Support NeoGAF

[yoopoo]

I have zero respect for Opera because instead of competing the old fashioned way, like Mozilla did (In a very successful manner I might add), Opera decided to file an anti-trust lawsuit in order to generate publicity for their product. A product which was and is drowning in a sea of able competitors.

So what you're saying is that if Opera had a Firefox type market share, and they had still filled this EU complaint...you'd have no issues with Opera?

Well can't argue against this kind of logic.

Also make sure to also have zero respect these companies too: Google, IBM, Sun, Nokia, Adobe, Oracle...take a guess why.

 

[Alcander]

Rambling

This is silly. For one, Firefox has nearly 50% of the market without resorting to government intervention thus far, so its obvious IE is quite able to be de-throned using traditional methods.

Second, IE8 is hardly sub-standard. Yes its still not up to par with Firefox/Opera, but its pretty damn close. Thus the consumer's aren't getting screwed by having it preinstalled. As a web developer, I can say that you can now easily code to web standards and IE8 will render fine, though I will grant you that ie6/7 hold things back.

In any case, I doubt many people arguing for MS here are doing so out of patriotism. I would be singing the same tune if the US govt tried to enforce this against MS or against a non-American company. Nationalism has little to do with it. It's just a silly crusade by the EU which seems little more than a grudge at this point.

 

[Dipswitch]

So what you're saying is that if Opera had a Firefox type market share, and they had still filled this EU complaint...you'd have no issues with Opera?

I'd certainly have less issue with them, that's for sure. As it stands now, they're using the E.U as a competitive crutch and an advertising platform, instead of competing on their own merits.

 

[lutherjw]

This is silly. For one, Firefox has nearly 50% of the market without resorting to government intervention thus far, so its obvious IE is quite able to be de-throned using traditional methods.

Ask anyone over the age of 60 what Firefox is.

 

[Zaptruder]

I have zero respect for Opera because instead of competing the old fashioned way, like Mozilla did (In a very successful manner I might add), Opera decided to file an anti-trust lawsuit in order to generate publicity for their product. A product which was and is drowning in a sea of able competitors.

Your contention that Opera won't gain anything from this anyway because their browser is so shit (what a retarded chip on your shoulder to have) is ridiculous.

Proven by the fact that Internet Explorer (6,7,8 combined... because no one is listing browser share of Opera as 7,8,9,10 or Firefox as 2, 2.5, 3, etc) still continues to hold the largest market share in web browsers despite the ample shittiness of their web browser.

If IE stops been the default browser, and people actually have to make a choice; then it means that the browser market of people willing to even consider the option of another browser other than the prepackaged (because there is no longer) one increases three-fold.

Why compete on bullshit grounds, when they can compete on fair grounds? Do you have a problem with people making things fair? Yes, apparently you do.

 

[harSon]

Ask anyone over the age of 60 what Firefox is.

How exactly does this matter?

 

[lutherjw]

How exactly does this matter?

The general consumer has absolutely no clue that competing products even exist.

 

[Kunan]

So? Are they not still a part of it? If you're going to hate one company for doing something, you should hate other companies for doing the exact same thing. Double standards, I guess.

Everyone does. There have already been thread moanings about it a couple months ago, and there is moanings in this thread too, except grouping everyone together. And those far outnumber the specific hate posts against Opera in here. In fact, most of the anti-Opera talk in this thread is you accusing users of being anti-Opera.

 

[harSon]

The general consumer has absolutely no clue that competing products even exist.

I agree but it's not Microsoft's job to spend money to assure that they do.

 

[Zaptruder]

This is silly. For one, Firefox has nearly 50% of the market without resorting to government intervention thus far, so its obvious IE is quite able to be de-throned using traditional methods.

Second, IE8 is hardly sub-standard. Yes its still not up to par with Firefox/Opera, but its pretty damn close. Thus the consumer's aren't getting screwed by having it preinstalled. As a web developer, I can say that you can now easily code to web standards and IE8 will render fine, though I will grant you that ie6/7 hold things back.

