LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Redmond software giant Microsoft looks to be heading back to its least favourite place, the EU courts, as web browser maker Opera files an EU antitrust suit accusing Microsoft of stifling competition.
Read more.Redmond software giant Microsoft looks to be heading back to its least favourite place, the EU courts, as web browser maker Opera files an EU antitrust suit accusing Microsoft of stifling competition.
It brings to mind the question: how would you download a replacement browser if you haven't got a browser to search for a replacement with?
Feel Free to add me to your Raptr, XFire, XBL or PSN Friend List
My Steam Profile - Hexus Steam Community
i'd certainly say it's true that web designers are forced to code with IE in mind, rather than the recognised standards. I've spent countless hours fiddling with particular pages within a web-application that work fine within Firefox and Opera, to work with IE and it's maddeningly self-indulgent approach to CSS and JS.
Whether or not it can be argued that they're being non-competitive by bundling it will be an interesting argument. Is there any kind of agreed thought as to how other web-browsers would be made available to the user? Presumably the primary method of delivery of alternative browsers is through download off the web (requiring some kind of browser to start with), making it a bit odd to remove it from the installation of windows in the first place.
Surely it wouldn't be Microsoft's responsibility to chase the developers of alternative browsers for distributions of their software to include into their OS install package? Indeed who would make the decision the the software was mature enough to be considered as a proper alternative to IE?
It is true enough that the OS should be modular enough to allow for bundled apps to be swapped out for third party applications however it should be more down to the user to seek out alternative applications. I might be missing the point a bit here.
I loathe IE with an absolute passion and I would wholeheartedly recommend an alternative to anyone who cared to ask, however I don't see how (excepting providing the facility to remove and replace IE) that it could be sensible to rule that microsoft should unbundle IE entirely. Taking it to the extreme, you're then giving most third party developers the precedent to argue that any software bundled with an OS should be un-bundled and alternatives provided. e.g. being pedantic, some third party chap comes along and claims MS is being anti-competitive because the function of their 'calculator' app is already covered by the bundled calculator app.
I like the Linux approach that you can essentially strip an OS of any unwanted features and completely specify the components you like but in reality, the majority of users out there will stick with the in-built stuff because they don't know any better and I don't see how we're ever going to see a ruling that'll prevent bundled apps.
exactly, i remember reading about the eu forcing ms to unbundle wmp and such free programs in its eu win xp cds. stupid really, why would I want to download realplayer or something else when wmp is just fine. and yea back then i questioned on how would they download if they had no ie to start with but in that article it said that they should include "Other browser software" instead of ie...Originally Posted by Blademrk
although i agree with them complying to css standards. when i was designing a website that was a nightmare. went back to tables in the end.
I really hope that Microsoft win this case..
Think about it, the average user purchases a Windows based system because they want something that works and does most standard things out of the box. They don't want to have to consider the merits of 30 different web browsers, 100 different office applications or 10 different ways to protect against viruses,
In the PC market, compition ISN'T good for the typical PC consumer because it makes things more complicated than they need to be!
The one part of the lawsuit that I think has merit, is that IE doesn't conform to standards that everyone else agrees with. Microsoft shouldn't have an automatic veto on any development of programing standards, it's a bit like the USA saying to NATO "sorry, we're gonna invade Iraq whether you want us to or not because we have the biggest army".
Is apple not guilty of the same abuse for bundling Safari with OSX?
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
Totally agree here, and also think it would be stuid to add other browsers into Windows as well, unless they are giving them away free too, which would kind of take the whole point of the lawsuit away. And I cirtainly don't want any damn trial software installed as default.
exactly, thats what i was thinking when they said microsoft had to remove wmp and put in alternatives like realplayer and such, and real said that microsoft was the cause that some people dont buy their realplayer software and such, and that theirs should be on windows as a trial software so users can eventually go purchase or continue using it. me i absolutely hate the realplayer interface and this was the stupidest thing i'd ever heard. charging ms fines and penalising them for stupid things like this, and then we probably bear some of the costs ie in windows os prices.
Its a real shame web developers can't just stick to the standard and give people who turn up with IE installed the opportunity to download an alternative. You only need a few bit sites to do it and Microsoft will pull their finger out. Although, they only got big because they ~were~ ie compliant.... bummer.
Having a version of windows without a web browser is totally pointless - I doubt weather ff/opera users like myself would even buy it. Life is simpler if you just have it, than if you don't.
Poeple like Real, Opera etc... almost behave as though they believe there are no costs on MS with developing and supporting IE and WMP. People generally want what costs them nothing or the minimum which is MS is obliging, that's the real (pardon the pun) issue.
no, because apple don't actually sell any computers worth talking about. They where getting all excited because they thought they had 2.3% of the USA laptop market share... Wow. If the iPhone actually takes off, then yes they might start to be in an un-fair posistion in but as it stands there not.
A problem that the IE team have is also their legacy. There are still a veritable multitude of websites that just wouldn't render in a true W3C compliant browser, the bizzare thing is MS have a team of people who test their changes against popular websites to help find these out.
When IE4 was brought out there where sod all standards and the focus was on the cool stuff like javascript/active-x/javaapplets. As such people where running off in different directions all trying to implement things in their minds the best way. I still can't belive we don't have a <MEDIA> tag that allows an embedded player, ie, if you want wmp its wmp, if you want real audio its real audio, if you want quick time, it mocks you.
So now MS are between a rock and a hard place, if suddently the put the #CSS_COMPLIANCE compile switch on, they would find themselfs in a much much worse situation.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
with great power comes great responsibility
only one company is in a position to force w3c compliance on the ****tiest of sites, and they don't benefit from doing so
Worse than not benefiting, it makes their situation worse.
I was trying to cram as many becks as possible into my rucksack at this MS thing a while back (i was a student!) and I was chatting to a guy who'd spent 3 months working on the ie compatability or some such silly name team. I got the impression the developers didn't like the job, or nature of the conculsions (ie no, we can't fix it without breaking too much).
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Yeah, but MS sold the operating system to pay for development, what income streams do the other have?
And that is exactly the problem, is it not? Microsoft have teams working on IE and WMP which are probably as big as the total dev teams of Opera, Firefox, Winamp, Realplayer and a few others put together, and they are giving the end product away for free. How? By taking money paid for MS Office and MS Windows and using it to pay these teams.
Opera want MS to either start charging people to use IE, or to quit giving it away for "free" and killing the browser market. What's so hard to understand about that? If the BBC were to add £20 to the licence fee and send licence payer a 'free' BBC-branded DVD player you can bet your arse Toshiba, Sony, LG, Panasonic and the rest would be screaming blue murder. Why should software companies be any different?
is there actually any truth to that? like can we actually find out that microsoft's prices would be less without ie and wmp? or is it just a theory.
Last edited by moogle; 16-12-2007 at 02:28 PM. Reason: rephrased
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
