European Commission Welcomes New Microsoft Proposals on MSIE and Interoperability

[FordGT90Concept]

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

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.



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?

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]

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]

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.