Comments on: EU responds to Microsoft's browser move
European Commission says that while the move to strip IE from Windows is bad for retail software buyers, it could have some positive effects in the new PC market.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Beyond Binary
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft.
Beyond Binary is a look at how technology is changing our lives and the people behind all that life-changing stuff, with an extra emphasis on that which emanates from Redmond, Wash.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Beyond Binary topics
Binary Bits
Follow Ina on Twitter (Twitter name: InaFried)
EU: Were disappointed that this move was made before we could fine Microsoft.
In my opinion, if web brwoser makers want their product included in the operating system, then they should make their own OS.
Do the europeans want a windows without a web browser, a picture viewer, a media player, a calculator, games, ect...? I mean, all of those are available from diferent companies, but windows includes a version which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, otherwise windows would only be an operating system able to turn a computer on, but completely useless with no software installed!
"They are under pressure to do something and they come up with this thing, which is quite obviously not going to work," Opera CTO Hakon Wium Lie said in an interview...
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? It quite obviously isn't going to work the way opera wanted, which was to get a free ride via microsoft's operating system (windows) to directly compete with microst's internet browser (internet explorer).
As a company, microsoft has done the right thing. Bad opera, Bad Europeans, shame on you.
That would be true if writing a better OS was everything you had to do. Unfortunately it isn't so. Your software may be 10 times better but no one would buy it without applications for that OS. In this market, the first mover has a huge advantage, and that's precisely why there are laws that apply to monopolies but not other companies.
You have a great product and win the market - good for you! But if you try to use that success to get an unfair advantage in another area, you get in trouble and rightly so.
No one prevent Microsoft from having a browser. But for user's sake, they should not be able to push that browser down user's throat. Let the best product win.
" directly compete with microst's internet browser (internet explorer)"
and what's so bad about more competition?
"No one prevent Microsoft from having a browser. But for user's sake, they should not be able to push that browser down user's throat. Let the best product win"
Internet explorer, like many other usefull software that comes bundled in windows (win 95/98/me/xp ect.), have always been there even before all these new programs started showing up and microsoft has always allowed to install and use these other alternatives, no one can say they were forced to use any of the programs incorporated in windows with the exception of the windows explorer that without it you would't be able to browse, to get another internet browser you can use windows explorer and download from the internet via FTP if you did not want to microsofts internet explorer not even once.
To say that microsoft is pushing internet explorer down your throat make it seem that you are good at complaining but dumb that you can't install the browser that you want, which for the majority of people does the exact same thing; browse the internet, view websites and download.
The choice for alternative programs to run in microsoft windows has always been there, the issue here is that some software makers want their software served in silver platter.
ME: " directly compete with microst's internet browser (internet explorer)"
You: "and what's so bad about more competition?"
well you did not quote the whole sentence...
ME: ...the way opera wanted, which was to get a FREE RIDE VIA microsoft's operating system (windows) to directly compete with microst's internet browser (internet explorer).
The competition is ok, whats wrong is that they want to compete for free within microsofts own OS insted of tv, online or any other place to advertise or pay microsoft they want to compete within windows.
I know because Apple update doesn't push Safari down your throat when you use iTunes?
What did they expect? At no point in this case have they considered user convenience. Why start pretending like they care now? Why not just drop the facade and admit that they're making an ATM withdrawal?
It's also quite rich of Opera to feign outrage when they should be celebrating instead. Maybe they wanted an ATM withdrawal as well (damages from MS).
MS is not a general application store... and doesn't have to serve up software from everyone, period.
Apple is a far greater monopoly. Good for MS for removing IE. EU wanted a step backward, it got it.
If they want a general availability of products... they should have mandated that PC makers provide it, not MS. MS is just selling their own products... MS is not providing PC's.
If the EU suggested PC makers were being forced by MS and by the market in general, they should simply rule that PC makers provide diversity in applications... the PC makers make the platform for usage, the PC makers are responsible for the content on the PC's.
The EU could mute an possible arm-twisting by MS, if they simply mandated PC's have variety of secondary software, like browsers. PC makers could then negotiate with everyone to provide their products, such as browsers, on their PC's. MS would be required to negotiate within the confines of browser provision, separately, just like all the other browser makers... just like all other software applications.
Instead the EU want to hobble one particular vendor... and force it to supply them with software made by others. The PC makers determine the software on the hardware they make... it's up to the hardware manufacturers to decide what software goes on it... and the EU needs to rule for diversity of software on hardware... not a provision of various unrelated software on other software, and meddling in the creation/packaging of software itself.
