Kirkatronics Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Rather than bundeling would they get away with the first time you start up IE you get a starrtup page with a line or two on what a browser is and how to find alternatives to suite you?
Pit-Jr Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Im glad that Microsoft had the foresight to supply me with a functioning browser to use as soon as Windows finished setting up. So maybe Mozilla and Google should STFU and make their own OS (assuming they had any pull in the lawsuit) Maybe the US Commerce Dept should sue Nintendo for not only using Opera exclusively, but charging for it. At least money is changing hands in this instance. Of course that would be ridiculous just as the MS suit is. Just another example of frivolous lawsuits at the expense of the taxpayer
nightwolf Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 The smartest motherfucker in this thread - as he says, t'is fuck all to do with money, if any of you studied Europe you'd know. MS may be rich but the EU makes 'em look like a small cornershop business. I imagine the reasons for this are far more legitimate than they may seem - one being that MS can be a right bunch of dicks. Even still my comment still stands, I honestly think if Firefox and Opera want people to use their browsers then why haven't they been clever enough to make their own OS? It's common knowledge that Mircosoft aren't the best company in the world, but it's still unfair to force a company to share it's profits with other browsers just because they are making more money! Yeah, but you're implying all these people that use it are idiots because they could download another program but don't because they obviously don't realise there are others Actually you'd be surprised how many people don't know that much about computers, least of all browsers. Being in the age group we are, we have the ability to know quite alot about technology, but even so, without putting a percentage on it, alot of people don't know all that much. I have a person on games design who didn't know how to turn a pc on. Never mind change a browser. Roadkill - you are very welcome. As a personal issue rather than seeing it as a whole, I could live with IE being removed and having to install a seperate browser through a disc, but the question asks as to whether this disc would be free, another way for a company to make money through me. I also wouldn't have a problem with several browsers on my computer, it's easy enough to uninstall and use the one I desire (Firefox), but should I really need to do that? Why can't things be choice instead of it being forced upon me. In the end I like the system as it is, many people use IE whereas others use Firefox because they know ideally it's a better browser to use, but it's adapting people to change.. EDIT: I always hate posting in these types of discussions, always feel as though I'm going to get ''YOUR ARE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!'' :P
Gizmo Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Even still my comment still stands, I honestly think if Firefox and Opera want people to use their browsers then why haven't they been clever enough to make their own OS? Because it's just that simple.
Aimless Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Because it's just that simple. I think what nightwolf is getting at is that Microsoft worked for their position in the market. As you say making an OS isn't simple, but MS have done fairly well out of theirs, haven't they? They put the investment in, they took the chance, so why should they be penalised for doing well? As for my view, I've no issue with IE coming pre-installed on computers. The fact is I could go online with said machine and have a different browser installed within 10 minutes, so it's hardly some huge inconvenience. And for those users who are less tech savvy — i.e. the vast majority of people using PCs — they just want something that works out of the box. If I asked my parents, "Do you want to use Internet Explorer or Firefox?" they wouldn't even have an opinion. (They use Firefox, as it happens, but only because I was the one who set the PC up for them.)
MoogleViper Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 I think what nightwolf is getting at is that Microsoft worked for their position in the market. As you say making an OS isn't simple, but MS have done fairly well out of theirs, haven't they? They put the investment in, they took the chance, so why should they be penalised for doing well? Because the industry is regulated by the government to stop any one company from gaining too large a market share.
