What a bunch of bull. Yes, IE is inferior to Firefox, Opera, and most other browsers, but that doesn't mean MS has to accommodate other companies. Why the hell should Microsoft have to bundle Opera in their own operating system? Why should they have to remove their own software from OS? As far as I'm concerned, MS developed Windows and have the right to include anything that they own (such as IE or WMP) in their OS. They also have the right to not include anything they don't want. When you buy Windows, you're buying a product MS designed, not a gateway to all software that's available. This is so petty of Opera. Maybe they should go out and write their own OS and then they can include Opera as the main browser.
I think this is a good thing, a wake up call for Microsoft, that they to have to follow the web standards, and not just promise that they will and not follow through.
This is a good thing for everyone, if there is no monopoly, then there is more competition and everyone have to follow by the rules. I'm sure web designers would love this. :)
"MS developed Windows and have the right to include anything that they own (such as IE or WMP)"
Actually they don't. Bundling software constitutes an abuse of their operating system monopoly which stifles innovation and destroys competition. Microsoft abused it's monopoly by bundling IE which effectively destroyed Netscape's business. Having taken over the browser market they used their position to push their web server and internet related development software. They then did it again with Windows Media Player which caused most users to stop using programs like Real Player which caused critical damage to their business. Having made Windows Media Player the default choice they used it to push their VC1 codec, which despite offering nothing over H.264 ended up in both the HD-DVD and Blu-ray standards generating royalties for Microsoft.
Microsoft is in a position to put any software developer out of business by abusing its operating system monopoly. For example if Microsoft bundled some high quality anti-virus software with Windows it would cause anti-virus software developers to lose most of their revenue and many would go out of business. That is why laws exist to prevent such monopoly abuse and why Microsoft should not be able to bundle software with Windows.
Sadly Microsoft has a propensity to ignore these laws and do as it pleases, which costs it a few hundred million here and there but in the long run benefits them greatly. The only solution to prevent Microsoft benefiting from further monopoly abuse is to split it into two companies, one developing the operating system and the other developing applications. That way the applications side would have to compete on an even field with other applications developers leading to greater competition and thus more rapid innovation. Unfortunately it's unlikely to happen.
You obviously know nothing about fair competition, antitrust laws and the problems they address, do you?
Ever wondered why IE, being inferior to Firefox and Opera - as you say - has had, and still has, a large percentage of the market, no matter what? Ever wondered why competitors in the browser field were crushed and the few remaining ones had to resort to giving the software away to even be able to remain in that field, or are struggling to stay alive?
I suggest you do a little research and try to give an answer to your not-so-rhetorical questions, for ignorance is not a blessing; it's a vehicle to expressing stupidity.
Essentially IE represents a barrier to the World Wide Web, which everyone I think can agree we should all have access to. Because much of the Web has been designed for IE and continues to be, but which renders content differently to that defined in web standards, the only way to access it is via IE and therefore this represents an abuse of monopolistic powers. Opera aren't, for example, going after Apple with Safari because someone using a Mac can expect to switch to Opera from Safari and not experience a deterioration in the way that content is rendered. By doing things differently IE is effectively handcuffing the Web to itself and therefore preventing competition.
I agree. To hell with EU/Opera... Don't like Windows? Don't like how IE is bundled with Windows? Then STFU and use someone else's OS -- you are NOT forced to use Windows.
It's only "not fair" cause it's microsoft. HOw about iTunes being bundled into Quicktime installs. Apple using their iPod monopoly to keep the music store locked. The fact that Safari, iPhoto, iMovie and such is already bundled with this Mac.
RealNetworks went out of buiesness because their program sucked. It was slow and buggy and full of Malware. And again, talk to apple about that buiesness decision, because Real was mostly known for streaming video. But Quicktime became the dominant format, and after that Flash based FLV.
As far as the browser space, a IE7 ain't that bad, and Firefox is gaining ALOT of momentum. And Opera has alot of ground to make since for most of it's life it cost money.
MS is the dominant player in PC software as its OS is installed on just about every machine leaving the factory and I applaud Opera (and the likes of Netscape before them) for standing up for their (and our) rights. As time goes on, MS adds new bits and pieces to its OS, pushing legitimate businesses out. Businesses that have filled gaps and, in the case of anti-virus manufacturers, protected MS's interests. Browsers, anti-virus, fire-walls etc creep into each new OS or service pack and one thing I certainly dont want is my range of choice degraded because another application becomes a new windows 'service'. I am all for MS making better products, but all they seem to do is get fat and slow and greedy.
Plus, as a developer, I would like to see IE toe the line as far as web standards are concerned, when hell freezes over right?
@Charles Actually they do. Its their product and they can do whatever they want with it.
