PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft Antitrust Hearings in Seoul Slated for Tuesday



KingBahamut
August 23rd, 2005, 08:18 PM
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/22/yourmoney/msft.php

More AntiTrust, when will MS learn to conform to other markets rules and regulations regarding patents and conformity.

Obviously never.

Stormy Eyes
August 23rd, 2005, 08:36 PM
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/22/yourmoney/msft.php

More AntiTrust, when will MS learn to conform to other markets rules and regulations regarding patents and conformity.

Obviously never.

Hopefully never, I say. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that Windows XP includes so little in terms of bundled software is a very good argument against using XP. As for the companies whinging -- if their IM programs were so good, why do they need to have the government strong-arm Microsoft the way Netscape and Sun had Uncle Sam strong-arm Microsoft? Can't they compete on their own merits?

drizek
August 23rd, 2005, 09:05 PM
Hopefully never, I say. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that Windows XP includes so little in terms of bundled software is a very good argument against using XP. As for the companies whinging -- if their IM programs were so good, why do they need to have the government strong-arm Microsoft the way Netscape and Sun had Uncle Sam strong-arm Microsoft? Can't they compete on their own merits?
then how do you explain firefox having less than 10% marketshare and internet explorer having 90%?

or that osx+ linux only have about 5% market share while windows has about 95%?

the question is, why cant MS compete on its own merits?

Kimm
August 23rd, 2005, 09:10 PM
then how do you explain firefox having less than 10% marketshare and internet explorer having 90%


Remember that Firefox is not an old project, and winning over 10% of the market at that time is quite the feat! ;-)

(somewhat offtopic however)

earobinson
August 23rd, 2005, 09:25 PM
there is nothing wrong with MS putting explorer with windows, thats like saying ubuntu should not ship with firefox

KingBahamut
August 23rd, 2005, 09:32 PM
Hmmm....theres that market share statement again.

I honestly feel like with the drastically changing climate of the IT world its impossible to assess who has a bigger market share over another. Linux, while relatively new in the field of Desktop computing, has made a fairly consistent and rising climb to where it is now. Fighting the Monopolistic attitude of other businesses is very hard. Hp, Dell, CompUSA, Best Buy, and most other computer retailers sell many , over 90%, of their systems with Windows installed.

Windows market share doesnt come from their ability to provide an stable and accurate system. Windows Market share comes from their ability to bully the market, push the market around, and kick the market onto the pavement breaking its geeky lookin glasses. Shrewd business people , Yes. Willing to undersell to stay atop of the game, most definitely. Will let the CEO of the company they want to be able to fsck them in the hindquarter, not a doubt in my mind.

Thats not a merit of stability.

KingBahamut
August 23rd, 2005, 09:35 PM
earobinson,

no there is no issue with that at all. Its making IE the only choice , and making it relatively uninstallable off the system. If I buy a windows machine, I cant uninstall IE, and IE is so fscking integrated into the OS, that making it go away is so difficult, that I might as well not even try.

If I dont want Firefox in Ubuntu, - apt-get remove mozilla-firefox , then
apt-get install epiphany galeon dillo links elinks lynx konqueror

and thus give myself numerous other choices to use as a Browser instead.

its_jon
August 23rd, 2005, 09:46 PM
Im a Linux newbie.

One of the reasons im here is because I wanted to exclusivly use Firefox in XP.
I had a 3rd party firewall attempting to stop as much M$ chatter as possible.

xequence
August 23rd, 2005, 11:22 PM
One thing I dont get... How is microsoft making any money of internet explorer? They keep trying to push a horrible product onto everyone with IE. I think theyd gain more by putting firefox in, or letting people have a choice. I dont think microsoft will ever learn its lesson though...

Takis
August 23rd, 2005, 11:29 PM
One thing I dont get... How is microsoft making any money of internet explorer? They keep trying to push a horrible product onto everyone with IE. I think theyd gain more by putting firefox in, or letting people have a choice. I dont think microsoft will ever learn its lesson though...
Nah dude. They don't directly gain money through IE, but they'd lose money by providing something else, because they'd be directly exposing non-MS products to all their customers. It's reasonably basic business common-sense, you try not to let your customers know that competition exists.

Do you ever see AMD mention Intel?

xequence
August 23rd, 2005, 11:34 PM
Nah dude. They don't directly gain money through IE, but they'd lose money by providing something else, because they'd be directly exposing non-MS products to all their customers. It's reasonably basic business common-sense, you try not to let your customers know that competition exists.

Do you ever see AMD mention Intel?


AMD put out a full page ad in a big newspaper explaining why intel did bad stuff ;) But thats beside the point.

Well, thanks, I thought about that awhile ago and just remembered so I asked =P

blastus
August 23rd, 2005, 11:50 PM
there is nothing wrong with MS putting explorer with windows, thats like saying ubuntu should not ship with firefox

This analogy is inaccurate.

