Microsoft is having a bad day

[drhowarddrfine]

EU may order Microsoft to bundle other browsers
Google joins Opera and Mozilla in complaint against IE
Microsoft will have an even worse year.

This mixed strategic vision—Microsoft has identified some key markets for growth, but doesn't seem to have a concrete plan for actually growing in them—is probably more worrisome than the grim financial news.

[ecube]

they better not, i'm so sick of this non-sense, they have absolutely NO case, it's microsofts operating system, they created it, they own it, and they can do whatever the hell they want with it.  You don't see them crying about mac, which ships with their own os, or linux...seriously i'd love to walk into court where these a**hole judges are who are allowing this to take place, and punch every one of them in the throat.

[japheth]

they have absolutely NO case, it's microsofts operating system, they created it, they own it, and they can do whatever the hell they want with it.

No. Apparently you don't know too much about competition - or antitrust - laws and their background. It's pretty common both in Europe and America that if a market becomes a monopoly that the monopolist's power is to be "restricted" by law and that it can NOT "do whatever the hell" it wants to do. This isn't "non-sense", it's common sense.

You might find it unjust to treat monopolists this way, and IMO you're not totally wrong in general, but in the M$ case and regarding M$'s history I must admit I don't feel much regret - they deserve death.

[ecube]

they have absolutely NO case, it's microsofts operating system, they created it, they own it, and they can do whatever the hell they want with it.

No. Apparently you don't know too much about competition - or antitrust - laws and their background. It's pretty common both in Europe and America that if a market becomes a monopoly that the monopolist's power is to be "restricted" by law and that it can NOT "do whatever the hell" it wants to do. This isn't "non-sense", it's common sense.

You might find it unjust to treat monopolists this way, and IMO you're not totally wrong in general, but in the M$ case and regarding M$'s history I must admit I don't feel much regret - they deserve death.

No I know a lot more than you do, and following your flawed understanding let's pentalize anyone whos successful, lets shutdown google.com right now, they're obviously  a monopoly, yahoo.com shut them down, ebay, gone.And If you hate microsoft so much why don't you stop using their products? because as it stands you're a complete hypocrite. Even you being on this forum is hypocritical as it's windows related, and masm is created by microsoft, go support a linux based project, since you're such a big fanboy. Regardless internet explorer is free, the fact this case is even being heard is because the EU consists of nothing but patrionizing wig wearing cross dressers who are power trips. It's this kind of dictatorship that got them destroyed by colonist who formed America back in the day.

[drhowarddrfine]

No I know a lot more than you do

Apparently not because he's right. You're missing the point.

Regardless internet explorer is free

Does not matter.  So are all other browseres.  But that's not the point either.

It's this kind of dictatorship that got them destroyed by colonist who formed America back in the day.

Um. The US Justice Department almost broke up Microsoft over this.  They did fine them tens of millions of dollars, and put them under court orders to open up their software and forced them to report to the Justice Department several times a year up until last year, I believe.  That's why MSDN all of a sudden became more informative, accurate and useful.  It was not out of the kindness of Microsoft.

The point is that Internet Explorer is not a web standards compliant browser.  So for people to use Microsoft software on the public internet, they had to use Internet Explorer which only came with Windows (forcing the purchase of Windows but that's another issue). All other web browsers are standards compliant by about 11 years more than IE.  However, they don't work as well with Windows computers or software because the software gets written for IE.  Generally, and simplisticly speaking, this locks out competition for other browsers for working with MS software and accessing the internet on a Windows computer. 

This changed quite a bit since the US Justice Department filed the same antitrust against Microsoft in 1998.  Since then MS opened up a lot of their hidden APIs so other software could access them.  However, they did not improve IE until IE7 came out.  It's still the worst standards compliant browser on the web today, and IE8 is not significantly better in most areas (only CSS 2.1 support is significantly better).

So, a lot of the things that browser vendors can compete on, they can't because web developers will not use those methods and techniques cause they don't work with any version of IE.  So the only differentiation would be on basic web performance, which is a commodity now. That leaves proprietary methods but these are only available on IE, again, effectively locking out competition and locking out those who want to use Windows and use these methods on the public internet.

If the EU can get this done, and every web developer in the world is praying they do, you will see grand and glorious new features pouring out of every corner of the globe which exist today but never used because they won't work on IE.

[ecube]

No I know a lot more than you do

Apparently not because he's right. You're missing the point.

Regardless internet explorer is free

Does not matter.  So are all other browseres.  But that's not the point either.

It's this kind of dictatorship that got them destroyed by colonist who formed America back in the day.

Um. The US Justice Department almost broke up Microsoft over this.  They did fine them tens of millions of dollars, and put them under court orders to open up their software and forced them to report to the Justice Department several times a year up until last year, I believe.  That's why MSDN all of a sudden became more informative, accurate and useful.  It was not out of the kindness of Microsoft.