McPhee Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 I don't think this is stupid. There's no good reason why IE and WMP aren't at least uninstallable (you can uninstall Safari in OS X for example). Microsoft has dominated the market with an inferior browser way too long, and with it, they're really stopping progress in web development. If they're forced to remove IE though, getting the user to install a web browser is a big challenge. Although you can install Firefox without opening IE, people aren't nerds like some on the Firefox fundamentalists of the web. Problem is, if the Windows installer lets you choose, it'll be confusing for users. Then, which browsers will they show? I assume Firefox, and Opera too because they filed the lawsuit, but Microsoft doesn't even fully support stuff like Silverlight on Opera (yet), and doesn't support ActiveX in any browser but IE. And then there's other browsers like Safari, Chrome, Konqueror... Not to mention all the slight varieties on IE and Firefox (like Flock)... There's probably going to be a list sorted by popularity or something. Surely if you bundle multiple browsers with the OS then the EU are killing competition? They'd either have to bundle literally every single Windows compatable browser with Windows, otherwise they'd be condemning the ones that they don't bundle. With IE as the only choice people will look for alternatives. With IE, FF and Opera bundled very, very few people will bother looking elsewhere. The only way i could see it working is if on first boot you're taken to an app store (in a dedicated program) where you can pick a browser, a media player, an IM app, a photo management tool, an email client, a word processor etc. It does seem a tad extreme though and in order for it to work seamlessly the EU would basically have to force Microsoft to host their competitor's programs.
Shino Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 I think what nightwolf is getting at is that Microsoft worked for their position in the market. As you say making an OS isn't simple, but MS have done fairly well out of theirs, haven't they? They put the investment in, they took the chance, so why should they be penalised for doing well? Because it is a very monopolized market where there's even FREE good alternatives to Windows that don't make it through. But I don't pretend to know a solution to this, they only thing I think possible is them making IE available to download through Windows Update.
Pookiablo Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Even still my comment still stands, I honestly think if Firefox and Opera want people to use their browsers then why haven't they been clever enough to make their own OS? It's common knowledge that Mircosoft aren't the best company in the world, but it's still unfair to force a company to share it's profits with other browsers just because they are making more money! Actually you'd be surprised how many people don't know that much about computers, least of all browsers. Being in the age group we are, we have the ability to know quite alot about technology, but even so, without putting a percentage on it, alot of people don't know all that much. I have a person on games design who didn't know how to turn a pc on. Never mind change a browser. Roadkill - you are very welcome. As a personal issue rather than seeing it as a whole, I could live with IE being removed and having to install a seperate browser through a disc, but the question asks as to whether this disc would be free, another way for a company to make money through me. I also wouldn't have a problem with several browsers on my computer, it's easy enough to uninstall and use the one I desire (Firefox), but should I really need to do that? Why can't things be choice instead of it being forced upon me. In the end I like the system as it is, many people use IE whereas others use Firefox because they know ideally it's a better browser to use, but it's adapting people to change.. EDIT: I always hate posting in these types of discussions, always feel as though I'm going to get ''YOUR ARE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!'' :P I see your point. As for why Firefox haven't made their own OS, well I'm gonna dangerously suggest that it's simply because they're technically in different markets. Otherwise, it's probably because they're not clever enough. Or rich enough. I can see where the EU is coming from. The Internet is a service, which the majority of us must all pay for. Without various browsers at our (known) disposal, Microsoft could technically just pump out any shit, stick IE on it and ship it. We need rife competition between browsers because through that we'll get our innovation for a better IE or a better Opera or whatever. We're paying customers, we deserve excellent service after all, right? Sure, MS own Windows and sure, it's their own system and therefore I agree they should be allowed to control the majority of its aspects. It doesn't own the Internet however, it just provides a gateway to it. Just because they seem to think that IE is the bees knees, doesn't mean it necessarily is. Through competition it just means that we'll get better, more reliable browsers, quicker. This very concept applies for pretty much everything in a free market economy.
Emasher Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 As much as I hate Microsoft, how would they download an alternate browser if they don't have one to begin with. A better solution would be just to have all the major browsers bundled with every OS.
Triple_C Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 As much as I hate Microsoft, how would they download an alternate browser if they don't have one to begin with. A better solution would be just to have all the major browsers bundled with every OS. Wouldn't that deprive smaller, less well known browsers of market share? I'd be happy to let Microsoft bundle IE with Windows, so long as they make it clear there is an alternative.
