EU launches new Microsoft probes
-
Mike Poz wrote:
In this day and age of "instant gratification", most people who don't work in the software industry expect everything to "just work". Microsoft incorporates IE and WMP, which most of the time "just work". I qualify that with "most of the time" because nothing is perfect.
As a user I do have to agree. I just got an Asus Eee and it came prepackaged with Firefox, Open Office etc. and I really like that. But then again if I remember that it took Microsoft 5 years after IE6 to get us a new version competition is a must.
Mike Poz wrote:
I mention WMP because it was mentioned earlier and I really have to ask, just how popular is Windows N version in the Europe? I haven't seen any real sales figures but I hear that it's not flying off the shelf, not even in the European countries.
I think WMP is a good example of why software shouldn't be bundled with the OS. I don't really like WMP but I was too lazy so far to figure out which one is better. Yes, I could have, no one forces me to use WMP, but the media player is just not important enough for me to look for alternatives. So WMP does have an advantage over other players here. Also you have to draw a line somewhere. Today Windows comes with WMP and IE, in the next version they bundle it with Office for an extra $200 (just hypothetically). And I bet someone would than say that Office is free.
Mike Poz wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the EU's primary reason for doing this isn't to level the playing field as they claim, but to justify picking the pockets of Microsoft and anyone else they decide to rob to rebuild their coffers.
Maybe. But don't forget that Microsoft has a 95% market share for desktop operating systems, so you need to keep an eye on them.
Andre Buenger wrote:
I don't really like WMP but I was too lazy so far to figure out which one is better.
And so your justifying your self proclaimed laziness by blaming it on Microsoft for bundling WMP?
Andre Buenger wrote:
Today Windows comes with WMP and IE, in the next version they bundle it with Office for an extra $200 (just hypothetically).
Microsoft would never bundle a cash cow like Office with Windows. Design for, absolutely, but bundle with? That would be insane. First, they're on two different product cycles (two years for Office if I'm not mistaken, three to five years per OS version last I checked), and second, if they did bundle it with Windows, then all down-level Windows operating systems users would be forced to update to the latest Windows to get the latest Office. And the users and corporations would never go for that. Here's my point. User/system security and privacy aside, NO government should be telling a commercial enterprise how to design their software or what to include in it as "bundled". The only reason governments do is because of competitors and very loud alternative OS users (who by your own number for desktop market share are in the minority). Why is that right? Justify it to me please. Because unless you can come up with a seriously compelling reason that truly involves compromised world security or the loss human life, it's not. And even the loss of life isn't always a compelling reason because look at what car and motorcycle companies are allowed to create and market for street driving!
Mike Poz
-
to both you and christian ... it really wouldn't be hard to put a link on the desktop to download any of the available browsers with some info about the merits of each ... prolly most people would download all of them and choose later but IT IS possible to make it simple not that im agreeing with the lawsuit or anything
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
l a u r e n wrote:
it really wouldn't be hard to put a link on the desktop to download any of the available browsers
That already happens. I have to lock down a lot of new Dell laptops before they go out and they all come with a desktop link to install the Google toolbar, which has a big "Do you want to install Firefox" ad/link as a part of the process. Ironically it comes up in Internet Explorer, but still... :rolleyes: I have no idea is that is an EU thing (they are big on Firefox there, with the highest market share in the world. It is not so popular in the UK though).
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Andre Buenger wrote:
I don't really like WMP but I was too lazy so far to figure out which one is better.
And so your justifying your self proclaimed laziness by blaming it on Microsoft for bundling WMP?
Andre Buenger wrote:
Today Windows comes with WMP and IE, in the next version they bundle it with Office for an extra $200 (just hypothetically).
Microsoft would never bundle a cash cow like Office with Windows. Design for, absolutely, but bundle with? That would be insane. First, they're on two different product cycles (two years for Office if I'm not mistaken, three to five years per OS version last I checked), and second, if they did bundle it with Windows, then all down-level Windows operating systems users would be forced to update to the latest Windows to get the latest Office. And the users and corporations would never go for that. Here's my point. User/system security and privacy aside, NO government should be telling a commercial enterprise how to design their software or what to include in it as "bundled". The only reason governments do is because of competitors and very loud alternative OS users (who by your own number for desktop market share are in the minority). Why is that right? Justify it to me please. Because unless you can come up with a seriously compelling reason that truly involves compromised world security or the loss human life, it's not. And even the loss of life isn't always a compelling reason because look at what car and motorcycle companies are allowed to create and market for street driving!
Mike Poz
Mike Poz wrote:
Why is that right? Justify it to me please. Because unless you can come up with a seriously compelling reason that truly involves compromised world security or the loss human life, it's not.