The point is that Internet Explorer is not a web standards compliant browser.  So for people to use Microsoft software on the public internet, they had to use Internet Explorer which only came with Windows (forcing the purchase of Windows but that's another issue). All other web browsers are standards compliant by about 11 years more than IE.  However, they don't work as well with Windows computers or software because the software gets written for IE.  Generally, and simplisticly speaking, this locks out competition for other browsers for working with MS software and accessing the internet on a Windows computer. 

This changed quite a bit since the US Justice Department filed the same antitrust against Microsoft in 1998.  Since then MS opened up a lot of their hidden APIs so other software could access them.  However, they did not improve IE until IE7 came out.  It's still the worst standards compliant browser on the web today, and IE8 is not significantly better in most areas (only CSS 2.1 support is significantly better).

So, a lot of the things that browser vendors can compete on, they can't because web developers will not use those methods and techniques cause they don't work with any version of IE.  So the only differentiation would be on basic web performance, which is a commodity now. That leaves proprietary methods but these are only available on IE, again, effectively locking out competition and locking out those who want to use Windows and use these methods on the public internet.

If the EU can get this done, and every web developer in the world is praying they do, you will see grand and glorious new features pouring out of every corner of the globe which exist today but never used because they won't work on IE.

you just completely side-stepped the facts and just bluntly lied. The US courts by no means were going to "break up" microsoft one of the most successful US based company ever, over a free web browser. And here's why by law(assuming microsoft actual got a fair trial, which they obviously did not) they won't lose.

1)Microsoft doesn't force users to use internet explorer
2)internet explorer can infact be removed from the system without hurting it
3)if there was no default OS browser users wouldn't be able to get another browser if they so wanted
4)For the courts to order Microsoft to embed competitors products in their multi-billion dollar product is beyond obsured and ridiculous. They spend millions marketing windows, and  have millions of users, why should these other companys they compete with get that free advertising? You can't sit there with a straight face and say that's ok. If they tried this bullshit with any other big corp it'd be thrown out of the courtroom in a second. But since it's microsoft and theres apparently many hypocritical trolls like you who hate them, they don't get justice.
5)as far as standards go theres no law that says they have to follow some "standards" linux geeks create, they're free to create and use what they want.


And since you probably still don't get what the big problem with this is let me help you understand

CAPITALISM
"Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled"

EU is garbage anyway, all they do is copy the United States shows and movies.

[sinsi]

I don't agree with forcing ms to add other browsers, mainly because who decides what goes on the disc?
Every man and his dog will want their 'browser' included. And what version of each browser gets bundled?

Remember when ms bundled 'online services' (aol and a couple more) with win95?
No-one I knew then installed them, maybe mozilla et al are shooting themselves in the foot.

Does it work the other way? Will we see ie for linux bundled with ubuntu?  :bdg

[drhowarddrfine]

I don't agree with forcing ms to add other browsers, mainly because who decides what goes on the disc?
Every man and his dog will want their 'browser' included. And what version of each browser gets bundled?

That was being discussed elsewhere asking the same question.

Does it work the other way? Will we see ie for linux bundled with ubuntu?  :bdg

No.  Ubuntu and Linux are not monopolies on the desktop.

[drhowarddrfine]

you just completely side-stepped the facts and just bluntly lied. The US courts by no means were going to "break up" microsoft one of the most successful US based company ever

United States vs Microsoft

The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty.

over a free web browser.

Same link:

The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system.

1)Microsoft doesn't force users to use internet explorer

Still not the issue no matter how many times you bring it up.

2)internet explorer can infact be removed from the system without hurting it

Try and do Windows Update without it.  Better yet, get grandma to do it.

3)if there was no default OS browser users wouldn't be able to get another browser if they so wanted

So how does Windows register online during installation without a browser? You don't need a browser to download and install one. I thought you would know as much.

4)For the courts to order Microsoft to embed competitors products in their multi-billion dollar product is beyond obsured and ridiculous.

Who asked them to embed anything in their OS?  No one has.

They spend millions marketing windows, and  have millions of users, why should these other companys they compete with get that free advertising?

No one is asking them to advertise the browsers.

If they tried this bullshit with any other big corp it'd be thrown out of the courtroom in a second.

You've never read about the Bell break up?  Or Standard Oil?  Or the railroads?

5)as far as standards go theres no law that says they have to follow some "standards" linux geeks create, they're free to create and use what they want.

Microsoft is a member of the W3C and wrote the very same standards.  They co-chair the current HTML5 Working Group.  Microsoft has signed off on every publication the W3C has produced since the 1990s.

And since you probably still don't get what the big problem with this is let me help you understand

CAPITALISM
"Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled"

That is absolutely true. The exception is when it harms others.  This is such an exception.  You are only looking at it one way.

EU is garbage anyway, all they do is copy the United States shows and movies.

I didn't know the EU was in the movie making business.  ::)

[MichaelW]

Ubuntu and Linux are not monopolies on the desktop.