Emasher Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Wouldn't that deprive smaller, less well known browsers of market share? I'd be happy to let Microsoft bundle IE with Windows, so long as they make it clear there is an alternative. The thing is though. Most people don't care, even though they would probably be happier with another browser, they don't know the difference. If FF was already installed on their machine, they might open it to see what all the fuss is about, but they might not go download it. And they really need to have some sort of browser bundled with the OS, otherwise, its not all that easy to get a browser on it. While it might be a problem for the small browsers. They can't put every browser ever made on the machine, while they probably could, but It would be more annoying than anything tbh. If they had the main 5, at least people might actually realize that there are alternatives. And might go searching for other ones.
Raining_again Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 why the hell should windows have to put the competitions browsers on their operating system?! Its perfectly fine, you aren't locked to any browser at all - there isn't an issue here? Its not Microsoft's fault that people are ignorant to other options. ¬_¬ I like having IE there when I format, means I can find drivers n such easily. And installing several browsers on a computer is a waste of space... As others have said, the competition should create their own operating system... then give consumers the choice when they buy a PC..
Nolan Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 If the competition made an OS it would almost certainly be Linux based, which would make it no different then the many other Linux based OS's really. Besides that, I'm very doubtful a third major player could break into the market already dominated by Windows and fought for by Apple.
EEVILMURRAY Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Not sure if it's been said, but Apple uses Safari as their browser don't they? Why don't the EU sue them as well?
Shino Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Yeah, people need to think before talking (or posting), the way Microsoft dominates the market is difficult, if possible, to beat with a new OS. Besides the HUGE (HUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGEEEE) factor that's having directX as the foundation of gaming development for PC, it also provides free (or near) OS's for schools and academia, along with development tools in its proprietary languages, which indoctrinates entire generations into using its OS. To all those suggesting a new OS, why do you use Windows despite the alternatives being FREE and equally competent? EU's antitrust regulators decisions might be unfair to Microsoft but its certainly better for the consumers. Not sure if it's been said, but Apple uses Safari as their browser don't they? Why don't the EU sue them as well? Good question, maybe they will.
fex Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Not sure if it's been said, but Apple uses Safari as their browser don't they? Why don't the EU sue them as well? If Apple had 90%+ market share then I'm sure they would
Emasher Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Quite a few Mac users will install multiple browsers though. And if someone stole a candy bar, and someone stole a large sum of money, who would you go after (probably not the best analogy, but I couldn't think of anything better at the moment).
RoadKill Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Quite a few Mac users will install multiple browsers though. And if someone stole a candy bar, and someone stole a large sum of money, who would you go after (probably not the best analogy, but I couldn't think of anything better at the moment). I imagine more Mac users use Safari than Windows users use IE, because Mac users are typically rabid about anything Apple squeezes out (as a bonus, webkit is the best rendering engine!) I run Firefox on my my Mac because refresh HAS TO BE F5
MoogleViper Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Not sure if it's been said, but Apple uses Safari as their browser don't they? Why don't the EU sue them as well? They aren't big enough. They are only after microsoft because they dominate the market.
Cube Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 As for "Microsoft has too much of the market". I thought that only mattered when the company was buying out all competitors.
MoogleViper Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 As for "Microsoft has too much of the market". I thought that only mattered when the company was buying out all competitors. No if a company using their own product to limit the competition then the government can step in. They can't tell Microsoft to give up some market share but they can stop them from doing things like pre-installing IE onto their own browser.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 It all boils down to the old socialism vs. liberalism question, doesn't it? "How much should the government regulate the market?"
MoogleViper Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 It all boils down to the old socialism vs. liberalism question, doesn't it? "How much should the government regulate the market?" Well whether they should have done it is a fair debate. But saying that they did it for the sake of it, or just for the money is just ignorance.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Well whether they should have done it is a fair debate. But saying that they did it for the sake of it, or just for the money is just ignorance. Yeah, I don't think the EU would go "Hey, let's sue Microsoft, they have munnies and make crap software!"
Recommended Posts