What does it want? If Microsoft were to customize every OS they make to fit in the EU's agenda, where in the world is it fair-game?
Its not like its restricting its own browser or media player...customers can choose what software they want to install.
This is plain ridiculous! They are looking for a way to make easy money from the anti-trust rulings!
I love it!!! Given the settlement that microsoft was hit with, I am surprised they are even offering a european version. I'd just leave them... but whatever... this will be fun to witness.
The EU rocks!
This is getting a little crazy. First Media Player, which wasn't a problem anyways; Download VLC if you don't like it. Now they expect MS to bundle a competitors product with a MICROSOFT OS. If you don't like what your getting with Windows then don't buy it, go pickup a mac or a linux box. Microsoft isn't forcing their product down your throats. They won the OS battles, they're OS is the best. 90% of the world market isn't wrong. Sure the others have come a long way, but they took their time.
One thing I noticed the first time I started up Internet explorer 8, it gave me the CHOICE of which default search provider I would like. I know Firefox doesn't do that, or Safari. They just assume I want Google. Which I did until I tried Bing, but they never gave me the choice. HOWEVER they expect Microsoft to?
I am typing this in Chrome running XP. I could choose to use IE, but I do not. Asking M$ to incude other borwsers is just plain dumb. Dumb rules made by ignorant people. Plain and simple. You want true competition in the EU, now you have it. The users will decide. They have choice...not less of a choice. Apple-pi please are you needed on the MacWorld site? This is a good decision by M$. Opera, you want sucess, go get it yourself.
I am afraid you are painfully wrong :) I am not an Apple fan (in fact, I am afraid that given a choice, they would find a better way to exploit their position than Microsoft).
My username comes from 'apple-pie', I mean those apples that grow on apple trees. PI also happens to be favorite number.
Oh, and my box is a dual-boot WinXP, 64-bit / Ubuntu Linux machine, and I am typing this message in Chrome - in my humble opinion the best browser ever, and yes, on Windows.
I am sorry that ZERO of my points make sense to you. But is actually very simple.
(a) Monopolies should be prohibited from abusing their market power (like bundling a crappy product with an OS to gain a monopoly in the browser market). Neither MS nor Apple, nor any other company should be able to do that.
(b) It is good for users to have a choice. More choice leads to better competition and more innovation.
(c) EU is a democracy and has a right to protect its consumers in whatever way they want. If MS wants to keep doing business in EU, they have no choice but to comply. But they are free to leave. It is just that it does not make any business sense for them to do so, and therefore they won't.
Which part above you do not agree with?
What you dont get is that the choice has never been blocked to no one.
Microsoft: I offer an operating system and I give you a free internet browser included,but if you dont like it you can always get the one you like or use many at once.
The move here is to get opera on siver platter served right on the OS which microsoft smartly avoided but if you really want it you can always download from somewere.
Your a,b,c have no need at all to invoke!
"What you dont get is that the choice has never been blocked to no one. Microsoft: I offer an operating system and I give you a free internet browser included,but if you dont like it you can always get the one you like or use many at once."
What you say is reasonable. However, there is a problem. By bundling the browser with the OS Microsoft formally violates the law. You can not agree with the law, but the way the law is written today, it does violate the law. The reason why bundling works for Microsoft so well is that users are, for the lack of a better word, stupid. They often just go with the default, even if it is 100 times worse than alternatives.
You can say that it is not a problem, who cares about those stupid people. However,. the problem is that it is not only stupid users who suffer. Given that 50% of users will always use what MS offers them, no matter how crappy, there is no way for a competitor to win any of that 50% market share (which translates into big $$$ if you take into account default search engine in the browser, etc).
This means that fewer companies want to innovate in the area. It also means that MS can afford not to improve its browser for years (and thus prevent good changes from happening), while forcing developers to come up with more and more work-around for IE.
If MS did not have 90% of the OS market and would not be a monopoly, its impact on the industry would not be big, and no one would care. But they way things are, MS has a huge impact on the industry and abuses its power.
(b) choice has always been available in the browser market.
- by lvcsslacker June 11, 2009 7:33 PM PDT
- Typical bureaucrats being typical. "We want it this way. Oh wait, that didn't work, we want it this way! Wait, no... "
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 4 pages (218 Comments)it's fuggin' stupid, and the politicians should be ashamed for putting their own interests in front of the constituents! Now I can see why unions get a bad rap...