Safari for Windows Receives Prominent Placement on Microsoft's European 'Browser Ballot' [Archive]

MacRumors

Oct 16, 2009, 01:09 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/16/safari-for-windows-receives-prominent-placement-on-microsofts-european-browser-ballot/)

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/10/16/140544-microsoft_browser_ballot.jpg

Apple's Safari for Windows browser has received some attention today due to a proposal (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/439&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en) from Microsoft to use a "browser ballot" system to allow users to select Internet browsers for use on their Windows PCs in Europe, where the company has faced significant scrutiny over its historical anti-competitive integration of Internet Explorer with Windows.

Microsoft proposes featuring a "ballot" of the five most popular Internet browsers from which users can select their desired browser. Additional browsers would be available for selection, although they would be featured much less prominently. In ordering the selection of featured browsers, Microsoft has chosen to place them in alphabetical order by vendor from left to right, giving Apple's Safari the prime first position. Safari would be followed by Google's Chrome, Microsoft's Internet Explorer, Mozilla's Firefox, and Opera.

As Firefox designer Jenny Boriss notes (http://jboriss.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/microsoft-proposes-a-browser-ballot-for-european-windows-users-it-is-not-awesome/) on her personal blog not affiliated with Mozilla, the arrangement has raised some eyebrows for the apparent advantage it gives to Safari, which currently holds a very small percentage of Windows browser share.This ordering is about the worst option possible, both for user choice and the web as a whole. Microsoft wrote in their proposal that "nothing in the design and implementation of the Ballot Screen and the presentation of competing web browsers will express a bias for a Microsoft web browser or any other web browser," but this is exactly what the current design does. Windows users presented with the current design will tend to make only two choices: IE because they are familiar with it, or Safari because it is the first item.Boriss, who understandably would like to see Firefox, the second most-popular Windows Internet browser behind Internet Explorer, featured more prominently, cites studies of election results that show that minor party candidates listed first on a ballot frequently receive up to a 50% boost in their vote totals simply due to their placement on the ballot.

In order to address that issue, she suggests several alternative arrangements, including randomizing the order of the five featured browsers on each load of the ballot screen, ordering the list of browsers based on market share with Internet Explorer being placed last, or a combination of the two in which the probability of a given browser appearing first in the list is weighted by its market share.

While the current design of the ballot screen is not final, the European Commission gave its approval last week to begin market testing of the feature.

Article Link: Safari for Windows Receives Prominent Placement on Microsoft's European 'Browser Ballot' (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/16/safari-for-windows-receives-prominent-placement-on-microsofts-european-browser-ballot/)

Eidorian

Oct 16, 2009, 01:13 PM

This was a mess to begin with. :eek:

nagromme

Oct 16, 2009, 01:14 PM

What a weird story to be seeing all over the Web today. (Hmmm... maybe it's my weird browsing habits...)

They're all side-by-side, all visible at first glance... any effect beyond that would seem to be too trivial to be worth much of a fuss. With the possible exception of Opera being highlighted in deep red :p (And how about IE being right in the middle like that? Or Firefox and Google's multi-colored buttons? Unfair! Safari is tucked off to the side in plain blue on white, like it's just a useless Help button or something :p )

mrochester

Oct 16, 2009, 01:14 PM

I can't believe that the 5 options being placed alphabetically requires an entire story. If they were in reverse alphabetical order, Safari would still be in a prominent position as it's still one of the 5 main browsers being highlighted as opposed to any other options that feature below.

swajames

Oct 16, 2009, 01:15 PM

I'm going to develop a new browser and call it Aardvark :p

FJ218700

Oct 16, 2009, 01:15 PM

Didn't know Boriss had a Ph.D. in Psychology,

must be a FF extension or something.

manowarwi

Oct 16, 2009, 01:17 PM

Pumapayam

Oct 16, 2009, 01:17 PM

Why is the "order" a story.

Jenny is a douche.

Really, it's a ballot and some cultures read right to left.

xsecretfiles

Oct 16, 2009, 01:17 PM

Making your web even better...Faster, Safer, Easier

:D

HiRez

Oct 16, 2009, 01:18 PM

Um...who cares? What a non-story. Randomize them and be done with it.

djellison

Oct 16, 2009, 01:18 PM

I can imagine no possible reason why someone would want Safari on a PC

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3636

lunarworks

Oct 16, 2009, 01:19 PM

Which translates to "We want them to implement it... with US as the first choice."

manowarwi

Oct 16, 2009, 01:19 PM

Um...who cares? What a non-story. Randomize them and be done with it.

So now they have to waste more time and money to randomize the choices? If they do that, someone will sit there and find a way to "prove" that Microsoft is still pushing people towards IE instead of the other choices.

This should be a non-issue.

michaelvoigt

Oct 16, 2009, 01:20 PM

Safari and opera are on the ends and IE is centered and prominent ...

mustang_dvs

Oct 16, 2009, 01:20 PM

The order seems alphabetical:

Apple
Google
Microsoft
Mozilla
Opera

(Which of course, puts Microsoft smack-dab in the visual center of the group.)

Dmac77

Oct 16, 2009, 01:20 PM

And if FF was the first one on the ballot, she wouldn't be complaining.

Don

ziggyonice

Oct 16, 2009, 01:20 PM

Making your web even better...Faster, Safer, Easier

:D

I noticed that too -- IE has this nice, carefully worded and slightly longer description.

I really which something like this was required over here in the States. I hate when I have to help PC users with Internet Explorer issues.

bdkennedy1

Oct 16, 2009, 01:20 PM

This is stupid. Only one browser can be shown in that first spot. If it were Firefox, then Apple would be bitching.

numbersyx

Oct 16, 2009, 01:20 PM

Would people really pick Safari simply because it is the first item on the page? Surely not?????

