Opera says that Microsoft Agrees to Windows 7 Browser Ballot in Europe
- Thread starter Firestorm
- Start date
- Status
Mecha_Infantry
Banned
WickedAngel said:
Due to features that iTunes provide it's currently at the top. Until other developers include ALL the features iTunes can supply, such as store, integration with native OSX apps etc, then they can e declared as equals.
Mecha_Infantry
Banned
harSon said:
They should be forced for their previous actions which they have been belittling other developers, not just browsers but languages too. You seem to think that MS as a company are the ones being hard done by here, when in all reality they aren't.
All MS need to do is give users a choice, they don't even need to install other browsers on the disk. They just need to provide an unbranded window with a choice of all browsers. If MS are confident in their product then in all reality this won't be a problem, the problem comes where they force their browser down peoples throat as the only possible solution.
One other thing I think is a joke is: "IE is not your default browser, would you like it to be?" prompts when you install another browser. And before you start, IE started it first, other browsers did it in response to MS basically telling it's users to use IE
zoku88 said:
lol it's that bad? I haven't used it in a while, but I am a OSX/Linux guy. At the end of the day, if Amarok or whoever else think their product is a suitable competitor to iTunes, then feel free to sue like Opera did. The law is there, so they can use it, but I know that as soon as they do, their product will come under tonnes of scrutiny
Mecha_Infantry
Banned
harSon said:
Which proves the point..If a product can't match the features of another, why should it be pushed into the lime light. "Oh you can have iTunes with a store/other shit, or have product x with LESS!!"
If anyone else can provide an equal product, with their own store or whatever then cool, but it's not happening right now
Mecha_Infantry said:
Why doesn't Apple open up Itunes' store for integration within competing software? Or possibly supply a disk with multiple programs capable of managing an Ipod? Or implement drag and drop without having to hack the device? Etc.
There's an answer and it's the same reasons you're condemning Microsoft for.
Eh? I think you're kind of missing the point of some of the antitrust legislation. When a company abuses its market position, it can also hurt the ability for its competitors to compete. That doesn't mean just marketshare (although, that's a big part of it,) but it can also mean hampering its opponents abilities to improve their products (making less money => less R&D, wtv.)Mecha_Infantry said:
Saying that the other media players aren't as good doesn't mean that there is no foulplay. You could argue that the reason why they aren't so good is because of iPod users almost being forced to use iTunes, thus leaving user little reason to use another music store (? Ive never had an iPod, so I have no idea if iTunes is forced or wtv.)
You're discussing two different things. The tie people Apple's music store and iTunes and the tie between iTunes and iPod.harSon said:
The first one probably wouldn't be heard in court, because a music store and a music player being related doesn't even sound close to farfetched.
The second one is reasonable. But again, even if Apple doesn't get challenged in court, doesn't mean that MS shouldn't.
charlequin
Banned
JKBii said:
In actuality, price-fixing collusion and implicit cartelization happen often. Relying on the mythical "some small company" to outcompete the colluding partners won't get you anywhere when you're looking at a market with implicit monopolies (such as record labels, each of whom has a government-protected monopoly in the form of copyright protection over their content), with high barriers to entry (like many telecommunications fields, where the cost of laying a brand new network infrastructue from scratch is too high for new companies to effectively enter the market and compete), or with other structural advantages.
Here in the US our DoJ and anti-trust protections have become weak and flabby with disuse, but it's not because there has been no cause to use them; it's because those in charge of using them have generally decided that allowing corporations to profit off of collusion, monopoly power, and other consumer-unfriendly tactics is more important than protecting the citizenry from getting ripped off.
WickedAngel said:
That's actually the point.
Laws against utilizing the power of a monopoly aren't actually generally designed to target a company for having a monopoly. If you have natural domination over an individual area of business simply because no one else's product is as good as yours, that's okay -- other companies can keep trying to knock you off your pedestal.
What the law takes issue with is using a monopoly in one field to get a leg up on the competition in another. The local power company can't decide to get in on the cable TV business and offer full cable service for $1 a month to "all current power customers"; that's exploiting their position in another field to create an advantage their cable-TV competitors can't possibly match.
(And then, it's worth mentioning the second part of Microsoft's strategy here -- to make web pages render incorrectly in IE, in ways that could be reliably reproduced, in order to force web designers to design pages that only work correctly in IE, something that they've really only abandoned completely with IE8.)
WickedAngel said:
You also have to remember that this is fallout from an anti-trust case that's been going for years. Microsoft is being punished for something that was much more effective for them ten years ago than it is now -- to some degree, that's silly, but it's entirely Microsoft's fault for refusing to reach a handshake settlement with the EU when one was offered in 2004.
harSon said:
That's true, but Apple has thus far largely been careful with exactly how they've used their iPod market share. Owning an iPod doesn't force you to use a Mac -- it can sync with iTunes on Windows, or with a variety of other software that's reverse-engineered the protocol on either Windows or Linux; you can use music purchased on iTMS on other players, or play tracks from other stores (or your own ripped CDs) on iPods; the iPod accessory port is wide open and lots of third-party companies make things that intersect with it.
