there are double standards here. why isnt apple forced to give a choice? oh right, because it isnt MS. Marketshare means nothing when consumers have a choice, and they just happen to want to buy a windows computer. MS doesnt have a monopoly. it isnt a monopoly if you can choose to buy another computer like a mac or linux comp.
@Troll: Of course there is a monopoly. Just because there are alternatives doesn't mean there is no monopoly...
The Microsoft platform (incl. Windows, Office and their file formats) are proprietary which is not particularly a bad thing. But these "standards" are not fully compatible or crossplatform.
Don't forget that Microsoft used IE and WMP to force Windows Server licences. The same will probably happen with Moonlight/Silverlight aswell. History is repeating...
@Troll I agree completely and have no idea what Pyronick is talking about. It is idiotic that MS has to do all of this stuff some things done years ago because it is causing unnecessary problems today. I wouldn't be surprised if it caused more in the future too. Just wait until MS has to link to alternatives to Explorer and Media Player as well.
@Troll There is no double standard here. The EU is attempting to head off behavior Microsoft has shown to engage in, resulting in the death of pretty much every alternative browser and stagnation in web technologies for several years.
If you hadn't noticed, MS didn't release an update to Internet Explorer for five years. They didn't because they had thoroughly suppressed the competition, resulting in a multitude of IE6-only websites. This wasn't because IE was better, but because it was so common and largely the ONLY OPTION thanks to Microsoft's abusive tactics.
Apple: Apple is not a monopoly. They have no one who is dependent upon them wholly to the point that they could kill them. Microsoft is, and has previously threatened Dell and HP with revoking their OEM licensing should they offer non-MS options (up until the anti-trust lawsuit, at which point Dell and HP started offering and supporting Redhat on their server systems.)
Want to buy: No one wants to buy a Windows computer. People buy windows because unless you go Apple it is the -only- developed option available pre-installed on most PCs. This is because Windows has displaced every other option and gained a monopoly. People -need- to buy a Windows computer to retain compatibility with applications and the like. It's basically inertia at this point.
The definition of a monopoly is not "no choice but X" but if X is in such a position that alternatives are basically sidelined. MS got in trouble because they saw people developing competitive products, and went to their biggest OEMs and threatened them.
While no corporation should ever be trusted, MS has proven that they will abuse any power they are given. They should have been broken up 9 years ago and the pieces forced to compete, but Dubya was soft on all corporations.
@microlith Way to generalise things for everybody. Just because you don't want to buy a Windows computer doesn't mean nobody wants to. I can buy a Mac for myself, but I still choose to buy a Windows computer because it works better for me.
@Bioran23 Sure, that's fine for -you- but the majority of people have no real choice. This wouldn't be a bad thing (monopolies aren't illegal) if not for the way MS used their position.
Most people only know of Apple as an alternative choice. There are no OSes on the level of Windows offered by Dell et.al.
As GingerFox pointed out, it IS NOT a monopoly. In fact, Microsoft never had a monopoly over anything. The computer operating system and browser markets are oligopolies (i.e. a few companies offering very similar products). Just because one product or company has a majority market share, it does not make it a monopoly. Lack of monopoly is exactly why this whole browser choice screen pointless. In fact, the reasons this whole thing is pointless has been beaten into everyone's skulls so much on this site that I need not say more.
@owdee Yes, Microsoft did have a monopoly. Back when the Government went after MS the only OS out there for the majority of PCs was Windows. Ignorance of this fact does not make it false, and you can go read the findings of fact from 2000 where it was established (legally!) that they did, in fact, have a monopoly.
Considering how many people are providing browsers today, I hardly think it's a market consisting of an Oligopoly. Anyone can create a browser if they really want, so long as they follow the standards.
Eh, microlith, you made some sense until you started to assert that no-one wants a Windows computer.
What programs 'force' you to buy a Windows computer? Not Office; it's available on Mac and there are open-source alternatives that are compatible with most common files. Not Photoshop, same deal. What, games? Ok then, let's assume that some people who really want Macs get Windows because they want to play games.
Whose fault is that really? Can you say it's Window's fault for supporting the .exe file type and development tools for creating games and running them? It seems to me like, if Apple is really so burdened by Microsoft's 'monopoly', they might consider looking into creating a similar environment in order to compete. I suppose that's Boot Camp. But why blame Microsoft? It's a game company's decision to not code a game in a format that would work for other operating systems. It's a game company's decision to choose the Windows platform in the first place.
I did not assert that no-one wants a computer. I asserted that they did not know of other options.
Any program that requires windows and is not available on any other platform forces you to Windows. This is mainly a huge number of purpose built applications that you (and I) will never see. The developer chooses Windows and basically forces the buyers' hand.
Windows -established- the PE format but that's irrelevant. In fact, your every point is based on attacking an implication that I did not make.
@microlith: Nobody wants to buy a Windows computer?? Oh, I BEG TO DIFFER. I use OS X for personal use, but for my business Windows works better. Tried and dumped Linux (Fedora, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE) - just too much headache.
@microlith I'd argue that at the time IE was the superior browser actually. Also they were not solely responsible for the death of the competition...if anything that honor goes to AOL for their absolutely god awful handling of Netscape which after version 4 saw them take literally years to release a follow up (and at the time version 4 was widely in use). When version 6 eventually arrived it was a bloated mess and not what consumers wanted or needed.
Blame MS all you want but I do believe you can't rule out that Netscape may have actually imploded due to it being missmanaged at the time. Had AOL handled the app with better care it may still be relevant today (I realised it lead to firefox) and IE may have had more competition for much of the decade.
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.
The EU is so stupid.
there are double standards here. why isnt apple forced to give a choice? oh right, because it isnt MS. Marketshare means nothing when consumers have a choice, and they just happen to want to buy a windows computer. MS doesnt have a monopoly. it isnt a monopoly if you can choose to buy another computer like a mac or linux comp.