Firstly, IE is not bundled with Windows. IE is not a separate product that is just included with Windows. IE is a set of core Windows libraries that are necessary for the operation of Windows. When one speaks of IE, one is really speaking about a certain subset of core Windows libraries (WinInet etc...) The IE interface is just that; it is an interface to these core Windows libraries. I know how easy it was to embed the IE interface into any program because I used to create ActiveX controls for a company and these controls could access the entire OS. Without IE, Windows simply cannot function. This tight integration is blatantly obvious by the fact that the upcoming IE7 will not run on anything but XP SP2. This integration is also one of the major reasons why there have been so many security problems with IE. Because IE is a set of core Windows libraries, a flaw in one of those libraries can make the entire OS vulnerable. As mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as uninstalling IE. If you could you would cripple the OS and it would not function.

Furthermore, IE is also a class of web browser, but it is in a class of its own. I know of no other web browser that is so tightly integrated with an OS that the OS needs it to function properly. Ubuntu, on the other hand, can function just fine without Firefox. Firefox (or any other browser) is not part of the core of Ubuntu nor a part of the Linux kernel.

Secondly, the motivation for these two *products* being *included* with the OS is different. Microsoft decided to tightly integrate IE with the core of Windows to help cement their Windows monopoly and facilitate their embrace-extend-extinguish tactics. IE has been a principal tool for Microsoft to realize their EEE strategies. They embrace an open standard and drive out the competition so that their implementation becomes the defacto standard. Then they extend the standard by adding proprietary extensions that make their "standard" incompatible with the existing standard. These proprietary features cause interoperability issues for those not using their "standard." These proprietary features are often called "advanced features" or "innovative features." The existing standard is then practically extinguished forcing everyone to adopt the new "standard."

The Mozilla foundation, on the other hand, does not have any hidden agendas about the goals of Firefox. They are completely against EEE strategies and are all for promoting open standards that facilitate interoperability regardless of what OS you use. If it were up to Microsoft we would all have to use Windows and IE to browse the Internet. For example, some banks require you to use IE to access their websites because they use ActiveX. This is becoming a lesser issue over time because people are waking up to Microsoft's EEE strategies and just won't tolerate it anymore, I know I don't. Fortunately Microsoft got on the Internet way too late in the game to do a lot of damage.

Ubuntu could have just as easily included some other web browser with the default installation. Firefox was probably chosen because it is a popular web browser, that's all. There is nothing in itself wrong with Microsoft making IE a part of Windows. However, given the history of IE, the motivation of IE, and its fatal integration with Windows, the benefits of it have been far outweighed by its problems.

npaladin2000
August 24th, 2005, 06:07 AM
then how do you explain firefox having less than 10% marketshare and internet explorer having 90%?

or that osx+ linux only have about 5% market share while windows has about 95%?

the question is, why cant MS compete on its own merits?

Because people use the stuff pre-packaged with the PC. If Windows came with Firefox they'd use Firefox. Why? Because it's there and people are lazy. ;)

If PCs came with Ubuntu instead of Windows they'd use that instead of installing Windows too.

drizek
August 24th, 2005, 06:44 AM
Because people use the stuff pre-packaged with the PC. If Windows came with Firefox they'd use Firefox. Why? Because it's there and people are lazy. ;)

If PCs came with Ubuntu instead of Windows they'd use that instead of installing Windows too.
exactly. thats what an antitrust case is in the first place. also, its not just user laziness, MS _forces_ people to use IE and windows media player with windows

npaladin2000
August 24th, 2005, 07:29 AM
exactly. thats what an antitrust case is in the first place. also, its not just user laziness, MS _forces_ people to use IE and windows media player with windows

Well, they can hardly FORCE it..of course, they might be working on an "anti-Firefox" "patch" for the OS, but who knows? besides, that would bring the justice department right back down on their heads. Again.

Point is, they'd prefer people use IE, so they show all the market share, so the server that works best with it (IIS/Frontpage) sells a lot more...THAT'S where the money comes in. At least theoretically.

Anyone seen the movie "Antitrust?" Surprise surprise, now IE7 will have tabbed browsing and a built-in RSS aggregator. Sound familiar? Like it might have been filched from some open-source project, and then closed up so no one can tell? I think the Mozilla Foundation should be asking someone to have a look at MS's code for IE7. :)

drizek
August 24th, 2005, 08:10 AM
Well, they can hardly FORCE it..of course, they might be working on an "anti-Firefox" "patch" for the OS, but who knows? besides, that would bring the justice department right back down on their heads. Again.

Point is, they'd prefer people use IE, so they show all the market share, so the server that works best with it (IIS/Frontpage) sells a lot more...THAT'S where the money comes in. At least theoretically.

Anyone seen the movie "Antitrust?" Surprise surprise, now IE7 will have tabbed browsing and a built-in RSS aggregator. Sound familiar? Like it might have been filched from some open-source project, and then closed up so no one can tell? I think the Mozilla Foundation should be asking someone to have a look at MS's code for IE7. :)
no, i heard the rendering engine in IE7 sucks, so it cant be from mozilla.

however, MS DOES force people to use IE. if ie is gone, they can no longer use windows update, which leaves their computer open to attacks. If you install MS money, it REQUIRES IE to be installed. every windows user has IE on their computer, and thats just not right.