In practice, there isn't a specific market where you can point to the results of a distorting effect comparable to how clearly IE's marketshare is solely a result of bundling with Windows. I think it'd be different if there were in practice a huge problem with using non-iTunes software to sync an iPod, but as far as I can tell there isn't really a significant barrier here, and plenty of people either use plugins to sync from another program, or just use iTunes for syncing but use another program as a player.
(That said, I certainly don't separate Apple from Microsoft in any moral sense here; they're both famously aggressive anti-consumer companies.)
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
It was the first legal MP3 music store with all of the major labels. That was a pretty big fucking deal, though it's easy to forget since everyone's mom has an MP3 download store now.avaya said:
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I've skimmed a lot of this thread, but didn't this whole EU business start because it's impossible to uninstall IE through normal, user-friendly methods? It's a bit of a different situation than bundling.
Vyer said:
How exactly does the comparison between two companies who used their footholds in an industry to push a particular software to the top not have any merit? Outside of the physical differences, they're exactly the same. The fact that there has been several court cases for the iPod/iTunes tie-in is proof of this. I personally don't mind Microsoft or Apple's so called business practices to achieve dominance lately, I just consider the EU to be unfair and one sided with its' witch hunts.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
Microsoft offered a SKU where IE could be uninstalled and EU turned the proposal down.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I don't agree with them either, but wasn't it true that until recently you couldn't really sell a retail PC without Windows on it? Basically every computer sold had Windows and that meant you also had an uninstallable IE which is where the EU got pissed.harSon said:
If that's true, it's a bit different than iPod/iTunes with which you would have to voluntarily involve yourself in the trap.
harSon said:
You are all really missing the entire point. MS has a dominant position, that's why they are targeted. There is no inconsistency here, because there is no other browser and no other OS with a dominant position.
And MS is hardly the only company being slapped this way. But they are the worst offenders when it comes to ignoring what they are being told.
Does any foreign company acting in the US ignore local legislation in the way MS does in Europe?
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Google pays for every search done through the browser search box.BobLoblaw said:
No, you make assertions without anything to back them up.jorma said:
You are confident as you are clueless.
But whatever floats your boat.
There's a lot of people who believe that ad funded software (which mean data mining the users' habits and information) is somehow morally superior for paying cash for it.loosus said:
I never post in a thread without reading it, so yeah, I have read your posts here, and no, you have not backed up your assertion that MS ignored the EU with anything.jorma said:
I made a very simple point, and I'll repeat it for your reading pleasure (bolded for dramatic effect) -
You can say "not comply", the EU sure think they did, but ignore?
No software company in history has spent so many man hours trying to comply with anti-trust ruling.
The only thing you did ad nauseum is sidestepping that very simple point.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Christ, I've never seen two people bicker over semantics like this.
You both know what the other meant.
You both know what the other meant.
I'm sorry, but how the hell is this semantics?Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
I honestly believe that MS went above and beyond anything that any software company has ever done in history in order to comply with the EU's requirements and he think they ignore the EU (because apparently they really like to pay fines in Redmond).
Mohonky
Member
I don't get how having IE8 installed on the OS is anticompetitive. It's not like they don't allow you to use other browsers.
Does Mac OSX not include Safari or something? Should OS vendors just preload every third party piece of software out there?
I don't understand this rule to be honest. Just seems weird.
Does Mac OSX not include Safari or something? Should OS vendors just preload every third party piece of software out there?
I don't understand this rule to be honest. Just seems weird.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Try to uninstall IE.Mohonky said:
This was a bigger deal when PCs always had Windows on it. You can buy Linux machines from vendors now though, so it doesn't matter as much.
Mohonky said:
This isn't how anti-competitive behavior works.
The general consensus on our market system -- that is, the ideal we are shooting for -- is a market that rewards those with the most appealing and/or most innovative products. "Anti-competitive" behavior is any type of behavior that stymies this ideal.
In this case, it should be obvious that many people would use IE simply because they don't know there are other options out there, or are not sure how to switch over. Therefore, many would use IE even though they might/would choose a different option if all the available choices were given to them on startup.
Now is this unfairly anti-competitive? I don't think so, in this case. But there should be no question that Microsoft gains an inherent advantage by having IE as the default browser that you have to actively choose to overwrite.
Let me phrase this more simply: would you agree that Microsoft gains an advantage over competing browsers because IE is bundled with Windows? I don't see how that could be disputed. Of course that's an advantage. Therefore, Internet Explorer wins some consumers who would (in theory) prefer a different browser if all options were presented evenly and fairly. Therefore, this is anti-competitive behavior, because Internet Explorer is not winning purely because it's a better product.
Yes it does. That's also an inherent advantage, just in a smaller market.
If they wanted to be completely fair, yes. No one's asking them to be completely fair, though. That's unrealistic. We're simply striving to make the market as fair as is realistically plausible.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked