# European Commission Welcomes New Microsoft Proposals on MSIE and Interoperability



## btarunr (Jul 27, 2009)

The European Commission can confirm that Microsoft has proposed a consumer ballot screen as a solution to the pending antitrust case about the tying of Microsoft Internet Explorer web browser with Windows. This followed extensive discussions with the Commission which centred on a remedy outlined in the January 2009 Statement of Objections (see MEMO/09/15) whereby consumers would be shown a "ballot screen" from which they could - if they wished - easily install competing web browsers, set one of those browsers as a default, and disable Internet Explorer. Under the proposal, Windows 7 would include Internet Explorer, but the proposal recognises the principle that consumers should be given a free and effective choice of web browser, and sets out a means - the ballot screen - by which Microsoft believes that can be achieved. In addition OEMs would be able to install competing web browsers, set those as default and disable Internet Explorer should they so wish. The Commission welcomes this proposal, and will now investigate its practical effectiveness in terms of ensuring genuine consumer choice.

As the Commission indicated in June (see MEMO/09/272 ), the Commission was concerned that, should Microsoft's conduct prove to have been abusive, Microsoft's intention to separate Internet Explorer from Windows, without measures such as a ballot screen, would not necessarily have achieved greater consumer choice in practice and would not have been an effective remedy.



Microsoft has also made proposals in relation to disclosures of interoperability information that would improve the interoperability between third party products and Windows and Windows Server. Again, these proposals require further investigation before the Commission reaches any conclusion as to the next steps.

Microsoft's proposals will be published in full on its website. The Commission has no further comment at this stage.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## alexp999 (Jul 27, 2009)

Been following this, but wtf happens with Windows 7 E now?

Will they scrap it and just change all our pre-orders to the normal Windows 7?


----------



## btarunr (Jul 27, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> Been following this, but wtf happens with Windows 7 E now?
> 
> Will they scrap it and just change all our pre-orders to the normal Windows 7?



Windows 7 E comes with that ballot screen instead of MSIE being "turned off" by default. If you choose IE, it will be turned on.


----------



## alexp999 (Jul 27, 2009)

MS have said they will not continue to sell Win 7 E if the EU accepts the proposal and instead they will offer the full version in Europe.

The ballot screen will be rolled out as a critical update.

So I'm wondering if MS will just scrap 7 E completely and change all our pre-orders to full editions, or whether they will just confuse the pants off joe blogs and have about 3 different editions floating about.


----------



## csendesmark (Jul 27, 2009)

The only good thing in Internet Explorer is: You can download Opera or Firefox


----------



## btarunr (Jul 27, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> MS have said they will not continue to sell Win 7 E if the EU accepts the proposal and instead they will offer the full version in Europe.
> 
> The ballot screen will be rolled out as a critical update.
> 
> So I'm wondering if MS will just scrap 7 E completely and change all our pre-orders to full editions, or whether they will just confuse the pants off joe blogs and have about 3 different editions floating about.



The full version (as in the standard non-EU version) doesn't come with the ballot screen. EU agreed to the proposal that Windows 7 will present the user a choice of browser (ballot). So an educated guess will be that Windows 7 E is the one with the ballot screen.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 27, 2009)

yeah i guess the update approach might make most sense. put the ballot as critical update there that will be installed by most people automatically after installation.

i dont think there is enough time to delay the dvd production until the eu comission and everyone else is happy with ms's solution. an update can be engineered even a few days before launch


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 27, 2009)

Such a waste of time and resources. :shadedshu


----------



## alexp999 (Jul 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> The full version (as in the standard non-EU version) doesn't come with the ballot screen. EU agreed to the proposal that Windows 7 will present the user a choice of browser (ballot). So an educated guess will be that Windows 7 E is the one with the ballot screen.





MS have said they will discontinue Windows 7 E if the Eu agrees to the ballot screen, at which time they will sell the full edition like the rest of the world gets in Europe.

So Im wondering if they will get their arses into gear and ship all the pre-orders as normal editions, or whether there will be a second Win 7 release in Europe with the full version a bit later on.


----------



## AltecV1 (Jul 27, 2009)

so eu member countries will get a choise of browsers and rest of the world will get just explorer!  EU rulez


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 27, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> so eu member countries will get a choise of browsers and rest of the world will get just explorer!  EU rulez



Yeah thats EXACTLY whats happening.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 27, 2009)

i like the new IE I've been testing it for a month now and its extremely efficient IMO, but it is also very nice to have a choice.


----------



## Disparia (Jul 27, 2009)

So threatening anti-trust is the only way to get a useful feature out of them?

Why to go MS! :/


----------



## Dimi (Jul 27, 2009)

This whole discussion doesn't make any sense. If you don't like IE, download another one. Simple as that. If you don't like the tires of your new car, buy other ones!

This is just female nitpicking, Kroes probably doesn't know how and where to find firefox, opera or whatever so she just wants MS to do it for her.

There are still sites, even big sites that don't fully work with Firefox, thats why i use both.

IE is as fast as Firefox. Though firefox takes a long ass time to start up, even on my machine, IE is open in a blink of an eye. Same favorites, not 1 extension in firefox (clean install, only favorites & cookies imported).


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 27, 2009)

I dont see what the eu's big deal is,if you dont like ie just install another and dont use ie.Surely if microsoft make the os,they can ship it with what the hell they like,if people dont like it they can use linux.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 27, 2009)

It's not Microsoft's job to offer choices.  If you don't like it, don't buy their product.  If there's enough people like you, they'll get the message and do something about it.

The EU's decision was wrong before and it is still wrong today.  A court should not be permitted to force the developer of an application to include or exclude features.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 27, 2009)

I completely agree ^^


----------



## alexp999 (Jul 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's not Microsoft's job to offer choices.  If you don't like it, don't buy their product.  If there's enough people like you, they'll get the message and do something about it.
> 
> The EU's decision was wrong before and it is still wrong today.  A court should not be permitted to force the developer of an application to include or exclude features.



Or if they do it should be consistent.

I dont see Apple being sued for including Safari on just about every device they sell.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 27, 2009)

Apple won't get sued because they're "too little" or "insignificant" because of their "lack of abundant, and overwhelming market share," like Microsoft.

In other words, Apple can't contribute enough to EU's retirement fund to be worth fining them. 

...


----------



## mtosev (Jul 27, 2009)

I dont think Apple sells a lot of stuff in Europe. the price tag is a killer.

one example: http://www.mimovrste.com/artikel/2740066025/namizni-racunalnik-apple-imac-24-266ghz-9860


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 27, 2009)

I'd rather have a lobotomy than buy any apple stuff anyway.


----------



## csendesmark (Jul 27, 2009)

This rule for the "default" users, not for  (you) "experts", cant you understand?

And user from US (who disagree with EU decision), use InternetSuxxplorer only for a week


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 27, 2009)

csendesmark said:


> This rule for the "default" users, not for  (you) "experts", cant you understand?
> 
> And user from US (who disagree with EU decision), use InternetSuxxplorer only for a week



I use IE8 and love it.


----------



## alexp999 (Jul 27, 2009)

The thing that gets me and I've probably said it before, is that anyone who is competent enough to install Windows 7 themselves, is competent enough to know about the existence of other browsers and how to install them.

Those who don't, probably have no idea what Windows 7 is, it will just appear pre-installed on their next computer with whatever browser the OEM decided to installed.

Which makes EU's argument completely null and void IMO.

Tho I must admit, having an SKU without IE, now that I've been converted to Opera is nice, and it will hopefully force devs to not make popups open in IE regardless of default settings. That said, it looks like 7 E could be canned. I'm downloading the RTM of E now, although it will add confusion, I still like the idea of receiving Windows 7 E.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 27, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> The thing that gets me and I've probably said it before, is that anyone who is competent enough to install Windows 7 themselves, is competent enough to know about the existence of other browsers and how to install them.
> 
> Those who don't, probably have no idea what Windows 7 is, it will just appear pre-installed on their next computer with whatever browser the OEM decided to installed.
> 
> ...


 I wish the US and EU would end the static between them. I maybe stoned on Oxycotton but all this rivalry crap is getting old.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 27, 2009)

to the people who are bagging out IE, dont forget... w1zzard uses it.


Sure, IE is a terrible browser by many definitions. but for millions of users, it does everything they need it to.


----------



## timta2 (Jul 27, 2009)

Uh, I don't know if some of you are just too young to remember but Microsoft got in trouble in both the US and the EU for its abusive business practices. These were rulings by courts. They got in trouble for (in the US) integrating the browser into the OS so that it couldn't be removed. Apple doesn't integrate Safari into the OS so that it can't be removed and never has. So your comments about Safari and Apple have absolutely no merit in this discussion. It sure was a good thing for Microsoft that Bush got elected in 2001 since the case literally disappeared in the US.


----------



## Dimi (Jul 27, 2009)

So u would buy a car without an engine? You can get an engine in ANY garage, u pick!