Besides, if IE really sucked as bad as everyone says it does, people would be dumping it and finding a better browser. It must not be *that* bad since most users are accepting it. (I happen to despise it for its refusal to conform to standards, but that's only because I'm informed.)
The reason Firefox, Opera, etc aren't picking up is because they're *different* and that scares the average user. If people are still too ignorant to use Google to find another web browser, that's their problem.
What does Firefox get out of having more users, anyway? They don't advertise and their software is free.
Actually, I do know the US antitrust laws. My mother is an attorney dealing with these matters. However, I don't agree with the current laws. I think that software bundles should not be grouped into the same rules that regulate other monopolistic practices. Microsoft is a monopoly, no doubt about that, but they should have the right to put anything they want into their OS. It's THEIR product. MS isn't preventing anyone from installing third party browsers, but why should they encourage it? Of course they want to make it as easy as possible to use their product (IE). There is no way in hell MS should ever HAVE to include third party software (such as Opera) into Windows.
Firefox, for example, is a terrific browser, much better than IE in my opinion. At first, Firefox started off as a browser that only advanced PC users were using. After a series of upgrades, but mainly by word of mouth, Firefox has turned into a widely used browser by geeks and newbies alike. If Opera is as good as the company that owns it thinks, then their browser will become a widely used product.
Well, I don't like it, but the way I see it is that IE is a part of the operating system (The actual IE application is (to my knowledge) simply a wrapper around the mshtml engine, used by a multitude of other Windows components such as Explorer, the help system and pretty much all the dialog boxes that pop up on first boot). Sure, it can be removed, but you can then say that Explorer has a monopoly on shells because most people use it instead of alternatives such as Desktop X, that the bootloader has a monopoly because most people use it instead of GRUB or LILO... You get the picture.
Fact is, a monopoly is defined as (and I quote): "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service". Microsoft doesn't stop you using alternative software and never will. Wingeing to the courts because your product isn't as popular as the one supplied as an integral part of the operating system is a waste of time and money better spent advertising your product to the end user. I myself have never seen a single ad for Opera (note: I live in Australia, so I don't know if they do much advertising in Europe or the US), nor have I even seen anyone actually using it IRL.
As the consumer, if given a free option that works just as well, 9 times out of 10 you're going to pick the free option, right?
That may put things like anti-virus software companies out of business, but web browsers? Since they're all free, nothing is to stop a consumer from switching back and forth between them. You don't like IE? That's great - Firefox and Opera are both free so go ahead.
The courts seem to think that we are all drones, just using whichever operating system is presented to us first.
Way, way, way out of hand at this point. I wrote earlier "Sparco sues American automobile manufacturers over bundling seats." (well, paraphrase) to highlight how insane the concept of bundling has become. MS shouldn't be forced to ship with just a kernel, GUI, and boot manager just because others can provide things like text editors, media players, browsers, or whatever. To my knowledge, MS isn't actually hindering anybody from installing anything. So, if anybody really wants to bang the drum about monopoly abuse it's time to move to Apple and its iPhone (yes, I wrote it! haha!). Many Linux users stick with Firefox, so is that also "stifling innovation"? Should Apple stop "bundling" Safari?
Much like web development and catering to customers, you're not going to get very far if you invent your own electrical outlet interface if nobody can use it. These people want to get their information out there, whatever it is. Since most people are "listening" with IE then you might as well focus on that.
I remember using Opera and it couldn't even render CSS properly which was why I stuck with Phoenix, and later Firefox. So, should I continue to hold that against Opera? Maybe it's better, maybe it isn't, but a lot of time has passed since then. The same goes for Firefox. Oh, and could it be a plug-in that was crashing it more often? Try disabling a few (like the weather one that seems to freak out my Ubuntu install) and see what happens.
Again, people are missing the point of this. With respect to the comments that iTunes represents a monopoly by tying iTunes and the iPod together, that is pretty much correct and is already being investigated by the European Commission. However, with respect to other examples of bundled software on the Mac, such as Safari and iPhoto, you misunderstand the purpose of this case. I've said this a couple of times already so I'm going to try and keep it short (please look for my other comments of more):
IE is an abuse of monopoly power because it renders the web differently to that defined in standards so other browsers are not a replacement unless the sites visited have been written for IE and standards-compliant browsers. Because IE holds the lions share of the market many sites only work properly in IE and so Opera (and other browsers) are not used.
With respect to Safari and iPhoto, both applications can be easily replaced without preventing the user from either viewing web sites or managing their photo collection since neither users proprietary file formats.