@Troll: Of course there is a monopoly.
Just because there are alternatives doesn't mean there is no monopoly...
The Microsoft platform (incl. Windows, Office and their file formats) are proprietary which is not particularly a bad thing.
But these "standards" are not fully compatible or crossplatform.
Don't forget that Microsoft used IE and WMP to force Windows Server licences. The same will probably happen with Moonlight/Silverlight aswell.
History is repeating...
@Pyronick
office has nothing to do with IE
you argument makes 0 sense
@Troll
I agree completely and have no idea what Pyronick is talking about. It is idiotic that MS has to do all of this stuff some things done years ago because it is causing unnecessary problems today. I wouldn't be surprised if it caused more in the future too. Just wait until MS has to link to alternatives to Explorer and Media Player as well.
@Pyronick
No, its a oligopoly.
And i don't understand whats so evil about including a browser, when you are free to use another one if you so choose.
@Troll
There is no double standard here. The EU is attempting to head off behavior Microsoft has shown to engage in, resulting in the death of pretty much every alternative browser and stagnation in web technologies for several years.
If you hadn't noticed, MS didn't release an update to Internet Explorer for five years. They didn't because they had thoroughly suppressed the competition, resulting in a multitude of IE6-only websites. This wasn't because IE was better, but because it was so common and largely the ONLY OPTION thanks to Microsoft's abusive tactics.
Apple: Apple is not a monopoly. They have no one who is dependent upon them wholly to the point that they could kill them. Microsoft is, and has previously threatened Dell and HP with revoking their OEM licensing should they offer non-MS options (up until the anti-trust lawsuit, at which point Dell and HP started offering and supporting Redhat on their server systems.)
Want to buy: No one wants to buy a Windows computer. People buy windows because unless you go Apple it is the -only- developed option available pre-installed on most PCs. This is because Windows has displaced every other option and gained a monopoly. People -need- to buy a Windows computer to retain compatibility with applications and the like. It's basically inertia at this point.
The definition of a monopoly is not "no choice but X" but if X is in such a position that alternatives are basically sidelined. MS got in trouble because they saw people developing competitive products, and went to their biggest OEMs and threatened them.
While no corporation should ever be trusted, MS has proven that they will abuse any power they are given. They should have been broken up 9 years ago and the pieces forced to compete, but Dubya was soft on all corporations.
@microlith
Way to generalise things for everybody. Just because you don't want to buy a Windows computer doesn't mean nobody wants to. I can buy a Mac for myself, but I still choose to buy a Windows computer because it works better for me.
@Bioran23
Sure, that's fine for -you- but the majority of people have no real choice. This wouldn't be a bad thing (monopolies aren't illegal) if not for the way MS used their position.
Most people only know of Apple as an alternative choice. There are no OSes on the level of Windows offered by Dell et.al.
@Pyronick
As GingerFox pointed out, it IS NOT a monopoly. In fact, Microsoft never had a monopoly over anything. The computer operating system and browser markets are oligopolies (i.e. a few companies offering very similar products). Just because one product or company has a majority market share, it does not make it a monopoly. Lack of monopoly is exactly why this whole browser choice screen pointless. In fact, the reasons this whole thing is pointless has been beaten into everyone's skulls so much on this site that I need not say more.
@owdee
Yes, Microsoft did have a monopoly. Back when the Government went after MS the only OS out there for the majority of PCs was Windows. Ignorance of this fact does not make it false, and you can go read the findings of fact from 2000 where it was established (legally!) that they did, in fact, have a monopoly.
Considering how many people are providing browsers today, I hardly think it's a market consisting of an Oligopoly. Anyone can create a browser if they really want, so long as they follow the standards.
@microlith
Eh, microlith, you made some sense until you started to assert that no-one wants a Windows computer.
What programs 'force' you to buy a Windows computer? Not Office; it's available on Mac and there are open-source alternatives that are compatible with most common files. Not Photoshop, same deal. What, games? Ok then, let's assume that some people who really want Macs get Windows because they want to play games.
Whose fault is that really? Can you say it's Window's fault for supporting the .exe file type and development tools for creating games and running them? It seems to me like, if Apple is really so burdened by Microsoft's 'monopoly', they might consider looking into creating a similar environment in order to compete. I suppose that's Boot Camp. But why blame Microsoft? It's a game company's decision to not code a game in a format that would work for other operating systems. It's a game company's decision to choose the Windows platform in the first place.
@FallenArms3
The ignorance in your post is vast.
I did not assert that no-one wants a computer. I asserted that they did not know of other options.
Any program that requires windows and is not available on any other platform forces you to Windows. This is mainly a huge number of purpose built applications that you (and I) will never see. The developer chooses Windows and basically forces the buyers' hand.
Windows -established- the PE format but that's irrelevant. In fact, your every point is based on attacking an implication that I did not make.
@microlith: Nobody wants to buy a Windows computer?? Oh, I BEG TO DIFFER. I use OS X for personal use, but for my business Windows works better. Tried and dumped Linux (Fedora, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE) - just too much headache.
@microlith I'd argue that at the time IE was the superior browser actually. Also they were not solely responsible for the death of the competition...if anything that honor goes to AOL for their absolutely god awful handling of Netscape which after version 4 saw them take literally years to release a follow up (and at the time version 4 was widely in use). When version 6 eventually arrived it was a bloated mess and not what consumers wanted or needed.
Blame MS all you want but I do believe you can't rule out that Netscape may have actually imploded due to it being missmanaged at the time. Had AOL handled the app with better care it may still be relevant today (I realised it lead to firefox) and IE may have had more competition for much of the decade.