----------



## alexp999 (Jul 27, 2009)

timta2 said:


> Uh, I don't know if some of you are just too young to remember but Microsoft got in trouble in both the US and the EU for its abusive business practices. These were rulings by courts. They got in trouble for (in the US) integrating the browser into the OS so that it couldn't be removed. Apple doesn't integrate Safari into the OS so that it can't be removed and never has. So your comments about Safari and Apple have absolutely no merit in this discussion. It sure was a good thing for Microsoft that Bush got elected in 2001 since the case literally disappeared in the US.



You do realise that Windows 7 has the option to remove IE?

Dont talk to me about no merit.


----------



## R_1 (Jul 27, 2009)

So it will be like it was before, first M$ is convicted and later on court decision will not be implemented. They did it again !


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

timta2 said:


> Uh, I don't know if some of you are just too young to remember but Microsoft got in trouble in both the US and the EU for its abusive business practices. These were rulings by courts. They got in trouble for (in the US) integrating the browser into the OS so that it couldn't be removed. Apple doesn't integrate Safari into the OS so that it can't be removed and never has. So your comments about Safari and Apple have absolutely no merit in this discussion. It sure was a good thing for Microsoft that Bush got elected in 2001 since the case literally disappeared in the US.


In USA, it was just "strongly recommended" that they not make IE an integral part of the OS.  There was no fines.

The court simply couldn't mandate (like the EU court did) that Microsoft not offer IE inside of Windows.


----------



## xtremo (Jul 28, 2009)

Silly laws... everyday Europe is getting more and more boring thanks to its EU politicians.

Since when in a civilized free market you're punished cause you wanna offer addons. I get perfumes that include the same brand aftershave, I get cereals with chocolates wrapped up, I get Nero which includes many unrelated software. Recently, I bought a Samsung cellphone and the company gave me the Samsung bluetooth headphones for free, no one wouldn't have thought about complaining because they didn't have "options" of headphones from Ericsson or Nokia.

For instance, maybe I'd appreciate if M$ bundled a free antivirus with Windows, whether I like it or not, it'd be just fine if I'm given the power to blow it away anytime.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 28, 2009)

To be honest, i'd like the OS installer to come up with a thing "here are some of the most common web browsers and chat programs - tick what ones you'd like to install"


Firefox, IE, safari, chrome

MSN, yahoo, AIM, skype.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

That's a lot of work for Microsoft and what does Microsoft gain by offering those?

Microsoft would have get distribution authorization from Mozilla, Apple, and Google.  In order to do that, those companies are probably going to want something in return too (like reporting which choice was selected).

We also can't forget that if you embed one of these browsers into the OS and it has a vulnerability, that makes Windows have a vulnerability too when installed from scratch (e.g. Sasser/Blaster worms).  Instead of the problem being Google's, Apple's, or Mozilla's, the problem is now Microsoft's.  They have to get on whomever is responsible and get a critical update out on their update software (major PITA especially considering these rivals aren't likely to be cooperative).

It just goes on and on and on.


Most likely, the Windows 7 installer has some kind of Internet Browser although it isn't a browser per say.  It is merely code the facilitates Internet networking (in effect, an unwindowed Internet Explorer).  This internal networking code is also used to get updates from Microsoft.

When you make your selection of what browser to use, the code will fetch the most recent version from the provider and either launch it once you are in Windows or run it right then and there.  Internet Explorer is still there, you just can't find it.  It isn't a windowed application unless you choose Internet Explorer which in turn installs the GUI.

Internet Explorer is still the only browser packaged with Windows (this violates the EU ruling which is why you still need an E version) but it makes it easy to get the other popular browsers too.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's a lot of work for Microsoft and what does Microsoft gain by offering those?


That would be the point of Laws™ and FINES. This isn't supposed to make Microsoft more profitable. Hence the whole court/EU commission. 

Duh.



> Microsoft would have get distribution authorization from Mozilla, Apple, and Google.  In order to do that, those companies are probably going to want something in return too (like reporting which choice was selected).



And you're gonna say NO?

Mozilla would probably give an arm up for that chance.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

Apple wouldn't.  If just one refuses, it creates a whole different set of problems which ultimately lead to more lawsuits down the road.

This is what happens when you try to legislate everything.  Everything gets muddled in legalities to a point of collapse.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 28, 2009)

no it doesnt. MS can say in court "we offered this to all major web browsers: these ones refused, and therefore were not included"


MS cant get in trouble, for someone else saying no.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Yeah, but it could've all been avoided in the first place if the EU just kept their noses out of somebody else's IP. In terms of silly court cases, this is up there with the Intel case.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> no it doesnt. MS can say in court "we offered this to all major web browsers: these ones refused, and therefore were not included"
> 
> 
> MS cant get in trouble, for someone else saying no.


Right now, this is true.  But 10 years from now, it is likely to come back up.   For example, if like XP/Vista, Windows 7 outlives its successor but a new browser is offered after the release of Windows 7 but before the successor, the new browser might trigger a lawsuit mandating that Microsoft re-release Windows 7 with the new browser.  Excluding the new browser *is* anti-competitive when Microsoft goes down this path.  Microsoft already had to do this with Windows XP Home Edition and Windows XP Professional Edition for EU customers.

What stops Microsoft from getting swamped by a horde of unheard of browsers that also are excluded?  This is an all or nothing situation and the legal ramifications of this in the long term are almost incomprehensible.

In effect, the EU is inviting Microsoft to be hammered by lawsuits over and over again until the end of time using the previous rulings as leverage.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 28, 2009)

lol they should just make IE take you to a website when the OS starts, with a list of the most popular browsers and chat programs


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Right now, this is true.  But 10 years from now, it is likely to come back up.   For example, if like XP/Vista, Windows 7 outlives its successor but a new browser is offered after the release of Windows 7 but before the successor, the new browser might trigger a lawsuit mandating that Microsoft re-release Windows 7 with the new browser.  Excluding the new browser *is* anti-competitive when Microsoft goes down this path.  Microsoft already had to do this with Windows XP Home Edition and Windows XP Professional Edition for EU customers.
> 
> In effect, the EU is inviting Microsoft to be hammered by lawsuits over and over again until the end of time using the previous rulings as leverage.



It should be pretty easy to just say that a browser should have a reasonable user base before such claims could be made, as including every browser is not feasable.

This is why Microsoft pays lawyers, afterall.  

Intergrating IE so tight that the OS breaks with it's removal was not reasonable. Thus it was forced changed. The EU was not happy with the results of the required actions, and thus is requiring more.

Not really that hard. If it was fair game to begin with, it wouldn't get this far.

Not expecting the EU to do this is like expecting a field commander in a war to give instructions for an initial attack plan and then never re-assesing the situation as it changes. It's blind and stupid. For once,  a Government is doing something right (Regardless of whether M$ should be changing it or not).


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> It should be pretty easy to just say that a browser should have a reasonable user base before such claims could be made, as including every browser is not feasable.
> 
> This is why Microsoft pays lawyers, afterall.
> 
> ...


Even with extreme integration into the OS, the EU had no business telling them not to do it. If you don't want it, don't use it. Nobody said you had to buy Windows. 

MS's IP should not be the business of ANY govt body, unless there is copyright infringement involved. They should be allowed to code their software however they see fit, not how the EU deems acceptable.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> lol they should just make IE take you to a website when the OS starts, with a list of the most popular browsers and chat programs


It already does that for default search provider.  They have a feature to create your own search too satisfy the need for the current and future unknowns.  Moreover, it is completely webbased so they can update the list server-side.




Dippyskoodlez said:


> Intergrating IE so tight that the OS breaks with it's removal was not reasonable. Thus it was forced changed. The EU was not happy with the results of the required actions, and thus is requiring more.


Sure it is.  Windows needs Internet access in order to activate and update.  In Windows 98-Windows XP, that capability was built into Explorer (not Internet Explorer).  Internet Explorer was a GUI that hooked into the underlying Explorer code that facilitated intranet, local, and internet traffic.  Everything involving the Internet, therefore, revolved around that core codebase on Windows 98-XP.

As such, its removal was very unreasonable as it created a lot of problems for Microsoft and more knowledgable users.  Instead of Explorer/Internet Explorer practically being the same, they now had to send all internet requests to Internet Explorer and all other traffic requests from Internet Explorer to Explorer.  As proof of this, open up Explorer (aka My Computer) and type in http://www.cnn.com.  It will open a new instance of Internet Explorer 7/8 or create a new tab in an already exisiting Internet Explorer and open the site.  Likewise, if you type C:\ in Internet Explorer, it will open Explorer and point it to C:\.  In IE5 and IE6, both would do everything--they were practically one in the same.

In this sense, Internet Explorer was just a marketing name because most users wouldn't think to type "http://" in My Computer to get web access.  They gave it that name and the pretty picture to assist users in the usability department (I want Internet -> "Internet Explorer" might satisfy that want).

To respond directly to your statement: The OS breaks when you remove Internet Explorer because you are also removing Explorer (the kernel).  No operating system works without a kernel so it should "break."