In any case, I doubt many people arguing for MS here are doing so out of patriotism. I would be singing the same tune if the US govt tried to enforce this against MS or against a non-American company. Nationalism has little to do with it. It's just a silly crusade by the EU which seems little more than a grudge at this point.

There are a few browser market share figures out there.

I'm going with the one that supports my narrative (i.e. IE still has 60%+ of market share).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Web_browser_usage_share.svg

And while it's great that Firefox has become so ubiquitous, the point is still apt; if at some point Microsoft does come out with a more feature rich browser than Firefox (unlikely, I know), and it continues to be prepackaged as part of Windows, then it'll likely set back the movement towards a transparent web standards again.

 

[Kunan]

The general consumer has absolutely no clue that competing products even exist.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
Sure they don't. Even if the real numbers lean more to the second, that would mean over 40% of people use other browsers, the bulk of which being FireFox. And the non-ie users don't exist in a void the ie users cant see, the IE users talk to them all the time.

 

[lutherjw]

Everyone does. There have already been thread moanings about it a couple months ago, and there is moanings in this thread too, except grouping everyone together. And those far outnumber the specific hate posts against Opera in here. In fact, most of the anti-Opera talk in this thread is you accusing users of being anti-Opera.

Can you read?

It's reasonable to tell one company to inject other companies software in there?

Stupid. IE is standards compliant now and is no longer trying to use its market position to hinder the ability of alternative platforms to access the web.

High market share is no reason for government interference unless that position is being abused. This is ridiculous, and for the same reason so is the US DOJ investigating Google.

Because it's bullshit that a court can step in and tell a private company to stick competitor software inside?

Instead of Opera crying to the courts, maybe they should market their product better.

To me, this just sounds like an unncessary fucking headache for consumers.

And I don't know why they even care, anymore. So what if your browser is unpopular? Who gives a shit, anymore? Are you going to charge for your browser? Try to steer consumers to other products with adware in your browser? If so, I don't want it, anyway.

Microsoft gets the EU off its back, everyone picks IE at the prompt and nothing changes. Everyone wins!

Firefox managed to get 25% market share without being bundled with anything. Maybe the others should just try harder.

A joke of a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist.

EU are really being a bunch of douches during this whole ordeal.

I'm sure this will only temporarily appease them until they can think of another reason to tax Microsoft.

The irony here will be that Opera still won't be chosen by anyone, because no one gives a shit about it. So their marketshare will stay infinitesimally small.

Then they'll likely complain to the EU again, whining that no one knows who they are and that Microsoft should advertise their product for them, free of charge. In addition, for every month that Opera's market share remains nonexistent, they'll ask the EU to fine Microsoft a billion Euros.

Ah, the joys of competition. EU style.

What's "best" for any one is, frankly, irrelevant. When governments start fascist-like tendencies of making content decisions for companies, they've certainly crossed a line. This is as bad as telling Disney, because it has a high marketshare, that it must start including trailers in its home DVDs for competing movies. It's fucking ridiculous.

Makes absolutely no sense at all.

This has always been bullshit.

Nobody will download Opera with the ballot, anyway. That logo is ugly and so is the browser.

Please. Opera didn't do this because they wanted people to have a choice. They did it because they're bitter that they're not the choice people are making. Because people are choosing other browsers instead. Like Firefox, which is doing incredibly well in Europe. And between them, Safari, Chrome and I.E, Opera still won't stand a monkeys chance.

Bullshit. I almost want to switch to IE out of spite. But I won't. Because it sucks.

Sorry, but you're exceedingly naive if you think Opera did this with consumers in mind. They did this because Mozilla is kicking their (And Microsoft's) ass in Europe and their brand awareness is virtually non-existent. Putting their name on a ballot screen at least lets people know they exist, and they need all the help they can get. And again, it won't make a scrap of difference for them in the end.

I have zero respect for Opera because instead of competing the old fashioned way, like Mozilla did (In a very successful manner I might add), Opera decided to file an anti-trust lawsuit in order to generate publicity for their product. A product which was and is drowning in a sea of able competitors.

Wow, I never followed this whole thing between Microsoft and the EU.