The new FiOS HD DVR, arguably the biggest update since Verizon released a DVR, thanks to its external storage support, enhanced multi-room functionality and slick new 16x9 HD user interface.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
What a bunch of bull. Yes, IE is inferior to Firefox, Opera, and most other browsers, but that doesn't mean MS has to accommodate other companies. Why the hell should Microsoft have to bundle Opera in their own operating system? Why should they have to remove their own software from OS? As far as I'm concerned, MS developed Windows and have the right to include anything that they own (such as IE or WMP) in their OS. They also have the right to not include anything they don't want. When you buy Windows, you're buying a product MS designed, not a gateway to all software that's available. This is so petty of Opera. Maybe they should go out and write their own OS and then they can include Opera as the main browser.
Ya...it seems that the Safari windows experiment failed.
Firefox rules....some of my web designers claim that they Firefox is even better than safari on the Mac....
I think this is a good thing, a wake up call for Microsoft, that they to have to follow the web standards, and not just promise that they will and not follow through.
This is a good thing for everyone, if there is no monopoly, then there is more competition and everyone have to follow by the rules. I'm sure web designers would love this. :)
Actually, since they were convicted of monopoly practices in the US they HAVE to accommodate other companies.
"MS developed Windows and have the right to include anything that they own (such as IE or WMP)"
Actually they don't. Bundling software constitutes an abuse of their operating system monopoly which stifles innovation and destroys competition. Microsoft abused it's monopoly by bundling IE which effectively destroyed Netscape's business. Having taken over the browser market they used their position to push their web server and internet related development software. They then did it again with Windows Media Player which caused most users to stop using programs like Real Player which caused critical damage to their business. Having made Windows Media Player the default choice they used it to push their VC1 codec, which despite offering nothing over H.264 ended up in both the HD-DVD and Blu-ray standards generating royalties for Microsoft.
Microsoft is in a position to put any software developer out of business by abusing its operating system monopoly. For example if Microsoft bundled some high quality anti-virus software with Windows it would cause anti-virus software developers to lose most of their revenue and many would go out of business. That is why laws exist to prevent such monopoly abuse and why Microsoft should not be able to bundle software with Windows.
Sadly Microsoft has a propensity to ignore these laws and do as it pleases, which costs it a few hundred million here and there but in the long run benefits them greatly. The only solution to prevent Microsoft benefiting from further monopoly abuse is to split it into two companies, one developing the operating system and the other developing applications. That way the applications side would have to compete on an even field with other applications developers leading to greater competition and thus more rapid innovation. Unfortunately it's unlikely to happen.
You obviously know nothing about fair competition, antitrust laws and the problems they address, do you?
Ever wondered why IE, being inferior to Firefox and Opera - as you say - has had, and still has, a large percentage of the market, no matter what?
Ever wondered why competitors in the browser field were crushed and the few remaining ones had to resort to giving the software away to even be able to remain in that field, or are struggling to stay alive?
I suggest you do a little research and try to give an answer to your not-so-rhetorical questions, for ignorance is not a blessing; it's a vehicle to expressing stupidity.
Essentially IE represents a barrier to the World Wide Web, which everyone I think can agree we should all have access to. Because much of the Web has been designed for IE and continues to be, but which renders content differently to that defined in web standards, the only way to access it is via IE and therefore this represents an abuse of monopolistic powers. Opera aren't, for example, going after Apple with Safari because someone using a Mac can expect to switch to Opera from Safari and not experience a deterioration in the way that content is rendered. By doing things differently IE is effectively handcuffing the Web to itself and therefore preventing competition.
I agree. To hell with EU/Opera... Don't like Windows? Don't like how IE is bundled with Windows? Then STFU and use someone else's OS -- you are NOT forced to use Windows.
It's only "not fair" cause it's microsoft. HOw about iTunes being bundled into Quicktime installs. Apple using their iPod monopoly to keep the music store locked. The fact that Safari, iPhoto, iMovie and such is already bundled with this Mac.
RealNetworks went out of buiesness because their program sucked. It was slow and buggy and full of Malware. And again, talk to apple about that buiesness decision, because Real was mostly known for streaming video. But Quicktime became the dominant format, and after that Flash based FLV.
As far as the browser space, a IE7 ain't that bad, and Firefox is gaining ALOT of momentum. And Opera has alot of ground to make since for most of it's life it cost money.
MS is the dominant player in PC software as its OS is installed on just about every machine leaving the factory and I applaud Opera (and the likes of Netscape before them) for standing up for their (and our) rights. As time goes on, MS adds new bits and pieces to its OS, pushing legitimate businesses out. Businesses that have filled gaps and, in the case of anti-virus manufacturers, protected MS's interests. Browsers, anti-virus, fire-walls etc creep into each new OS or service pack and one thing I certainly dont want is my range of choice degraded because another application becomes a new windows 'service'. I am all for MS making better products, but all they seem to do is get fat and slow and greedy.
Plus, as a developer, I would like to see IE toe the line as far as web standards are concerned, when hell freezes over right?