Even with IE7/IE8 not installed, you still have Explorer with 99% of the features of Internet Explorer.  Explorer still needs Internet access to activate and update.  Effectively, the previous ruling and this ruling changes nothing except handoffs between Internet Explorer and Explorer for different types of requests.  The only thing the "E" version doesn't have is the Internet Explorer GUI.


Google is going to try to do the same thing with Chrome OS except, instead of starting with Explorer and adding Internet capability to it, they are going to start with Chrome and add Linux kernel capabilities to it.  Chrome OS, in every way, should be in the same ball of wax Microsoft is currently in.




Dippyskoodlez said:


> Not really that hard. If it was fair game to begin with, it wouldn't get this far.


It wasn't fair game to begin with.  It wasn't then, it still isn't now.  Consumers are getting screwed by this because now you need more apps to do the same tasks that could have been done with one previously.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It wasn't fair game to begin with.



The law says you're wrong, apparently.



> Sure it is. Windows needs Internet access in order to activate and update. In Windows 98-Windows XP, that capability was built into Explorer (not Internet Explorer). Internet Explorer was a GUI that hooked into the underlying Explorer code that facilitated intranet, local, and internet traffic. Everything involving the Internet, therefore, revolved around that core codebase on Windows 98-XP.



And internet access requiring IE is bullshit. No other OS requires X browser core pieces to access networks.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> The law says you're wrong.



The law is a useless piece of legislation aimed at nothing more than attacking the big corporations to suit the personal needs of the EU.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> The law is a useless piece of legislation aimed at nothing more than attacking the big corporations to suit the personal needs of the EU.



Isn't that what all laws/rules essentially are?

Laws/rules to fit the personal needs of the  organization regulating?

This is why there is a seperation between the law making body, and the Judicial branch. To keep things like this in check. If it were unconstitutional in any form it should obviously be unenforcable.

If this system is not functioning, this case has a bigger precident than just impacting the Browser market.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Isn't that what all laws/rules essentially are?
> 
> Laws/rules to fit the personal needs of the  organization regulating?
> 
> This is why there is a seperation between the law making body, and the Judicial branch. To keep things like this in check.



Doesn't seem to be working that way over there.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Doesn't seem to be working that way over there.



I'm sure it's working fine.

They just have the same problem we have in the US.

Laws do not accomodate modern technology(Because there is a loophole around every corner). Welcome to Earth, year 2009. The Digital revolution awaits.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> And internet access requiring IE is bullshit. No other OS requires X browser core pieces to access networks.


Mac OS X has update software integrated:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1338

And where there is the word "update," it is most likely utilizing an underlying, GUI-less internet codebase integrated into the kernel.  Hell, Internet is just hyper-text on TCP port 80.  Anything that handles TCP/UDP could and should have the ability to render HTTP pages.  There's no need to separate the HTTP renderer and label it as a "browser."  That same "HTTP render" could be used to also render the GUI for local folder browsing.


My point: we don't need laws that dictate how an application is implemented unless, as Wile E stated, there is a copyright or patent infringement.  EU is well on its way to driving good applications out just because it isn't convenient for two people.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Mac OS X has update software integrated:
> http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1338
> 
> And where there is the word "update," it is most likely utilizing an underlying, GUI-less internet codebase integrated into the kernel.  Hell, Internet is just TCP port 80.  Anything that handles TCP/UDP could and should have the ability to render HTTP pages.  There's no need to separate the HTTP renderer and label it as a "browser."




What does the system software updater have to do with anything? There are no anti-trust issues with providing an "update" component inside of your software.


You're trying to argue a network stack is the same thing as a browser?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

The line between "updater" and "browser" is nonexistant.  They both access the Internet and present data found on the Internet to you.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The line between "updater" and "browser" is nonexistant.  They both access the Internet and present data found on the Internet to you.



What? That makes no sense. By that argument, I am a browser, by accessing the internet and presenting information to someone else. I suggest looking up the definition...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define:+Browser&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g2g-s1g7

Apples software update could be removed without crippling my TCP/IP stack. As has been proven by the Darwin core that is available online.

No Software update included.

Can't say the same for Windows XP.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> What does the system software updater have to do with anything? There are no anti-trust issues with providing an "update" component inside of your software.
> 
> 
> You're trying to argue a network stack is the same thing as a browser? Are you retarded?



Thats way out of line for a moderator. Please don't say, "Are you retarded?". 

Whether it offends him or not, that kind of behavior is not for a moderator IMO.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> What does the system software updater have to do with anything? There are no anti-trust issues with providing an "update" component inside of your software.
> 
> 
> You're trying to argue a network stack is the same thing as a browser? Are you retarded?



Dippy, seriously man, you may not agree with him, but calling him retarded is completely uncalled for.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> What? That makes no sense. By that argument, I am a browser, by accessing the internet and presenting information to someone else.


You aren't an application.  That should go without saying.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You aren't an application.



But I access the internet and present information. 

That's the same thing my updater does.

How is it different? 

You do realize this is why IE is being called out right? It is tightly knit into so much that it is no longer just a browser. It was required for many applications to function. Removing this breaks a lot of other things.

Something like Outlook would use it to render it's e-mails. No IE? No email. If anything someone made relying on stuff from IE, they could always assume it was there, because it was unremovable.

Removing it broke too much.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 28, 2009)

Dimi said:


> So u would buy a car without an engine? You can get an engine in ANY garage, u pick!



Not exactly engine, it's headlights (browser) and stereo (media player).


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Now you're just trolling/flamebaiting Dippy. Come on, you're better than that.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Now you're just trolling/flamebaiting Dippy. Come on, you're better than that.



Ok, my software Update application is a monopolistic browser and needs to be seperated from my OS. I AGREE. Instead, I wish to use Internet Explorer to browse my OS X updates.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

I already explained why removing Internet Explorer broke Explorer which broke the kernel and subsequently broke the operating system.

I even remember using "udp://" in IE6/Explorer and getting a response from a GameSpy server.  That level of power was great and very simple (using URLs).  Why should Microsoft have to remove an incredible feature when you can still use a different internet browser if you want to?  To say Internet Explorer is bad is to say Explorer is bad is to say Windows is bad.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Ok, my software Update application is a monopolistic browser and needs to be seperated from my OS. I AGREE. Instead, I wish to use Internet Explorer to browse my OS X updates.



You knew he meant in terms of a program, not a human. Your argument holds little merit with others when you present it the manner you did.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 28, 2009)

Well I think they should have never tried to act like bundling software in an OS was anti-competition.

I love Opera and Firefox as alternatives and Windows allows the download of them just fine.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I already explained why removing Internet Explorer broke Explorer which broke the kernel and subsequently broke the operating system.
> 
> I even remember using "udp://" in IE6/Explorer and getting a response from a GameSpy server.  That level of power was great and very simple (using URLs).  Why should Microsoft have to remove an incredible feature when you can still use a different internet browser if you want to?  To say Internet Explorer is bad is to say Explorer is bad is to say Windows is bad.



Because it was effectively a Monopoly.

Monopolys are under special laws. These are the penalties of unfair practices.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Because it was effectively a Monopoly.
> 
> Monopolys are under special laws. These are the penalties of unfair practices.



Yet, I don't see anything unfair in the practice of bundling more features into an OS.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Because it was effectively a Monopoly.
> 
> Monopolys are under special laws. These are the penalties of unfair practices.



Doesn't OSX only come with Safari?


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Yet, I don't see anything unfair in the practice of bundling more features into an OS.



Bundling features is not the illegal part.

Microsoft used API's that forced things to be IE only. Active X?

I can't count the number of things we used at work that were restricted to IE only.

Microsoft used these IE only features to force IE upon the market slowly but surely, and effectively gained the ability to control influence at will. This is why it's an anti-trust case to begin with. Since they did such, they have to pay the price.




DaedalusHelios said:


> Doesn't OSX only come with Safari?



It can also be 100% removed, by dragging Safari.app to the trash. And is also not influencing the market to use only Safari. Infact, Webkit is Open Source.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Bundling features is not the illegal part.
> 
> Microsoft used API's that forced things to be IE only. Active X?
> 
> ...



Nobody forced the devs to use active X or any of the other proprietary MS features. They chose to do so. Java, java script, and numerous other platforms for add-ons have been available for ages.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Nobody forced the devs to use active X or any of the other proprietary MS features. They chose to do so. Java, java script, and numerous other platforms for add-ons have been available for ages.




If these API's were openly available, like HTML is, it wouldn't even have ground to stand on.

Instead, Microsoft restricted these things so that others *could not compete, even if they wanted to.*

If Microsoft had 5% of the market share, this would be legal.

When you have 90% of the market, it becomes illegal, as it is anti-competitive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-trust



> prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Because it was effectively a Monopoly.
> 
> Monopolys are under special laws. These are the penalties of unfair practices.


An application having a monopoly?  What about Microsoft Office?  Microsoft Paint?  Calculator?  DirectX?  Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Library?  These are things most computers have--DirectX and other libraries, if remove, prevent many applications from working.  How does that not classify as a monopoly?


Having 90%+ of the market doesn't make it illegal (whenever a new market starts, the original founder has 100% market share).  Anti-competitive behavior does (e.g. buying up competitors like Standard Oil).