This is fucked up.

i'm not the type to side on big corporation's side, especially Microsoft. But...They gotta work to get attention. I never saw an ad that turned me onto Opera, Chrome, or Mozilla.

People like you did.

if nobody said anything, i would have never known about any of em. I guess thats fixed now eh? Fucking A.

Shameful.

 

[Dipswitch]

Never has a user name been so apt as yours.

Give yourself a cookie. You obviously deserve one for being so clever.

Your contention that Opera won't gain anything from this anyway because their browser is so shit (what a retarded chip on your shoulder to have) is ridiculous.

Please point out where I said their browser is shit.

Proven by the fact that Internet Explorer (6,7,8 combined... because no one is listing browser share of Opera as 7,8,9,10 or Firefox as 2, 2.5, 3, etc) still continues to hold the largest market share in web browsers despite the ample shittiness of their web browser.

Numbers that are changing every day because people are choosing to install a different browser of their choice. It just ain't Opera.

If IE stops been the default browser, and people actually have to make a choice; then it means that the browser market of people willing to even consider the option of another browser other than the prepackaged (because there is no longer) one increases three-fold.

And where does that end exactly? What happens when every other 2 bit browser developer pops up and file lawsuits because their product isn't on the splash screen as well? Or ordered in the way they like? Is Microsoft required to constantly update their disk image to accommodate that nonsense? Frankly, that's fucking ridiculous and exposes Microsoft to a never ending cycle of legal action if some other company gets their panties in a twist.

 

[Rur0ni]

And where does that end exactly? What happens when every other 2 bit browser developer pops up and file lawsuits because their product isn't on the splash screen as well? Or ordered in the way they like? Is Microsoft required to constantly update their disk image to accommodate that nonsense? Frankly, that's fucking ridiculous and exposes Microsoft to a never ending cycle of legal action if some other company gets their panties in a twist.

Pretty much. Next is Ubuntu on the Windows 7 install disc.

 

[Sol..]

Can you read?

Some is anti-opera

Most appear to be aimed at the EU decision...such as my post.

 

[yoopoo]

I'd certainly have less issue with them, that's for sure. As it stands now, they're using the E.U as a competitive crutch and an advertising platform, instead of competing on their own merits.

Ahhh I see....so you have issues with Mozilla, Google, IBM, Sun, Nokia, Adobe, Oracle and others...but not as much as Opera.

Oh my, so many companies on your issue list.

 

[Kunan]

Can you read?

Yea they far outnumber them. You said that people were unfairly targetting Opera and not the others. I said the posts that target everyone far outnumbered the Opera ones, and you went and did the quote work to prove my point for me. 165 post thread, and 6 specifically anti-Opera comments, 2 of which were in response to your posts. Sounds exactly like what I said, doesn't it? Thanks.

 

[Dipswitch]

Ahhh I see....so you have issues with Mozilla, Google, IBM, Sun, Nokia, Adobe, Oracle and others...but not as much as Opera.

Oh my, so many companies on your issue list.

Frankly, I'm not sure what the hell you're blathering on about. Feel free to write up a comprehensive report to help educate me as to why you think I have issues with those companies though, and forward it on. I promise to consider reading it.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

So? Are they not still a part of it? If you're going to hate one company for doing something, you should hate other companies for doing the exact same thing. Double standards, I guess.

Right, but it's more likely that Google and Mozilla wouldn't have started this suit in the first place. It's mostly just politics.

If Opera hadn't filed the suit, likely Mozilla and Google would be competing the best way, in terms of features and making a better product and working to convince people to use their browser.

Opera on the other hand just gives off the vibe that the only way they want to gain marketshare is to bully their way to pre-install their OS in Windows instead of convincing customers to come to them to download their product. After the suit got started though, a lot of companies joined mostly because of how they wanted others to perceive their company and showing that they wanted open-ness and such.

Just my view though.

 

[RevoDS]

Your arguement still makes no sense. If this whole thing is only happening because Opera wants publicity, why would Google and Firefox join the suit?

They didn't. Mozilla didn't join either side in the lawsuit, and they're not part of the complaining side. Instead, they joined as an "interested third-party", essentially a neutral position meant to advise the EU on the matter.