@Charles
Actually they do. Its their product and they can do whatever they want with it.
Besides, if IE really sucked as bad as everyone says it does, people would be dumping it and finding a better browser. It must not be *that* bad since most users are accepting it. (I happen to despise it for its refusal to conform to standards, but that's only because I'm informed.)
The reason Firefox, Opera, etc aren't picking up is because they're *different* and that scares the average user. If people are still too ignorant to use Google to find another web browser, that's their problem.
What does Firefox get out of having more users, anyway? They don't advertise and their software is free.
Actually, I do know the US antitrust laws. My mother is an attorney dealing with these matters. However, I don't agree with the current laws. I think that software bundles should not be grouped into the same rules that regulate other monopolistic practices. Microsoft is a monopoly, no doubt about that, but they should have the right to put anything they want into their OS. It's THEIR product. MS isn't preventing anyone from installing third party browsers, but why should they encourage it? Of course they want to make it as easy as possible to use their product (IE). There is no way in hell MS should ever HAVE to include third party software (such as Opera) into Windows.
Firefox, for example, is a terrific browser, much better than IE in my opinion. At first, Firefox started off as a browser that only advanced PC users were using. After a series of upgrades, but mainly by word of mouth, Firefox has turned into a widely used browser by geeks and newbies alike. If Opera is as good as the company that owns it thinks, then their browser will become a widely used product.
Well, I don't like it, but the way I see it is that IE is a part of the operating system (The actual IE application is (to my knowledge) simply a wrapper around the mshtml engine, used by a multitude of other Windows components such as Explorer, the help system and pretty much all the dialog boxes that pop up on first boot). Sure, it can be removed, but you can then say that Explorer has a monopoly on shells because most people use it instead of alternatives such as Desktop X, that the bootloader has a monopoly because most people use it instead of GRUB or LILO... You get the picture.
Fact is, a monopoly is defined as (and I quote): "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service". Microsoft doesn't stop you using alternative software and never will. Wingeing to the courts because your product isn't as popular as the one supplied as an integral part of the operating system is a waste of time and money better spent advertising your product to the end user. I myself have never seen a single ad for Opera (note: I live in Australia, so I don't know if they do much advertising in Europe or the US), nor have I even seen anyone actually using it IRL.
@Drew: Exactly right
What's next? Is Adobe going to sue Microsoft for bundling MS Paint? And why no suit against Apple for bundling Safari?
As the consumer, if given a free option that works just as well, 9 times out of 10 you're going to pick the free option, right?
That may put things like anti-virus software companies out of business, but web browsers? Since they're all free, nothing is to stop a consumer from switching back and forth between them. You don't like IE? That's great - Firefox and Opera are both free so go ahead.
The courts seem to think that we are all drones, just using whichever operating system is presented to us first.
Way, way, way out of hand at this point. I wrote earlier "Sparco sues American automobile manufacturers over bundling seats." (well, paraphrase) to highlight how insane the concept of bundling has become. MS shouldn't be forced to ship with just a kernel, GUI, and boot manager just because others can provide things like text editors, media players, browsers, or whatever. To my knowledge, MS isn't actually hindering anybody from installing anything. So, if anybody really wants to bang the drum about monopoly abuse it's time to move to Apple and its iPhone (yes, I wrote it! haha!). Many Linux users stick with Firefox, so is that also "stifling innovation"? Should Apple stop "bundling" Safari?
Much like web development and catering to customers, you're not going to get very far if you invent your own electrical outlet interface if nobody can use it. These people want to get their information out there, whatever it is. Since most people are "listening" with IE then you might as well focus on that.
I remember using Opera and it couldn't even render CSS properly which was why I stuck with Phoenix, and later Firefox. So, should I continue to hold that against Opera? Maybe it's better, maybe it isn't, but a lot of time has passed since then. The same goes for Firefox. Oh, and could it be a plug-in that was crashing it more often? Try disabling a few (like the weather one that seems to freak out my Ubuntu install) and see what happens.
@Duscrom
Again, people are missing the point of this. With respect to the comments that iTunes represents a monopoly by tying iTunes and the iPod together, that is pretty much correct and is already being investigated by the European Commission. However, with respect to other examples of bundled software on the Mac, such as Safari and iPhoto, you misunderstand the purpose of this case. I've said this a couple of times already so I'm going to try and keep it short (please look for my other comments of more):
IE is an abuse of monopoly power because it renders the web differently to that defined in standards so other browsers are not a replacement unless the sites visited have been written for IE and standards-compliant browsers. Because IE holds the lions share of the market many sites only work properly in IE and so Opera (and other browsers) are not used.
With respect to Safari and iPhoto, both applications can be easily replaced without preventing the user from either viewing web sites or managing their photo collection since neither users proprietary file formats.