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> If these API's were openly available, like HTML is, it wouldn't even have ground to stand on.
> 
> Instead, Microsoft restricted these things so that others *could not compete, even if they wanted to.*
> 
> ...



How did IE prohibit anything at all? I don't need to wait for your answer, I can answer it for you. It didn't.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> It can also be 100% removed, by dragging Safari.app to the trash. And is also not influencing the market to use only Safari. Infact, Webkit is Open Source.



You can turn off MSIE in Windows 7, everything MSIE is unavailable. It's not doing a worse job than OSX in making sure the browser isn't influencing the market to use only MSIE.

Also "open source" is the most lame excuse people give for saying "we're not greedy capitalists". Mozilla makes $300 million /yr with Firefox. They're not greedy


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> An application having a monopoly?  What about Microsoft Office?  Microsoft Paint?  Calculator?  DirectX?  Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Library?  These are things most computers have--DirectX and other libraries, if remove, prevent many applications from working.  How does that not classify as a monopoly?



Direct X is not anti-competitive. OpenGL works fine. Thus is legal. Open Office. There are plenty of word processing applications, none of which prevent others from the ability to compete. Calculator? I have one on my Phone that isn't Microsoft.

Once again, look up the definition of a monopoly. MONOPOLIES ARE NOT ILLEGAL.



> In many jurisdictions, competition laws place specific restrictions on monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in the market is not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behaviour can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore be met with legal sanctions.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

IE held a more than dominant market share, and was exorcising the ability to control the ability of competitors to even compete. Thus, meets the definition.

Got any more bad examples?



btarunr said:


> Also "open source" is the most lame excuse people give for saying "we're not greedy capitalists". Mozilla makes $300 million /yr with Firefox. They're not greedy



Open source means it is not restricted from being interoperable with a competitors product.

It has nothing to do with money. It is about the ability for a competitor to actually compete.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Direct X is not anti-competitive. OpenGL works fine. Thus is legal. Open Office. There are plenty of word processing applications, none of which prevent others from the ability to compete. Calculator? I have one on my Phone that isn't Microsoft.
> 
> Once again, look up the definition of a monopoly. MONOPOLIES ARE NOT ILLEGAL.
> 
> ...


So by your argument, IE is not illegal because Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc. all work fine. What exactly does IE do that prevents those from competing? (Again rhetorical question)


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> So by your argument, IE is not illegal because Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc. What exactly does IE do that prevents those from competing? (Again rhetorical question)



API's.

When you have a Monopoly, *restricting* interoperability, is illegal.

It's the F'ing definition of anti-competitive.

Webpages and Applications that are "IE Only".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft



> Intel Vice-President Steven McGeady, called as a witness, quoted Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft vice president as having stated an intention to "extinguish" and "smother" rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free. The Microsoft executive denied the allegations.[5]



And right here in black and white:


> On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> API's.
> 
> When you have a Monopoly, *restricting* interoperability, is illegal.



Why should any entity have to open proprietary code? It's their IP, the govt shouldn't be allowed to do anything about it, so long as it isn't being used for harm. How did they prevent interoperability? 

Can these other browsers not access the web freely? Is evil, spooky MS somehow preventing these other browsers from going online? If the answer to these 2 questions was yes, I'd be inclined to agree, but as it stands, the answers are no. Therefore, MS hasn't done anything to restrict other browsers from competing, their own lack of marketing has.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Direct X is not anti-competitive. OpenGL works fine. Thus is legal.


Any application coded for DirectX won't work on any operating system other than Windows.  That is very anti-competitive and one of the leading reasons why there are so few games on Mac and Linux.  It is far more dominating than any "anti-competive" threat Internet Explorer posed.

Hey, I used Netscape on Windows 95 while IE3 was already installed.  Internet Explorer in no way prevents another browser from being used.




Dippyskoodlez said:


> Open Office. There are plenty of word processing applications, none of which prevent others from the ability to compete. Calculator? I have one on my Phone that isn't Microsoft.


Nor does IE.  Microsoft's Calculator has a monopoly by comparison.  It is, after all, the standard for computer-based calculators.



Dippyskoodlez said:


> MONOPOLIES ARE NOT ILLEGAL.


That's what I said.  "Anti-competitive behavior" is.  IE is not guilty of any anti-competitive behavior.  Just because you couldn't completely remove it (because it was part of the kernel after all) doesn't mean it stopped you from using something else.  As proof of this, during Internet Explorer 7 (which sucked) FireFox's market share almost matched that of IE.  Despite IE already being there on most computers, people still opted to use another browser.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> API's.
> 
> When you have a Monopoly, *restricting* interoperability, is illegal.
> 
> ...



That's consumer choice. They (banks/businesses) could have made their intranet software based open standards. They chose not to do that, don't blame IE.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> API's.
> 
> When you have a Monopoly, *restricting* interoperability, is illegal.
> 
> ...


Yeah. Settled out of court to shut them up, in a case where the EU's nose didn't belong to begin with. Settling a case doesn't make it right.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Any application coded for DirectX won't work on any operating system other than Windows.  That is very anti-competitive and one of the leading reasons why there are so few games on Mac and Linux.  It is far more dominating than any "anti-competive" threat Internet Explorer posed.



Once again, look up the definition of anti-competitive practices.

You are about 3 miles off target.

There is nothing PREVENTING another 3d API from functioning. OpenGL is available.

If Microsoft put in effort to block OpenGL from being installed as they initially attempted with Windows Vista, they would have had another anti-trust case against them. Remember the longhorn beta without OGL? Or the fact that they BLOCKED installation?

Making a product for an Api is not illegal. Seriously, read the damn definition.



Wile E said:


> Yeah. Settled out of court to shut them up, in a case where the EU's nose didn't belong to begin with. Settling a case doesn't make it right.





The API's were made available for a competitor to..... compete. 

How does that not fix anti-competitive behavior?

Problem, meet solution. No use wasting everyones time, for the exact same outcome.

The illegal part was the inability for a competitor to compete with 90% of the market. The ability to compete was enabled, thus making it legal again.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> And right here in black and white:


Read a little farther down:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft#Settlement
> However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future.


The EU did--despite the same situation.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Once again, look up the definition of anti-competitive practices.
> 
> You are about 3 miles off target.
> 
> ...


Right, and by this exact logic, IE nor MS have ever blocked anyone from using another browser, nor have they blocked other browsers from going online. I still don't see where IE/MS has done anything anti-competitive. You also have yet to explain exactly how IE is anti-competitive.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Right, and by this exact logic, IE nor MS have ever blocked anyone from using another browser, nor have they blocked other browsers from going online. I still don't see where IE/MS has done anything anti-competitive. You also have yet to explain exactly how IE is anti-competitive.



You own 99% of the cars in the world.(MARKET SHARE)

You also own a patent for the Wheel. (API'S)

Noone is allowed to use a wheel, unless you make it, and use your car.

That is anti-competitive. There is no way for anyone to compete.

Now, say you share the plans for the Wheel(API'S), so Firefox can make a car too.

Firefox can now compete with you, making cars.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Read a little farther down:
> 
> The EU did--despite the same situation.



EU and Places outside of the US also have totally different consumer rights laws.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> You own 99% of the cars in the world.
> 
> You also own a patent for the Wheel.
> 
> ...


That is, frankly, a broken analogy. First, because MS only owned the patent to one wheel design, so they could only restrict that single design. That did not stop anyone else from using an alternative wheel design. I still don't see your point.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> That is, frankly, a broken analogy. First, because MS only owned the patent to one wheel design, so they could only restrict that single design. That did not stop anyone else from using an alternative wheel design. I still don't see your point.



Now you're trolling.
All you're gonna do it claim any analogy is broken, because it's an analogy. 

No shit it's broken. It's an analogy.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Once again, look up the definition of anti-competitive practices.


I would classify DirectXs control over 3D game developement as a "barrier to entry"--an anti-competitive practice.  That is, a large segment of people won't buy other than Windows PCs because not having DirectX means they can't run most games.




Dippyskoodlez said:


> If Microsoft put in effort to block OpenGL from being installed as they initially attempted with Windows Vista, they would have had another anti-trust case against them. Remember the longhorn beta without OGL? Or the fact that they BLOCKED installation?


Microsoft is at fault for not licensing DirectX to non-Windows platforms (like Linux/Mac).  The relationship is a lot like Intel and x86.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I would classify DirectXs control over 3D game developement as a "barrier to entry"--an anti-competitive practice.  That is, a large segment of people won't buy other than Windows PCs because not having DirectX means they can't run most games.
> 
> 
> 
> Microsoft is at fault for not licensing DirectX to non-Windows platforms (like Linux/Mac).  The relationship is a lot like Intel and x86.




OpenGL is not restricted from operating.

Many developers use it.

Direct X is in no way a "barrier to entry".

I could make a video game right now, without having to use direct X. 

If I built a webpage, It would be a mistake to not make sure it functions in Internet explorer. That's the difference.