Notably, Mozilla and Google didn't comment negatively on the news that Microsoft was to remove IE from Windows 7, while Opera spat out a retarded press release shitting on them and saying it's not enough. THAT's why Opera's being singled out.

Ask anyone over the age of 60 what Firefox is.

Moot point. Most people don't actually use any browser, they just use "the internet". Chances are your same person over 60 wouldn't know what IE is either (or would know purely because its name is self-explanatory, unlike Firefox's)

Even then, generalizations are sketchy evidence at best, so you'd better leave it out of here...

 

[FrenulumBreve]

Your arguement still makes no sense. If this whole thing is only happening because Opera wants publicity, why would Google and Firefox join the suit?

Because google/firefox will get free exposure out of this. They'd be stupid to not join in.

 

[lutherjw]

They didn't. Mozilla didn't join either side in the lawsuit, and they're not part of the complaining side. Instead, they joined as an "interested third-party", essentially a neutral position meant to advise the EU on the matter.

With all due respect, you are completely and utterly wrong.

Or wait, is the Chair of the Mozilla Foundation stating that "the damage Microsoft has done to competition, innovation, and the pace of the web development itself is both glaring and ongoing," just more "sketchy evidence"?

 

[RevoDS]

With all due respect, you are completely and utterly wrong.

Or wait, is the Chair of the Mozilla Foundation stating that "the damage Microsoft has done to competition, innovation, and the pace of the web development itself is both glaring and ongoing," just more "sketchy evidence"?

The guy is speaking from himself in that post, not on behalf of the Mozilla foundation. Officially, Mozilla hasn't joined the complainants in the case.

Mozilla has been granted what's called "interested third party" status in the case, which allows it to submit arguments to the European regulator, to see the confidential statement of objections the EC sent Microsoft last month, and to participate in a face-to-face hearing if Microsoft requests one.

However, it isn't a complainant in the case. That role goes to Norwegian Web browser Opera, which complained to the EC just over a year ago about Microsoft's practices in the browser market.

 

[yoopoo]

Frankly, I'm not sure what the hell you're blathering on about. Feel free to write up a comprehensive report to help educate me as to why you think I have issues with those companies though, and forward it on. I promise to consider reading it.

Well those companies filled the EU complaint against MS...therefore you should have issue with those companies.

But of course not as big issue as with Opera...since they started the whole thing.

 

[lutherjw]

The guy is speaking from himself in that post, not on behalf of the Mozilla foundation. Officially, Mozilla hasn't joined the complainants in the case.

I dunno, when the chairperson of a company speaks, I tend to think it's the stated position of that company...

 

[RevoDS]

I dunno, when the chairperson of a company speaks, I tend to think it's the stated position of that company...

It doesn't matter what he says (I'll leave aside the fact that I disagree on that one; regardless of his position, one can have a different position than the organization he's representing as long as he isn't trying to pass his personal opinions as the organization's). Mozilla's position in the suit isn't a complainant, unlike Opera. It seems fair that they're treated differently since their intent isn't the same.

 

[Fafalada]

IE is standards compliant now and is no longer trying to use its market position to hinder the ability of alternative platforms to access the web.

Tell that to the countries with goverment sponsored ActiveX web-abuse.

 

[jamesinclair]

I demand competing calculator ads.

And i demand that when I install quicktime, I be given the option to instal VLC, and not just itunes.

 

[soundahfekz]

Fuck this shit, these companies want bigger market share, follow google's footsteps and make their own OS.

 

[zoku88]

Technically speaking it is, at least within the debate we're having. If we're assuming that the average customer is not capable of downloading an alternative browser on Windows, then how is the IPod and Itunes any different of a story? The IPod has over 70% of the MP3 market share, and considering the "difficulty" in finding an alternative means of getting music to your IPod, it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of that 70% market share is using ITunes. Seeing as Itunes is much more then a way for one to organize music (Music purchases, movie purchases, game purchases, etc.), Apple is given an "unfair advantage".

How is that different from Windows and Internet Explorer?

This is a strawman if I ever saw one.