Some politicians thought the same when they privatized the electricity grid in Germany. Now it is owned by a oligopoly and we have 10% price increases every year and probably the highest prices in the world. That's why we have economic laws and the EU commission has an eye on that too. A non regulated market doesn't work. Same thing with the software / OS market.
-
to both you and christian ... it really wouldn't be hard to put a link on the desktop to download any of the available browsers with some info about the merits of each ... prolly most people would download all of them and choose later but IT IS possible to make it simple not that im agreeing with the lawsuit or anything
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
Hmm, I dislike all that crap Dell and co. put on the desktop. And once they start putting one browser alternative on because of a lawsuit they'll start having to put them all.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
You're right - which was why I also said that it was unlikely that Microsoft would reduce the end cost, regardless.
Actually there is already a Windows N edition in the EU without the Media Player. Same price as the standard edition and I've never seen it, but I'm sure that you can somehow get it.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
No - FireFox was the innovator, and this forced Microsoft to push things forward.
Without sponsors (I guess Google foremost) and contributors we wouldn't have Firefox. And Firefox only had a chance because it came for free. Opera had no chance, who would pay for a browser if a "good enough" one comes with Windows. If IE would be priced out the game would be a different one.
Andre Buenger wrote:
Without sponsors (I guess Google foremost) and contributors we wouldn't have Firefox. And Firefox only had a chance because it came for free. Opera had no chance, who would pay for a browser if a "good enough" one comes with Windows. If IE would be priced out the game would be a different one.
then why would microsoft do that? they are simply behaving in the same manner as all corporations operating in a capitalistic and "free" market
----------------------------------------------------------- Completion Deadline: two days before the day after tomorrow
-
Bloody ridiculous. EU launches new Microsoft probes[^]
Kevin
-
Ray Cassick wrote:
And I suppose you have the figures to back that up?
Of course not, that number is just a guess and maybe too high. But you can't disagree that a significant number of users never thought about alternatives because IE was just there.
Andre Buenger wrote:
But you can't disagree that a significant number of users never thought about alternatives because IE was just there.
I most certainly can. Everywhere you look I see banner adds for FireFox and Opera.... Microsoft has to be punished because people are lazy? Pffff Just think about this.. If MS did what the EU wanted we would be seeing this: Microsoft Windows Core Edition $300 (does nothing but boot up to a desktop) Microsoft Media Player (40 Mb download) Microsoft IE (200 Mb download) Microsoft Accessory Pack (40 Mb download) (Notepad, Word-pad, Calculator, Paint, Games) Microsoft Hyper-terminal (5 Mb download) Microsoft File Studio (20 Mb download) (Explorer, compressed folders) Get the idea? There are products that can replace each of these bundled accessories if you want them. Oh yeah, and all these would require WGA authentication :)
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Bloody ridiculous.
No, it's not. First and foremost is the EU comission only reacting to complaints by Microsoft competitors. And I also think that Opera is right, the Internet Explorer shouldn't be bundled with Windows. 90% of the IE users don't use it by choice but because it came preinstalled with Windows.
Personally I like the fact that IE is bundled with the OS – you can browse the web “out of the box”. Secondly IE is componentised and many applications make use of the browsers engine to implement their application's UI. Next people will be complaining that Firefox is free!
Steve
-
Bloody ridiculous. EU launches new Microsoft probes[^]
Kevin
Frankly, Bill ought to just buy the damned EU outright and shut them up permanently.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^] -
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Bloody ridiculous.
No, it's not. First and foremost is the EU comission only reacting to complaints by Microsoft competitors. And I also think that Opera is right, the Internet Explorer shouldn't be bundled with Windows. 90% of the IE users don't use it by choice but because it came preinstalled with Windows.
Andre Buenger wrote:
90% of the IE users don't use it by choice but because it came preinstalled with Windows.
If it didn't come installed, how would the common user download other software? No preinstalled browser no surfing. So should all browsers come preinstalled? That would be alot of browsers dont you think? Its kinda like this, if you went to a car lot to buy a new car but the car didn't come with wheels. You would have to bring wheels with you or hire a tow truck to take your car to a tire shop. But since cars do come with tires, all you have to do is drive to the shop and get your wheels changed to the custom firefoxstone brand. :laugh:
KISS "Keep It Simple, Stupid"
modified on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:57:45 AM
-
to both you and christian ... it really wouldn't be hard to put a link on the desktop to download any of the available browsers with some info about the merits of each ... prolly most people would download all of them and choose later but IT IS possible to make it simple not that im agreeing with the lawsuit or anything
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
Tell me, how would they download these browsers without a browser? Ftp? Lol. Right.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
a) Firefox is developed by the Mozilla Foundation and distributed for free. b) Internet Explorer is bundled with Windows and you pay the cost with your Windows license.