Licensing is only a problem if others are unable to compete. Apple doesn't want direct X, and nor would I want it in OS X. OpenGL works fine.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Now you're trolling.
> All you're gonna do it claim any analogy is broken, because it's an analogy.
> 
> No shit it's broken. It's an analogy.



No, it's broken because it makes no sense. And no, I'm not trolling. That sentence wasn't meant to convey any feelings or anything of the sort. It was just supposed to be "matter of factual", if you will.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

If I wrote an application in DirectX and wanted to get it to Mac OS X, I would have to start over pretty much from scratch and recode it in OGL to make it work.  It is a barrier to entry because DirectX dominance makes it hard for most developers to develop for Mac OS X.

Kind of like you would need a huge amount of capital to compete with Wal-Mart--their dominance is also a barrier to entry.



Dippyskoodlez said:


> If I built a webpage, It would be a mistake to not make sure it functions in Internet explorer. That's the difference.


That's a problem with standards compliance (which IE isn't 100% compliant), nothing else.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Well, I'll pick up with this tomorrow. Have fun gents. Time for me to go to bed. Gnite.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If I wrote an application in DirectX and wanted to get it to Mac OS X, I would have to start over pretty much from scratch and recode it in OGL to make it work.  It is a barrier to entry because DirectX dominance makes it hard for most developers to develop for Mac OS X.
> 
> Kind of like you would need a huge amount of capital to compete with Wal-Mart--their dominance is also a barrier to entry.
> 
> ...



That was your choice. All of my Programming I and II homework was done in xCode on OS X. I copy  pasta'd my source code into Visual Studio, compiled, and submitted.

Code it in OGL the first time (COUGH DOOM 3 COUGH) and Wowsers, you can port a linux, and Mac version with almost no hassle.

That is called product planning. 

Direct X could arguable be anti-competitive if you want, but it is by no means a Monopoly.

Anti-competitive is allowed, as long as you don't have a monopoly.

*LIST OF 3d API's*


Pick one.

Not in that list is also openCL, and I'm sure a few others.


----------



## laszlo (Jul 28, 2009)

as i see Ms is doing exactly what i predicted in other similar thread...

i read all the "fight" from this thread and believe me you all have right this is why Ms implement this option to please everybody.

all i can comment is that i don't like that we still have sites which work only with a specific browser..this must and will stop in the near future but till than a lot of user will have at least 2 browser installed because is forced..i don't like to be forced to use a soft that i don't consider good enough or mature.. i'm not a beta tester.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Code it in OGL the first time (COUGH DOOM 3 COUGH) and Wowsers, you can port a linux, and Mac version with almost no hassle.


Ideally, that's the way it works.  Sometimes, however, your product finds a user base that you don't expect.




Dippyskoodlez said:


> Direct X could arguable be anti-competitive if you want, but it is by no means a Monopoly.
> 
> Anti-competitive is allowed, as long as you don't have a monopoly.


Yes, the same goes for IE.  Almost any single, popular product warrants an antitrust lawsuit.  The thing is, the monopoly holder must behave in a manner that _threatens to eliminate the competition_ in order for the state to win an antitrust lawsuit against them.  DirectX isn't doing that to OpenGL and Internet Explorer isn't doing that to FireFox.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 28, 2009)

I hope the EU doesn't fine me because I own the market share of awesomeness.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jul 28, 2009)

This is all ridiculous.

Facts:
Microsoft in no way forces you to use Internet explorer *as a browser.* Ive never had anything since windows xp force me to use it. Just set FF or whatever you want as the default.

Microsoft in no way blocks the installation or use of other browsers. 

Microsoft does not have a monopoly:
monopoly "(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...fh1JzdCA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Microsoft is not using barriers to entry, as there are plenty of other browsers out there. They had to enter somehow. 

Last but certainly not least... it is none of the EU or any other governing organization's business what microsoft does. Consumers should be what governs markets. If consumers wanted something other than microsoft, they would find something different. Some say "well the average consumer doesnt know any different." That may be true. However, if they wanted or needed anything different, they would find it. IE is perfectly suitable for 99% of the population. 
Heres an example: I may know nothing about cars, how to fix them, how they work, etc. (i do but thats not the point) But if I buy a toyota and it breaks down every day, its totally unreliable, and I cant use it, I will go buy something else (i will research, ask friends, whatever). Then if I like the Honda (or whatever, pick a manufacterer) that I found, I will use it. The fact is though, if the toyota isnt broken, if it works just fine, and does what I need it to do, I wont go to find something new. 

The problem is not microsoft, it can only be one of two things:
Either IE works just fine and most of the world doesnt need anything else;

or it is lazy, apathetic consumers who would rather a bunch of sniveling bureaucrats tell them and companies what to do instead of doing thier own research and deciding for themselves what they want... which always leads to a "like lambs to slaughter" scenario. Turned into robots who eat that big mac because its quick and easy and cheap, who vote for a president because he gets the most facetime and looks best on TV, who spend millions on botox and plastic surgery because the magazines tell them to look that way...


I suspect its quite a bit of both, personally. 

The scenarios could go on forever, but the point is the evil is not the corporations like every sci-fi novel would have you believe. You think governments dont love the fact that all it takes to rile you up is the fact that you have to install your own goddamn web browser? All the while they smirk while they gain more power because you think youre getting more freedom because now "OMG I can CHOOSE my own web browser?" When in fact they're sucking the freedom right out of the very people youre paying to provide you with the operating system to run that web browser.

It makes me sick to think that anyone would see this as a good thing. The things that could be justified by this precident are just too scary.


----------



## Frederik Van Lierde (Jul 28, 2009)

*Re. The B rowser Bar*

I thinki that the European Commision went to far in this casem, as you 
mentionned also that Apple will not get the heat for Safari, or in the 
future, Google with their new OS platform 

The "ballot screen" looks great in the beginning, but many questions 
arise later. 
1. Who will decide who is on the list, as we can't block new startups 
make even better browsers 
2. What is the procedure to follow to be in th elist 
3. Who will be responsable for the browser code 
4 etc 


You can read more on http://FrederikVanLierde.wordpress.com, where I 
explain more in detail and also give a proposition that could help. 
ll comments are welcome  


Frederik Van Lierde


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 28, 2009)

Frederik Van Lierde said:


> I thinki that the European Commision went to far in this casem, as you
> mentionned also that Apple will not get the heat for Safari, or in the
> future, Google with their new OS platform
> 
> ...



Welcome to the forums Frederik Van Lierde! That sounds like the name of a Luftwaffe Ace


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's not Microsoft's job to offer choices.  If you don't like it, don't buy their product.  If there's enough people like you, they'll get the message and do something about it.
> 
> The EU's decision was wrong before and it is still wrong today.  A court should not be permitted to force the developer of an application to include or exclude features.




Its MS's choice to go into those markets, once they do they need to follow the laws of those markets, ITS THEIR CHOICE TO BE THERE.



TheMailMan78 said:


> I use IE8 and love it.



that explains alot......



alexp999 said:


> You do realise that Windows 7 has the option to remove IE?
> 
> Dont talk to me about no merit.



this had to happen because the EU and other countries dont like IE being forced on everybody.

also the fact is that as ms has found out, its far easier to make the browser secure and update it if its not part of the core OS.



FordGT90Concept said:


> That's a lot of work for Microsoft and what does Microsoft gain by offering those?
> 
> Microsoft would have get distribution authorization from Mozilla, Apple, and Google.  In order to do that, those companies are probably going to want something in return too (like reporting which choice was selected).
> 
> ...



not really, its not alot of work, they can just do what alot of apps i have do and run a remote install(downloads the stuff from the net like a webinstaller, makes sure u alwase have latist build) 

OS security is alwase MS's problem, they are the ones who will get blamed when shit gets in either way, Oh and OPERA is far more secure then IE ever has been, and thats OUT OF THE BOX.

little note about ms update in win7, it is not in any way a web browser, its a standalone app that ms wrote specifically for that and it was a good move, even they will admit that, by removing IE from the OS CORE they can update it more easily as well as updating windows explorer more easily (updates for one wont break the other) 



Wile E said:


> Even with extreme integration into the OS, the EU had no business telling them not to do it. If you don't want it, don't use it. Nobody said you had to buy Windows.
> 
> MS's IP should not be the business of ANY govt body, unless there is copyright infringement involved. They should be allowed to code their software however they see fit, not how the EU deems acceptable.



If MS didnt like it, they could leave the EU market, plane and simple, you go into another country you live by its rules.

Just like if Intel dosnt like being fined by the EU they could just pull out of that market.

they choose to be there, they need to live by that market/country/regions laws.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Any application coded for DirectX won't work on any operating system other than Windows.  That is very anti-competitive and one of the leading reasons why there are so few games on Mac and Linux.  It is far more dominating than any "anti-competive" threat Internet Explorer posed.


yeah you can run dx games in other os's, ofcorse you wouldnt know that being a hater of all things not windows/microsoft.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/winex/ (just an example there are ones that are updated constantly to add support for new games as the come out)



> Hey, I used Netscape on Windows 95 while IE3 was already installed.  Internet Explorer in no way prevents another browser from being used.


once again you fail at history of computers and how things have developed.