They're not monopolies because for the masses they aren't worth a sh*t. Microsoft produces what is overwhelmingly the OS of choice, even for most of the as*holes and wannabes who are cooking up these ridiculous court cases. They're like a pack of miniature dogs nipping at Microsoft's ankles, trying to inflict some meaningful damage but lacking the bite to do so.

[japheth]

No I know a lot more than you do, and following your flawed understanding let's pentalize anyone whos successful, lets shutdown google.com right now, they're obviously  a monopoly, yahoo.com shut them down, ebay, gone.

That's nonsense, because anti-trust laws want to restrict the power of a monopoly - it's not necessarily  be destroyed. What's also is to be considered is if the monopolist does or did abuse its power. As far as MS is concerned, the abuse is/was obvious.

And If you hate microsoft so much why don't you stop using their products?

Ahm, I'm not a teen anymore, so I'm not a slave of my emotions. You'll understand when you become a bit older.

because as it stands you're a complete hypocrite.

May I remind you that insults are not allowed, even in the colloseum they're regarded as bad style, and this is not the colosseum. But don't worry, I won't take it personally, I understand your problem.  :wink

Even you being on this forum is hypocritical as it's windows related, and masm is created by microsoft, go support a linux based project, since you're such a big fanboy.

This is a misconception. I use mostly Windows and DOS, Linux just occasionally.

Regardless internet explorer is free, the fact this case is even being heard is because the EU consists of nothing but patrionizing wig wearing cross dressers who are power trips.

I agree as far as you speak about the EU politicians. But that's pretty off-topic.

It's this kind of dictatorship that got them destroyed by colonist who formed America back in the day.

Interesting argument, but after all, who cares?

[hutch--]

Hey Doc,

Since when did you start kissing the arse of the EU ? Everyone knows that Microsoft are a true blue American company ad this is why that bunch of commos and poofters in the EU keep shafting it where they can. With a list like being a closet republican who supported Bush, sending your guys to two crappy wars, grinding the face of the poor and supporting Linux, what else can you do that is Anti-American, start eating "freedom" fries ?

If they ever let you into Seattle and anyone finds out, they will have a quick, cheap and dirty necktie party waiting for you.  :bg

[PBrennick]

Personally, I do not believe this has anything to do with anti-trust at all and it should not be discussed as a factor. I say this because MS has NOT alterred there OS in any way that would make it difficult for another party's browser to function. THAT would make it an anti-trust issue. Since any browser written for windows WILL function in that environment it is a nonissue.

The problem that the competitors are faced with is that most users are NOT power users so they will not fiddle with their stuff. When they try to open a webpage, IE jumps in and does it for them and they consider it to be 'job done' and will see no need to fix something that appears to be working fine for them.

THAT is the complaint although it is never put in so many words. If MS was to bundle K_Melion, for an example, and left IE set as the default browser; that would be the next issue because most people would not know how nor have any desire to change it. So you see, bundling more than one browser will NOT solve the problem. The only possible solution would be for MS to not bundle any browser at all forcing the end user to obtain one from the marketplace. This approach was an issue in a court battle years ago and MS won although they WERE forced to make their OS not be dependent upon the IE browser <- that WAS an antitrust issue.

They (the competitors) will make noises but they will not win even IF they win because of what I said earlier. Most people are petrified about the thought of mucking with their machines. Heck, I have seen people throw away perfectly good machines that could have been easily repared with a re-installation of the OS because they do not have the knowledge to do so. This one incontrovertable fact will mean that MS will ALWAYS win the browser war.

Even though I dislike Internet Explorer, I happen to be on their side with this issue.
Paul

[drhowarddrfine]

I say this because MS has NOT alterred there OS in any way that would make it difficult for another party's browser to function. THAT would make it an anti-trust issue.

Same link as above:

It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers

But that's not the issue with the EU.

This approach was an issue in a court battle years ago and MS won although they WERE forced to make their OS not be dependent upon the IE browser <- that WAS an antitrust issue.

They did not "win". They settled.

They (the competitors) will make noises but they will not win even IF they win because of what I said earlier. Most people are petrified about the thought of mucking with their machines.

Installation requires choices.  Making a choice of browser usage during installation would not be difficult.

[drhowarddrfine]

Hey Doc,

Since when did you start kissing the arse of the EU ?

Because Internet Explorer is the worst browser on the planet and shows no hope of ever improving.  My job now is to develop web pages that must work in all browsers, including IE.  Sometimes 50% of this effort is taking perfectly good, working, modern code and having to muck it up just so IE doesn't F it up. And it Fs it up every time. Any effort to improve or get rid of IE is a web developers dream.

With a list like being a closet republican who supported Bush, sending your guys to two crappy wars, grinding the face of the poor and supporting Linux, what else can you do that is Anti-American, start eating "freedom" fries ?

If they ever let you into Seattle and anyone finds out, they will have a quick, cheap and dirty necktie party waiting for you.  :bg

Hm.  Somehow this is about me?  (And only half of the above is true.