First of all, if you look up anti-trust law about two products in tying, it usually refers to something about how related to the two products are.

There's no reason why Windows should need IE.

At least it makes a shred of sense for an MP3 player to require a music manager.

Of course, you could make an argument that Apple is doing something illegal and that they should be sued, but them not being sued is not an argument for why MS shouldn't be sued.

EDIT: actually, this isn't a strawman, this is some other logical fallacy. I forget the name.

EDIT2: My posts are always hard to understand. I mean to say, tying isn't illegal by itself, no matter the marketshare. It's tying of unrelated products (usually for the sole purpose of expanding marketshare for the less popular product) is anticompetitive and therefore illegal.

Fuck this shit, these companies want bigger market share, follow google's footsteps and make their own OS.

Yup, that's totally a reasonable suggestion. (Especially since you don't know that it will even work in Google's case.)

 

[Opiate]

Fuck this shit, these companies want bigger market share, follow google's footsteps and make their own OS.

Yes, it's that simple. Why didn't everyone else think of that?

Also, if you want to compete with AT&T, simply create a gigantic nationwide network with flexible pricing plans. Would you like to compete against Standard Oil? Just create an enormous, worldwide conglomeration of oil assets.

 

[Dooraven]

Fuck this shit, these companies want bigger market share, follow google's footsteps and make their own OS.

The only thing is Google is with these guys too.

There is no real reason why Opera should be solely blamed on this. Opera had the balls to question foul practises by putting it up with the EU. If this was an Opera vs Microsoft case then yeah you could blame them but since many other companies are taking sides with Opera I don't see how Opera is the be blamed the most.

Mozilla obviously wants something done about Microsoft's practises. You don't go into a case without expecting to gain something from this. If Mozilla didn't care then they wouldn't of bothered to join the case. neutral position or not.

 

[Sharp]

Anyone who says this is a bad thing doesn't remember how Microsoft abused its power in the past to throw out every other browser maker. As someone who has been evangelizing other browsers for awhile now, this is a huge victory and it makes me really happy to see everything working out.

 

[Opiate]

Anyone who says this is a bad thing doesn't remember how Microsoft abused its power in the past to throw out every other browser maker. As someone who has been evangelizing other browsers for awhile now, this is a huge victory and it makes me really happy to see everything working out.

Very few people in here are arguing that Microsoft hasn't abused their position before.

I think the reasonable argument against your position is that this isn't what MS is doing now. Punishing entities for prior bad acts through indirect means (e.g. convicting them of a crime they may not actually be culpable of) is illegal and unethical in every territory I know of.

 

[itxaka]

google chrome is gonna skyrocket into heaven with this in europe. People love so much google that will probably choose it as their first option.

Good.

 

[Firestorm]

Google definitely has the most to gain. Firefox probably won't see a huge increase. Anyone who cares to switch would do it without this I think. A small bump, sure, but nothing major. Google on the other hand definitely has the name recognition.

That's a pretty terrible analogy.

The content in this case is the web, not the web browser. Microsoft has a history of using its bundling of a web browser that works as they specify as a way of forcing other browsers (and thus operating systems) out of the market. That's what most people don't realize. If the majority of web users use IE, and IE works in this specified way, then Microsoft can push others out. And it's not just a free browser that's at stake. Linux users don't have IE, nor do Mac users. They can never have a chance at taking OS marketshare, because the web is already established and works with one only.

At least, that's how it was in the past. Now, I think the EU just wants to make sure it doesn't happen again. Admittedly, they've been doing a pretty poor job so far.

Besides, it's only fascist-like if you're a supporter of a 100% free market. Which is a fine ideal to believe in, but is certainly not the reality right now.

Best post in this thread imo. The problem with IE to me isn't that everyone uses it. It's that everyone uses it enabling Microsot to set their own standard, which is why writing a website is such a bitch.

 

[FLEABttn]

There's no reason why Windows should need IE.

1) Using that logic, there's not reason why Windows should need a lot of things. Imagine how popular foobar2000 might be if it wasn't for all this tying nonsense =(

2) Google doesn't agree with you, based on their announcing of a their web based ChromeOS. The line between the internet and the OS is blurring more everyday, so saying that one doesn't need the other is naive.