IE3 was pre browser integration into the kernel, it could be removed without killing windows, it was later on that practices MS engaged in lead to them being sued and fined.


----------



## alexp999 (Jul 28, 2009)

Its still a core part of the OS.

All that is removed is the GUI

Im running Windows 7 E, steam still works, and right clicks look like IE context menus.

So many programs wont function without the trident engine, including Windows itself.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 28, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> that explains alot.......


 What does it explain?


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 28, 2009)

it fits right in with the quote from you in my sig, I will leave it at that.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 29, 2009)

WineX is reverse engineered.  It is in no way guaranteed to work or even near fully featured as the real deal.  Developers that are in the business of making money don't rely on free-ware projects. This is why any professionally developed application for Windows, Max OS X, and Linux must be originally coded for Open GL.


As stated many times before, 99% of IE is embedded into the Windows Kernel.  The only thing missing is the GUI in EU versions.  Why is the EU getting their undies in a bundle over 1% of an operating system?  Hell if I know.  The EU defies all conventional logic.  They just wanted money and Microsoft is easy prey with deep pockets.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 29, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> Its MS's choice to go into those markets, once they do they need to follow the laws of those markets, ITS THEIR CHOICE TO BE THERE.


Except the laws of the EU always change to fit their agenda. Not to mention, bundling IE doesn't even break the rules according to their own definition of anti-trust.



Meecrob said:


> that explains alot......


Quit trolling



Meecrob said:


> this had to happen because the EU and other countries dont like IE being forced on everybody.


MS didn't force anyone to use anything. There is no law breaking going on here, even by the EU's definition of anti-trust.



Meecrob said:


> also the fact is that as ms has found out, its far easier to make the browser secure and update it if its not part of the core OS.


 Whether or not it is, has nothing to do with this. It is their prerogative to code their IP any way they see fit. It should never be meddled with by govt. It's nothing but a ploy by the EU to gain leverage as they see fit. A company's place in the market should have absolutely nothing to do with anti-competitive behavior. Either everyone with an os that comes with a pre-packaged browser needs to do what MS is being forced to do, or none of them.



Meecrob said:


> not really, its not alot of work, they can just do what alot of apps i have do and run a remote install(downloads the stuff from the net like a webinstaller, makes sure u alwase have latist build)


What if you aren't online, or your lan doesn't have drivers in Windows by default?



Meecrob said:


> OS security is alwase MS's problem, they are the ones who will get blamed when shit gets in either way, Oh and OPERA is far more secure then IE ever has been, and thats OUT OF THE BOX.


Has nothing to do with this at all.



Meecrob said:


> little note about ms update in win7, it is not in any way a web browser, its a standalone app that ms wrote specifically for that and it was a good move, even they will admit that, by removing IE from the OS CORE they can update it more easily as well as updating windows explorer more easily (updates for one wont break the other)


 Still isn't the business of the govt.




Meecrob said:


> If MS didnt like it, they could leave the EU market, plane and simple, you go into another country you live by its rules.
> 
> Just like if Intel dosnt like being fined by the EU they could just pull out of that market.
> 
> they choose to be there, they need to live by that market/country/regions laws.


Just because it's a law, doesn't mean we should just roll over and accept it. If it's unjust or unfair or overbearing, it needs to be spoken out against.




Meecrob said:


> yeah you can run dx games in other os's, ofcorse you wouldnt know that being a hater of all things not windows/microsoft.
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/winex/ (just an example there are ones that are updated constantly to add support for new games as the come out)


Using 3rd party libs to enable DX compatibility doesn't belong in the scope of this conversation anyway, as MS is not the ones allowing DX on other OSes. MS themselves are not the ones offering DX support in other OS's, so that point is irrelevant.



Meecrob said:


> once again you fail at history of computers and how things have developed.
> 
> IE3 was pre browser integration into the kernel, it could be removed without killing windows, it was later on that practices MS engaged in lead to them being sued and fined.



What practices? What EXACTLY did ms do with IE that was anti-competitive?


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 29, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Except the laws of the EU always change to fit their agenda. Not to mention, bundling IE doesn't even break the rules according to their own definition of anti-trust.
> 
> MS didn't force anyone to use anything. There is no law breaking going on here, even by the EU's definition of anti-trust.
> 
> Whether or not it is, has nothing to do with this. It is their prerogative to code their IP any way they see fit. It should never be meddled with by govt. It's nothing but a ploy by the EU to gain leverage as they see fit. A company's place in the market should have absolutely nothing to do with anti-competitive behavior. Either everyone with an os that comes with a pre-packaged browser needs to do what MS is being forced to do, or none of them.



Though I don't quite agree with the ruling in this case, or say I'm rather indifferent, the market position of a company in anti-trust cases is of utter importance. The extreme case of a dominant market position being a monopoly, which is (almost) never an efficient market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law



> "Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, has three main elements:
> 
> * prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.
> * *banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position.* Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
> ...



In anti trust the bigger you get the more scrutiny you are exposed to. Plain and simple.

MS has practically a monopoly in the OS market for PCs. (dominant position)

MS chooses to bundle their IE with the OS, hence gaining a dominant position in the browser market simply by leveraging their dominant position (not competing freely) in the OS market. (leads to a dominant position).

And obviously you can install whatever browser you want, but the average consumer may not know (probably doesn't indeed) there are other alternatives out there. 

And that's why this new feature of picking a browser to use upon the Win install is really useless, since as somebody already said "If you know how to install an OS you sure know how to install a new browser for it".

Again, I don't really care if MS bundles its browser with the OS, I just don't like people generalizing things like "The EU makes up the rules as it goes and is out for money etc.". It enforces its laws and specifically anti-trust laws more strictly than other countries.

Do I see the eligibility of this case? - Yes

Do I see the need to actively pursue it? - Probably not.

But then again, if you have certain principles (laws) you should stick to them


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 29, 2009)

Again, being dominant does not necessarily mean antitrust laws can string you up.  It has to be proven that you did something illegal in order to exact a punishment.

Take, for example, the only company that makes Segways is Segway.  They are the only manufacturer in the business and as such, have a monopoly.  That really doesn't matter.  What matters is if Segway does something illegal to prevent competition (buying up competitors, preventing trade with competitors, etc.) and there is no indication that they have.

As the FTC ruled back in 1998 (United States v. Microsoft), Microsoft did nothing wrong but did require, in a settlement, that a board review Microsoft's API code to make certain Microsoft wasn't restricting browser competition.

The EU looked at the same case and found Microsoft guilty.  If the laws were virtually the same in the EU as they are in the USA, how can Microsoft be found guilty in one and not the other?

Again, the EU is anti-business, the USA is pro-business (most of the time).  Microsoft got fined in EU and not in the USA.

I recommend you read this (and I do mean read it):
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/friedman.html

Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman commented that the FTC investigating this at all was dangerous (bigger government).  Judging by the FTC verdict and the EU verdict, I'd say the EU has much bigger problems than Microsoft (this fact is mirrored in the Intel case).  The EU government is too large, too involved, and too restrictive to be good for anyone.

Again, the problem is the EU governing body has been given too much power, not Microsoft or Intel.  The crimes Intel and Microsoft committed pale in comparison to the rights and freedoms Europeans are bound to lose with a government wielding so much power and influence over everything.


What if this corporate harrassment brought on by the EU doesn't stop?  What if Microsoft and Intel decide it isn't worth dealing with the EU anymore?  What's the likelihood of Intel opening a new fab in the EU (a $2+ billion investment that boosts the local economy)?  What's the likelihood of Microsoft opening a support center in the EU?  This is only the beginning, not the end.  There will be more silly lawsuits and bad rulings to come.  I'd flee before the EU entirely enslaves you.


Laws are written buy humans and, as always, humans make mistakes.  Just because it was made a law doesn't mean the law should remain.  There's lots of prime examples here.


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 29, 2009)

I'd say it all comes down to your statement:



FordGT90Concept said:


> Again, the EU is anti-business, the USA is pro-business (most of the time).  Microsoft got fined in EU and not in the USA.



But I'd rather say: The USA is pro-(big)business and the EU is pro-consumer.

And I'd say it's because the business lobby is much stronger in the US than EU.

The US cuts the business more slack than the EU as a result of this, but the laws are virtually the same (though I'm not an expert...)

As for the what-if argument, the EU is too big of a market to pull out of. And MS and Intel will pursue their business interests to the fullest, as there is a lot of money to make in the EU, they'll just have pay more attention to the competition law.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 29, 2009)

Pro-business is pro-consumer.  Businesses make goods and offer services consumers want.  Businesses also employ people so that they are eligible to become a consumer.  Businesses drive the economy and when you tax, fine, or limit business you subsequently reduce economic growth.

Antitrust is meant to stop businesses from killing/consuming rival businesses; however, as government power grows, they use antitrust to leverage that power against businesses (killing/consuming them to allow governments to go grow in influence and power).

Big businesses are bad.  Just like big government, they tend to make money "disappear" without a trace.  Small businesses lead to more stability in an economy but goods and services also tend to cost more.  In the end, a medium size business is probably ideal (big enough to be efficient, small enough to value the communities they serve).


