Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: bill
The Commission has rejected Microsoft's pre-emptive move, announced yesterday, to give computer manufacturers the option to buy Windows without a browser. The Commission said it was still deciding whether Microsoft's behaviour since 1996 had been anti-competitive, and if so what remedy would be required to improve consumer choice.
But it said: "If the Commission were to find that Microsoft had committed an abuse, the Commission has suggested that consumers should be offered a choice of browser, not that Windows should be supplied without a browser at all."
The Commission statement dryly notes: "Rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less."
Is EUC and Opera not happy they aren't on a list of browsers to download?
Given that as an alternative, I think MS will quickly see the error of their ways.
Edit... went too far, took some back. Can tell we're on different sides of the pond and should let it go at that. But you did ask too much (apps, office, etc) when only the browser is at question. And I think no browser is better than the nightmare of many browsers.
What part of that don't you understand?
You may think that's ok, you are certainly entitled to hold that opinion, but it's been ruled illegal both in US courts and the EU.
Over the years courts have made rulings that in hindsight turned out to be wrong or at least misguided.
The easy examples are some of the earlier rulings on slavery and civil rights but maybe more relevent are some of the patent rulings.
Many here have stated that some of the patent rulings were wrong because the courts do not have the technical knowledge to make a proper ruling.
The basis of the US decision against MS was that Netscape was destroyed by Microsoft's OS monopoly.
But those of us around then know that Netscape destroyed themselves with a horrible version 6 just when MS put out a decent browser.
The success of Firefox and now Chrome show that Microsoft's OS monopoly does not help them when faced with credible competition.
What part of that don't you understand?
Personal attacks tend to weaken a posters argument.
Microsoft expects it's copyright to be respected even by people who believe copyright law is wrong. Equally, Microsoft must respect the law even if it believes the law is wrong.
Calling someone an idiotic tw*t is a personal attack. Asking the question "what part of that don't you understand?" is not a personal attack it's an attempt to force someone to think logically instead of emotionally. So without wishing to offend you, can you find a flaw in fact or logic with respect to the first two paragraphs?
The success of Firefox and now Chrome show that Microsoft's OS monopoly does not help them when faced with credible competition.Of course it helps them. Are you saying the market share of Internet Explorer is justified by merit?
I don't believe they have ever charged for IE, it has always come bundled, hasn't it? I personally always went out of my way to use other browsers when available. I think the only reason I dropped Netscape was because I got safari instead, and I used DejaNews rather than Netscape for news browsing.
As the population of folks in charge of IT budgets gets older, and a bit wiser to the ways of OSs, they might look at how much they have to pay to constantly monitor and patch Microsoft stuff. Linux is free, and they have some really good aps. Would be fun if some major bank decided "Screw this, we haven't got the time or personnel to continually deal with Microsoft's QC issues."
It really is odd that folks think there is a monopoly when there is better stuff out for free, and people make a huge effort to pay extra for lower quality.
Seems like the best solution.
Set up and independent trust, funded by a $0.5 levy on all copies of Windows sold in Europe. The trust could determine what software has to be bundled and supply it on a separate disk that is distributed with all copies of Windows (OEM and retail). Microsoft would be cut out of the loop entirely since they retail neither computers nor software directly.