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

Yes it is. Microsoft has been a very naughty boy in the past. There's no denying they have a monopoly.

Even though, this whole IE thing feels kinda sketchy. I do appreciate the EU caring about the consumers (if that's what they're really doing). I think what they should do is have Microsoft seperate IE from Windows completely (like they've already been doing, IIRC) and let the OEM's decide which browser to stick on.

It's so annoying that I'm quite passionate about things like this (software) yet 99% of people out there, understandably, just don't give a crap...


LOL @ the prompts comments at the start of the thread btw! :lol :lol

Dude you should know from MS's history that they will try to offer deals to OEMs to try and force IE as the primary browser. Do you really think that HP, Lenovo, Acer etc will offer anything other than IE?

 

[harSon]

This is a strawman if I ever saw one.

First of all, if you look up anti-trust law about two products in tying, it usually refers to something about how related to the two products are.

There's no reason why Windows should need IE.

At least it makes a shred of sense for an MP3 player to require a music manager.

Of course, you could make an argument that Apple is doing something illegal and that they should be sued, but them not being sued is not an argument for why MS shouldn't be sued.

EDIT: actually, this isn't a strawman, this is some other logical fallacy. I forget the name.

EDIT2: My posts are always hard to understand. I mean to say, tying isn't illegal by itself, no matter the marketshare. It's tying of unrelated products (usually for the sole purpose of expanding marketshare for the less popular product) is anticompetitive and therefore illegal.


Yup, that's totally a reasonable suggestion. (Especially since you don't know that it will even work in Google's case.)

Considering the internet is probably the leading usage for a computer? I think you might be wrong. Outside of the fact that Windows is software and an IPod is hardware, the two examples are pretty much identical.

 

[zoku88]

Considering the internet is probably the leading usage for a computer? I think you might be wrong. Outside of the fact that Windows is software and an IPod is hardware, the two examples are pretty much identical.

Just because its a leading use of computers doesn't mean that an OS needs them.

1) Using that logic, there's not reason why Windows should need a lot of things. Imagine how popular foobar2000 might be if it wasn't for all this tying nonsense =(

2) Google doesn't agree with you, based on their announcing of a their web based ChromeOS. The line between the internet and the OS is blurring more everyday, so saying that one doesn't need the other is naive.

1) Incidentally, the EU forced MS to release a version without WMP (although, they didn't stop them from the tying altogether, one wonders why.)

2) That's ChromeOS, this is Windows. Windows is not a web-based OS.

 

[harSon]

Just because its a leading use of computers doesn't mean that an OS needs them.

How exactly would the average computer user A) Get a browser or B) Download necessary drivers? Some form of browser has to be implemented, the fact that you think otherwise is either sheer ignorance or a reluctance to admit my previous point to be correct.

 

[Burai]

Anyone who says this is a bad thing doesn't remember how Microsoft abused its power in the past to throw out every other browser maker. As someone who has been evangelizing other browsers for awhile now, this is a huge victory and it makes me really happy to see everything working out.

Microsoft didn't use it's power to do shit.

Netscape pissed away it's entire userbase between 1998 and 2000 when development stagnated on version 4 and version 5 was in development hell. In the meantime, the dot com boom happened and Netscape didn't have a browser for millions and millions of new users who'd just jumped onto the net.

It's very easy to evangelise other browsers now - Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera are actually good. But back then during those critical few years? Netscape 4.7 was archaic. And Netscape 6? A horrible, buggy, bloated piece of shit. Opera? The version you paid for or the adware version?

People used them out of a sense of duty to not using a Microsoft browser, not because they were any good.

It just seems a bit harsh to punish a company for abusing it's monopoly when they were handed that monopoly on a plate by their rival.

 

[zoku88]

How exactly would the average computer user A) Get a browser or B) Download necessary drivers? Some form of browser has to be implemented, the fact that you think otherwise is either sheer ignorance or a reluctance to admit my previous point to be correct.

Uhm.