No market is ever to big to pull out of.  It comes down to profit margins.  If all the fines (taxes, etc.) are costing a business more money than they are making selling a product or service, they'll stop supporting that locale.  No economy is immune to economics and the business's need to turn a profit.

Laws can make it impossible to compete.  That is, after all, the objective of the tariff.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jul 29, 2009)

Sugarush said:


> And obviously you can install whatever browser you want, but the average consumer may not know (probably doesn't indeed) there are other alternatives out there.
> 
> And that's why this new feature of picking a browser to use upon the Win install is really useless, since as somebody already said "If you know how to install an OS you sure know how to install a new browser for it".




I totally agree... and when a consumer buys that new computer (im assuming this will apply to OEM setup as well) and a screen comes up in the setup that says "choose your browser" 90% of them will not know wtf to do and will just pick whatever is first. And 90% of the time, if what they choose (what is first) isnt internet explorer, they are going to be upset when they cant find that little "e" icon on thier desktop. "how do i get on the internet??? There's no "e"!!" Then they'll have to bother their tech savvy friends (who are really too busy posting on TPU to care about thier mortal problems) to find out how to install internet explorer so they can get on the internet. They'll never find anything they download if firefox or chrome is the default... I can say the only people this will likely help is the little corner computer repair shops who will charge 50 quid to install internet explorer again.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 29, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Except the laws of the EU always change to fit their agenda. Not to mention, bundling IE doesn't even break the rules according to their own definition of anti-trust.


again, if ms dosnt like the rules, they can leave that market.



> MS didn't force anyone to use anything. There is no law breaking going on here, even by the EU's definition of anti-trust.


it must have broken some laws, they got gigged for it afterall.



> Whether or not it is, has nothing to do with this. It is their prerogative to code their IP any way they see fit. It should never be meddled with by govt. It's nothing but a ploy by the EU to gain leverage as they see fit. A company's place in the market should have absolutely nothing to do with anti-competitive behavior. Either everyone with an os that comes with a pre-packaged browser needs to do what MS is being forced to do, or none of them.


again if they dont like the rules, they can leave that market.



> What if you aren't online, or your lan doesn't have drivers in Windows by default?


if you are installing windows yourself in this day and age and dont get the lan drivers built into the setup OR install them first thing, then you probably wont be smart enough to deal with using anything but IE, possibly its time you buy a mac as they do everything for you except wipe ur bum, and Apples probably working on an ipod accessory for that as we speak.



> Has nothing to do with this at all.


that was directed at ford who said that including any 3rd party browser would be a security hell/nightmare for ms to deal with and support, when it would be MORE SECURE.



> Still isn't the business of the govt.


and if MS dosnt like it, they can leave that market cant they?





> Just because it's a law, doesn't mean we should just roll over and accept it. If it's unjust or unfair or overbearing, it needs to be spoken out against.


but its not the law in the country you live in/are from.

and if MS or Intel dont like the laws, THEY CAN LEAVE THAT MARKET.




> Using 3rd party libs to enable DX compatibility doesn't belong in the scope of this conversation anyway, as MS is not the ones allowing DX on other OSes. MS themselves are not the ones offering DX support in other OS's, so that point is irrelevant.


but they arent trying to stop people from supporting it, they did try and stop any other browser from getting activex support.




> What practices? What EXACTLY did ms do with IE that was anti-competitive?


1. activex
2. requiers IE code not W3C code to make a site fully functional, unlike every other browser who was trying to be W3C complyant AND then had to try and figuar out how to make the browser properly display sites that had to be coded spicificly for IE's crap rendering.

and again, if MS or any other company dosnt like the laws of a perticular market, they can just not enter/leave that market, if they choose not to, then they choose to live by the law of that market.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 29, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> again, if ms dosnt like the rules, they can leave that market.
> 
> 
> again if they dont like the rules, they can leave that market.
> ...



If pretty-much your entire argument now is based around that line, then you haven't read the other arguments in this thread. They're saying that "yes they have to obey European laws, but the same European laws allow both Microsoft and Intel to appeal against a verdict to a higher court (which they have), and that the laws suck."

Intel and MS won't withdraw from EU. Where there's a demand, there's someone to supply. It's the people of EU that stand to lose more than Intel and MS from such a move.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 29, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Pro-business is pro-consumer.  Businesses make goods and offer services consumers want.  Businesses also employ people so that they are eligible to become a consumer.  Businesses drive the economy and when you tax, fine, or limit business you subsequently reduce economic growth.



no, pro-ethical business is pro-consumer, pro-business doing as they please isnt good for anybody but that business.

want an example, http://www.roadmasterinc.com/ , they make great quality products BUT they treat employees like crap and hire mostly illegals, getting around the law by helping the illegals get "legal" (they get them identities to use and other peoples ssn's) they dont get in trouble for it because they pay the right people off.

they also treat the employees like utter shit.

oh and I WATCHED THEM pay a fire marshal off to avoid fines due to using extension cords taped to the floor as perm power sources, thats not ethical.....



> Antitrust is meant to stop businesses from killing/consuming rival businesses; however, as government power grows, they use antitrust to leverage that power against businesses (killing/consuming them to allow governments to go grow in influence and power).


welcome to the real world, dont like it, then talk to your politicians about why they support/dont fight suck actions as you would like.




> Big businesses are bad.  Just like big government, they tend to make money "disappear" without a trace.  Small businesses lead to more stability in an economy but goods and services also tend to cost more.  In the end, a medium size business is probably ideal (big enough to be efficient, small enough to value the communities they serve).



agreed to a point, problem is medium businesses tend to become big businesses if they are successful, so unless your suggesting we limit how large a business can get b4 it has to split into separate entities I dont see any fix.




> No market is ever to big to pull out of.  It comes down to profit margins.  If all the fines (taxes, etc.) are costing a business more money than they are making selling a product or service, they'll stop supporting that locale.  No economy is immune to economics and the business's need to turn a profit.


thats what I am saying, if ms/intel/company X dosnt like the rules of a market, just leave the market or dont enter it in the first place, if one of us goes to another country we have to follow the laws or we get arrested and held to that countries laws.



> Laws can make it impossible to compete.  That is, after all, the objective of the tariff.



dont get me started on tariffs and "free trade" lets just say i feel we need FAIR TRADE not FREE TRADE.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 29, 2009)

btarunr said:


> If pretty-much your entire argument now is based around that line, then you haven't read the other arguments in this thread. They're saying that "yes they have to obey European laws, but the same European laws allow both Microsoft and Intel to appeal against a verdict to a higher court (which they have), and that the laws suck."
> 
> Intel and MS won't withdraw from EU. Where there's a demand, there's someone to supply. It's the people of EU that stand to lose more than Intel and MS from such a move.



but its ms/intel/company x's choice to stay in that market, they could leave if they didnt want to deal with/follow the laws of that market.

And I dont see a huge loss if Intel left the market for anybody but Intel, EU users could still get AMD and Via cpu's for example.

If MS left the market same deal, I have a feeling mac's and Linux/BSD would gain a nice large market share leading to faster development.

Not saying I wouldnt use windows, and that some people there wouldnt import or pirate it, but the fact is that it wouldnt have the crippling effect on the market that so many people insist it would have, It would just make it clear to MS/Intel/CX that they screwed up by leaving the market.


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 29, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Pro-business is pro-consumer.  Businesses make goods and offer services consumers want.  Businesses also employ people so that they are eligible to become a consumer.  Businesses drive the economy and when you tax, fine, or limit business you subsequently reduce economic growth.
> 
> Antitrust is meant to stop businesses from killing/consuming rival businesses; however, as government power grows, they use antitrust to leverage that power against businesses (killing/consuming them to allow governments to go grow in influence and power).
> 
> ...



Pro-business is not automatically pro-consumer. Just take a monopoly which rips off consumers.

And anti-trust is not only about business vs. business issues, it is a lot about consumer welfare. But a lot of people seem to forget that.

Fine amounts are not established to ruin a company or milk its cash till it drops dead. Just look at the fines imposed against Intel/MS, they're a fraction of their yearly earnings. And that's why MS/Intel are never going to pull out of the EU.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 29, 2009)

Sugarush said:


> Pro-business is not automatically pro-consumer. Just take a monopoly which rips off consumers.


geeksquad for example?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 29, 2009)

As an always wise mod told me yesterday gentlemen, "Don't feed the troll".


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 29, 2009)

what, you work for geeksquad or something?


----------



## btarunr (Jul 29, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> but its ms/intel/company x's choice to stay in that market, they could leave if they didnt want to deal with/follow the laws of that market.
> 
> And I dont see a huge loss if Intel left the market for anybody but Intel, EU users could still get AMD and Via cpu's for example.



Won't happen, AMD will sell its $200 chips for €1000, people will vote their national and EU governments out of power.



