrated into Windows, and very hard (if possible) to remove. Firefox can be removed from Ubuntu with a simple "sudo apt-get remove firefox". That is the difference.

MS can bundle things with their OS, and the customer decided to give up their freedom of choice when they decided to "license" (not buy) Windows from MS. If the consumer wanted the freedom of choice, they could have chosen a Linux distro, a variant of BSD, a GNU Hurd based OS or another open source/free software operating system. The loss of freedom is the price that the consumer pays for using an operating system controlled by the company that licenses it, as opposed to the user.

[jtuchscherer]

MS can bundle things with their OS, and the customer decided to give up their freedom of choice when they decided to "license" (not buy) Windows from MS.

You are missing the point here. MS is abusing its monopoly. That is the reason for the EU ruling. It doesn't have anything to do with your freedom or Linux or anything else.