A) How do you think people got browsers before? The way mentioned in the OP takes care of that anyway... Of course, there are other ways. Mainly, the same way people get stuck with Norton AV.

B) Have you used Win7? How many drivers did you actually manually download?

 

[harSon]

Uhm.

A) How do you think people got browsers before? The way mentioned in the OP takes care of that anyway...

B) Have you used Win7? How many drivers did you actually manually download?

A) The way mentioned in the OP is using Internet Explorer to route you to a page offering alternatives.

B) I'm using Windows 7 as we speak and I had to download both my Video Card and Wireless Card drivers.

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

Technically speaking it is, at least within the debate we're having. If we're assuming that the average customer is not capable of downloading an alternative browser on Windows, then how is the IPod and Itunes any different of a story? The IPod has over 70% of the MP3 market share, and considering the "difficulty" in finding an alternative means of getting music to your IPod, it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of that 70% market share is using ITunes. Seeing as Itunes is much more then a way for one to organize music (Music purchases, movie purchases, game purchases, etc.), Apple is given an "unfair advantage".

How is that different from Windows and Internet Explorer?

Differences:

-iTunes does not dictate audio formats to be used in iTines
-There are no equals or betters to iTunes as a product
-iTunes/Apple have never squeezed out competitors through backhanded deals such as what MS did with J++/VJ

 

[Burai]

How exactly would the average computer user A) Get a browser or B) Download necessary drivers? Some form of browser has to be implemented, the fact that you think otherwise is either sheer ignorance or a reluctance to admit my previous point to be correct.

You don't remember the Internet during the 56k years do you?

I regularly updated my broswers off of PC magazine cover CDs. 50MB was a lot of data back then.

There's absolutely nothing to stop browser manufacturers going back to distributing CDs or even memory sticks.

 

[zoku88]

A) The way mentioned in the OP is using Internet Explorer to route you to a page offering alternatives.

B) I'm using Windows 7 as we speak and I had to download both my Video Card and Wireless Card drivers.

A) Uhm, what are you talking about? The article says nothing about have IE installed by default (which, uhm, was what the EU originally sued them for anyway.)

B) Unfortunate. What would you have done without any internet connectivity on that computer?

Anyway, even without IE in every install fo Windows and without this ballot system, most people would probably still have access to an internet browser. It's pretty easy to say how (even without the CDs Burai is mentioning.)

 

[harSon]

Differences:

-iTunes does not dictate audio formats to be used in iTines
-There are no equals or betters to iTunes as a product
-iTunes/Apple have never squeezed out competitors through backhanded deals such as what MS did with J++/VJ

Amarok? Media Monkey?

Just like in the case of browsers, the typical user is not aware that he or she is capable of using other programs, let alone knowing what those alternatives are. Is that Apple's fault? I certainly don't think so, but this ignorance on the part of the customer generates hundreds of millions of dollars for Apple.

You don't remember the Internet during the 56k years do you?

I regularly updated my broswers off of PC magazine cover CDs. 50MB was a lot of data back then.

There's absolutely nothing to stop browser manufacturers going back to distributing CDs or even memory sticks.

I'd imagine the demographics for computer users has changed quite a bit since those day, meaning that they're likely (definitely) less tech savvy on average. We're trying to make OS' simpler and user friendly, not needlessly complicated :lol

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

How exactly would the average computer user A) Get a browser or B) Download necessary drivers? Some form of browser has to be implemented, the fact that you think otherwise is either sheer ignorance or a reluctance to admit my previous point to be correct.

If you've ever installed Linux, they provide a step to choose the enviroment before installation has even finished. It's quite simple:

When Windows has finished it's main installation and is configuring, it pops up saying "Windows is finished installing, which browser do you want to use: IE, FF, Opera, Safari or Chrome". Then when they decide, bingo, OS and browser is installed

Quite simple

 

[WickedAngel]

Differences:

-iTunes does not dictate audio formats to be used in iTines
-There are no equals or betters to iTunes as a product
-iTunes/Apple have never squeezed out competitors through backhanded deals such as what MS did with J++/VJ

I can't believe that you just said that iTunes is the best product. Holy shit.