Meecrob said:


> If MS left the market same deal, I have a feeling mac's and Linux/BSD would gain a nice large market share leading to faster development.
> 
> Not saying I wouldnt use windows, and that some people there wouldnt import or pirate it, but the fact is that it wouldnt have the crippling effect on the market that so many people insist it would have, It would just make it clear to MS/Intel/CX that they screwed up by leaving the market.



You really don't know how the industry works, I won't explain it. But I can tell you this. MS pulls out of EU, the people end up losing more. Either ways, we are talking about things that will never happen. EU and US share too many businesses operating on each others soils. It will end up in economic-MAD. Intel and MS will live on in EU. They'll adapt better to the laws there, but they can afford to make drastic changes in the way they operate, and still end up making billions from EU.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 29, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Won't happen, AMD will sell its $200 chips for €1000, people will vote their national and EU governments out of power.
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't know how the industry works, I won't explain it. But I can tell you this. MS pulls out of EU, the people end up losing more. Either ways, we are talking about things that will never happen. EU and US share too many businesses operating on each others soils. It will end up in economic-MAD. Intel and MS will live on in EU. They'll adapt better to the laws there, but they can afford to make drastic changes in the way they operate, and still end up making billions from EU.



I know how it works, but AMD wouldnt push the prices that high, it would endup being cheaper to import the stuff from overseas then, and people would.

as to them leaving, I KNOW THEY WONT, and i agree fully that they will adapt, because THEY MAKE MONEY OFF THAT MARKET, if they really couldnt/didnt want to deal with the rules of the EU market they  could leave, and all it would do really is hurt them.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 29, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> As an always wise mod told me yesterday gentlemen, "Don't feed the troll".


*FordGT90Concept agrees.*

I think the merry go round has come around a few too many times.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 30, 2009)

so that explains why some of the people in here are wandering around spouting off like drunk rednecks........


----------



## Wile E (Jul 31, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> 1. activex
> 2. requiers IE code not W3C code to make a site fully functional, unlike every other browser who was trying to be W3C complyant AND then had to try and figuar out how to make the browser properly display sites that had to be coded spicificly for IE's crap rendering.



They didn't force a single web dev to use those technologies. Those devs chose to. If those devs wouldn't have chosen MS, MS would've had to adapt. That's still not MS being anti-competitive.



Meecrob said:


> I know how it works, *but AMD wouldnt push the prices that high*, it would endup being cheaper to import the stuff from overseas then, and people would.


You're delusional if you honestly believe that.


----------



## Meecrob (Aug 1, 2009)

Wile E said:


> They didn't force a single web dev to use those technologies. Those devs chose to. If those devs wouldn't have chosen MS, MS would've had to adapt. That's still not MS being anti-competitive.
> 
> You're delusional if you honestly believe that.



the fact is they COULDNT it would become cheaper to IMPORT then to buy amd localy, you just dont get it, I know people who live in fing canada that come across the border to get computer parts because its cheaper then buying localy, some of them drive 3hrs to get to a decent computer shop and STILL SAVE MONEY, you cant tell me people in the EU or UK wouldnt have friends send them comp stuff in the mail if it was cheaper to get it out of country.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 2, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> the fact is they COULDNT it would become cheaper to IMPORT then to buy amd localy, you just dont get it, I know people who live in fing canada that come across the border to get computer parts because its cheaper then buying localy, some of them drive 3hrs to get to a decent computer shop and STILL SAVE MONEY, you cant tell me people in the EU or UK wouldnt have friends send them comp stuff in the mail if it was cheaper to get it out of country.


The average consumer (which accounts for the majority), is not going to go hunting for PC parts. They are just gonna buy what the OEMs shove in their face. Building systems is generally reserved for enthusiasts.

You just don't seem to get it, the only way AMD wouldn't charge ridiculous amounts of money is if the EU went after them.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Aug 2, 2009)

Wile E said:


> The average consumer (which accounts for the majority), is not going to go hunting for PC parts. They are just gonna buy what the OEMs shove in their face. Building systems is generally reserved for enthusiasts.
> 
> You just don't seem to get it, the only way AMD wouldn't charge ridiculous amounts of money is if the EU went after them.



Why do you waste your time with a troll?


----------



## Mussels (Aug 2, 2009)

pr0n Inspector said:


> Why do you waste your time with a troll?



generally, people argue with trolls to prevent casual observers from reading the thread and getting the wrong idea, or incorrect advice.

EG, if someone told you to lick your PSU to see if it was still working, you would step in and argue.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 2, 2009)

pr0n Inspector said:


> Why do you waste your time with a troll?



If a troll goes unchecked they can ruin a forum. We all take turns feeding him. He becomes like a pet after a while. You know a pet thats not allowed in the house?


----------



## Meecrob (Aug 3, 2009)

Wile E said:


> The average consumer (which accounts for the majority), is not going to go hunting for PC parts. They are just gonna buy what the OEMs shove in their face. Building systems is generally reserved for enthusiasts.
> 
> You just don't seem to get it, the only way AMD wouldn't charge ridiculous amounts of money is if the EU went after them.



if prices skyrocketed on prebuilt OEM systems people would just buy more custom built jobs at local shops.

and OEM wouldn't endup paying more for their AMD chips in EU because it would still be cheaper to just order more for the US plants( if they even have plants/assembly shops over there) and ship the chips/parts to the EU, again your logic fails to function as long as there are 2 companies.

If the price on AMD or INTEL parts are drastically cheaper in one country then in others, people will just order their stuff online and wait for shipping, OEM's on the other hand ALREADY HAVE THEIR CONTRACTS FOR PARTS, if they have to they can just ship the supplies or whole systems over, Normal people wouldnt endup knowing the difference, geeks would because if they wanted intel they would have to import the parts themselves or buy from a specialty shop that imports them(making the cost higher) 

good example is the FiiO headphone amps, You can get the e3 for under 7bucks on DX and the e5 is like 17bucks on DX, if you buy them in the states from most retailers you pay 30-80bucks for the same thing!!!( i found 3 places that sold the e5 ALONE for 80bucks!!!) its crazy, BUT with a little searching you can find DX and order them cheap as hell, sure you may have to wait a few weeks if they arent in stock, but hey, its still cheaper($7/$17 is the shipped price) enough cheaper that its worth the wait, You cant tell me geeks wouldnt do the same if Intel or AMD chips where to price inflate the same way as teh FiiO amps do when they cross the big puddle.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 3, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> if prices skyrocketed on prebuilt OEM systems people would just buy more custom built jobs at local shops.
> 
> and OEM wouldn't endup paying more for their AMD chips in EU because it would still be cheaper to just order more for the US plants( if they even have plants/assembly shops over there) and ship the chips/parts to the EU, again your logic fails to function as long as there are 2 companies.
> 
> ...


Except neither Intel nor AMD would allow their chips to be shipped from north america thru their channels, and they'd be well within their rights to sue the likes of the major oems that shipped over there. The only ones that may be able to get away with it is small volume dealers, and then there wouldn't be enough chips available to make a significant dent in the market. Not to mention, all the tariffs that would be imposed on the imports (which is a huge reason companies have a division in each part of the world, to avoid tariffs), and you'll still see major increases in AMD prices.

So either way, if Intel pulls out of the market, AMD prices will skyrocket. 

Your headphone amp example has nothing to do with this (and is wrong anyway). The official US Fiio distributor is Head-Direct, and they price the E5 at around $20-25. The higher priced ones are just price-gougers. Not to mention, the volume of Fiio products is insignificant compared to Intel or AMD volumes, and that makes a huge difference.

You're still wrong here.


----------



## Meecrob (Aug 3, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Except neither Intel nor AMD would allow their chips to be shipped from north america thru their channels, and they'd be well within their rights to sue the likes of the major oems that shipped over there. The only ones that may be able to get away with it is small volume dealers, and then there wouldn't be enough chips available to make a significant dent in the market. Not to mention, all the tariffs that would be imposed on the imports (which is a huge reason companies have a division in each part of the world, to avoid tariffs), and you'll still see major increases in AMD prices.
> 
> So either way, if Intel pulls out of the market, AMD prices will skyrocket.
> 
> ...



Im always wrong and your always right, yeah we know this, just like any time you have an opinion and somebody dosnt agree.

none of this matters tho, because as you will admit, even if they gotta pay the fine, they wont leave the market because it would mean even more losses from a market where they do make a hell of alot of money.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 3, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> Im always wrong and your always right, yeah we know this, just like any time you have an opinion and somebody dosnt agree.
> 
> *non of this matters tho, because as you will admit, even if they gotta pay the fine, they wont leave the market because it would mean even more losses from a market where they do make a hell of alot of money.*


Pretty much. Guess is was a pointless debate anyway.


----------



## Meecrob (Aug 3, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Pretty much. Guess is was a pointless debate anyway.



exectly, same reasion that ms wouldnt ever pull out of a major market, even china where they try to almost give vista and xp away yet still have more pirated users then world wide legit users, there is still money to be made one way or the other, and its better to make that money then let somebody else make it.

in the end no large company will leave any market that makes it money, even if they endup having to pay crazy high fines for stuff they did thats against the law( be it a good law or a bad law, that dosnt matter here)


----------