Thunderbox666 wrote:
Who do you think pays for the OEM's *Free* software that is bundled with it??
If the OEM puts Firefox on DVD that comes with your PC you only pay for the DVD, not Firefox. Probably $0.03, big deal.
Do you really think Windows would cost any less without IE? What about all the apps that assume IE is part of the API, like Quicken. What about all the HTML help systems out there that would break without IE installed by default? What about every other vendor out there, including Apple shipping a browser with the OS?
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
What IE taxes? You pay for an OS (with bundled software). The individual components aren't costed out. Do you honestly think that Microsoft would reduce the cost of the OS if they were forced to unbundle.
My point was that IE isn't free, you pay for the component, it's just not costed out.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Frankly, this MS bashing really p!sses me off. The industry would be in a lot poorer state if Microsoft hadn't caused the competition to raise their game. Competition is healthy and competition leads to innovation.
I'm not bashing MS and I also think that Firefox has shown that you can gain marketshare, so Opera shouldn't whine here. But do you really want to say that MS was innovative after IE6?
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only things Microsoft ships with Windows is paid for by the price of Windows. That's not true. Even if Microsoft offered IE seperately, it's price would still be included in the cost of Windows. Your argument just doesn't make any sense.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
Getting rid of IE is a good idea, if people were given a real choice nobody would use it. However, I don't think they go far enough. They need to ban the secret restrictions that MS imposes on OEMs to prevent them from installing alternative browsers.
There are no secret restrictions barring alternative browsers. I've purchased many a computer over the years (hundreds, for customers and employers), and roughly half of them, at one point in time or another, came with an alternative browser (usually Netscape at the time, but i've seen some ship with Mozilla and Firefox more recently, even some with Opera). This "urban myth" started by some poor reporting back during the anti-trust trial. It came to light that Microsoft canceled Compaq's license, because they removed IE's icon from the system, and replaced it with the Netscape icon. The headlines read something like "Compaq's license revoked for shipping Navigator". The fact is, Compaq was allowed to ship Navigator, even on the desktop. They just weren't allowed to remove the IE icon while doing so. This quickly mutated into thousands of people making the claim that Microsoft didn't allow OEM's to ship alternative browsers.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
Tell me, how would they download these browsers without a browser? Ftp? Lol. Right.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
ummmmm read the post i wrote before answering please ;)
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Bloody ridiculous.
No, it's not. First and foremost is the EU comission only reacting to complaints by Microsoft competitors. And I also think that Opera is right, the Internet Explorer shouldn't be bundled with Windows. 90% of the IE users don't use it by choice but because it came preinstalled with Windows.
Andre Buenger wrote:
And I also think that Opera is right, the Internet Explorer shouldn't be bundled with Windows. 90% of the IE users don't use it by choice but because it came preinstalled with Windows.
Which means, a large portion of that 90% wouldn't have discovered the web had Microsoft not bundled a browser with Windows. Netscape's competitors would have complained had they included Netscape. So they made IE and included that. Also, what do you propose, that Microsoft remove IE? Because if they did, what would people use to download a browser? Or do you propose that Microsoft installs Opera? You don't think then that Firefox, Safari, Konqueror, Lynx and of course Netscape would sue Operacrosoft?
-
Personally I like the fact that IE is bundled with the OS – you can browse the web “out of the box”. Secondly IE is componentised and many applications make use of the browsers engine to implement their application's UI. Next people will be complaining that Firefox is free!
Steve
IE does make a really good "UI toolkit" in a lot of cases.
-
ummmmm read the post i wrote before answering please ;)
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
I did read your post. You didn't make any mention of HOW such a download would occur. You just said "it wouldn't be hard". I say that's a short sighted comment.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
I did read your post. You didn't make any mention of HOW such a download would occur. You just said "it wouldn't be hard". I say that's a short sighted comment.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
ummmm i thought you were a programmer? but you can't figure out how to write a small app that ftp's a file down and runs the installer? was it the vb forums i saw you in? :rolleyes:
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
-
ummmm i thought you were a programmer? but you can't figure out how to write a small app that ftp's a file down and runs the installer? was it the vb forums i saw you in? :rolleyes:
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
Yeah, that must be it. Cause program files never change their locations on servers that aren't controlled by the software vendor. That means that after about 6 months, the links will become invalid and the user will have to browse around to find the most recent links. And what does that require? A browser. Like I said, it was a very short sighted statement. Why are so few technical people willing to think more than one step ahead?
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?