HiRez

Oct 16, 2009, 01:21 PM

I can imagine no possible reason why someone would want Safari on a PC

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3636

It's Flash. Flash has always be horribly unoptimized on Macs. I remember it used to make the fans crank up on my dual G5 whenever I loaded up a page with Flash on it (even just a little ad).

jdechko

Oct 16, 2009, 01:21 PM

Seriously, this is crap. I'm getting fed up with Mozilla due to this. Quit your whining.

The only better alternative would be to have it random, but I'm sure they'd complain about the randomization algorithm used.

JAT

Oct 16, 2009, 01:21 PM

Why is this on the main page?

DTphonehome

Oct 16, 2009, 01:22 PM

And if FF was the first one on the ballot, she wouldn't be complaining.

Don

She actually proposed a method that would put Firefox first :rolleyes:

Patrick J

Oct 16, 2009, 01:23 PM

I think that there should be a button that says View Browsers: up comes a radial menu with the options around, randomly ordered, and the cursor defaults to the middle.

Of course then they will argue about who gets to go in the top and bottom slots...

bigmc6000

Oct 16, 2009, 01:23 PM

I can imagine no possible reason why someone would want Safari on a PC

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3636

No possible reason at all? Ever heard of these fancy machines called "desktops"? I know laptops are making a big push but, honest to God, there are still actually computers that are plugged into the wall 100% of the time.

cumanzor

Oct 16, 2009, 01:24 PM

I can imagine no possible reason why someone would want Safari on a PC

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3636

Well, it does feel WAY faster (or smoother) than Firefox. Firefox is just pure bloat.

Opera on the other hand is lovely love.

This is probably one of the stupidest MS complaints I've ever heard. The fact that it's getting so much attention is quite hilarious.

It's Flash. Flash has always be horribly unoptimized on Macs. I remember it used to make the fans crank up on my dual G5 whenever I loaded up a page with Flash on it (even just a little ad).

It's worse for Linux :(

VenusianSky

Oct 16, 2009, 01:24 PM

Does the Euro version of Mac OS X have this too or is Europe ok with Apple including Safari?

bigmc6000

Oct 16, 2009, 01:27 PM

The order seems alphabetical:

Apple
Google
Microsoft
Mozilla
Opera

(Which of course, puts Microsoft smack-dab in the visual center of the group.)

We need to ban the alphabet as it currently is and make it random. I mean, how fair is it that "A" always gets first billing and "Z" is always last? Does no one care about Z's feelings? Or what about all the other letters that people don't even remember what number they are? Quick, name the number for "P", "R" and "K". See, totally bias, we should take this to the Supreme Court, it's discrimination I tell you!

*end sarcasm*

malohkan

Oct 16, 2009, 01:27 PM

Obviously they should do like those old school javascript-heavy webpages where the links all bounce randomly around the screen and you have to chase them down to click on them.

bigmc6000

Oct 16, 2009, 01:28 PM

Obviously they should do like those old school javascript-heavy webpages where the links all bounce randomly around the screen and you have to chase them down to click on them.

And then MSFT would make all the other ones move more quickly and do that deal where you can't actually click on it ;)

blizaine

Oct 16, 2009, 01:34 PM

Wow... Someone needs to call a wambulance.

heehee

Oct 16, 2009, 01:34 PM

Everyone should tell Jenny on her blog to ****. :D

xhambonex

Oct 16, 2009, 01:36 PM

I'll just be happy when Chrome is available for OS X...not the beta

CptnJustc

Oct 16, 2009, 01:36 PM

The solution is simple.

Have Microsoft instruct the user at the top of the screen to close their eyes, swish their mouse around a little bit, and click.

Perrumpo

Oct 16, 2009, 01:36 PM

No possible reason at all? Ever heard of these fancy machines called "desktops"? I know laptops are making a big push but, honest to God, there are still actually computers that are plugged into the wall 100% of the time.

Not to mention that battery life is far from what dictates which browser I use.

carmenodie

Oct 16, 2009, 01:36 PM

Oh here is something to consider rather than that lame "MS at the center" crap a lot of your are using to CONVINCE yourself, just for the love of MS . The OS on the pc is Windows. And we all know that all the pcs that "matter" license Windows.
And behind it all is Google.

OllyW

Oct 16, 2009, 01:37 PM

Does the Euro version of Mac OS X have this too or is Europe ok with Apple including Safari?

There's no problem with the Mac, it's market share is much too small to cause any concern.

MorphingDragon

Oct 16, 2009, 01:41 PM

It's worse for Linux :(

At least it works for Mac OSX... if you can call it working.

BJMRamage

Oct 16, 2009, 01:42 PM

so stupid and trivial.
I like the option to get her FF in first place. :rolleyes:

I think it is slightly unfair that Safari reads so small.:eek:

jaw04005

Oct 16, 2009, 01:46 PM

I don’t know how you can argue with alphabetical order. Mozilla and Opera will never be happy.

The fact that Microsoft has even agreed to offer this is huge. I’m not sure Apple or any other company would have done the same.

I still maintain that most people won’t bother, and will just pick Internet Explorer because that’s what they use at work and what they’re used to. Even if they manage to pick another browser, it’s likely going to be by accident.

Mozilla and Opera are essentially trying to gain market share by accidental installs. I don’t think Apple cares. Safari on Windows is essentially alive to test compatibility with iPhone.

Unless you’re a geek or a tech enthusiast (and let’s face it if you are — you don’t need a browser ballot screen), you’re not going to actively pick Safari, Firefox or Opera.

whateverandever

Oct 16, 2009, 01:47 PM

Why is the "order" a story.

Jenny is a douche.

Really, it's a ballot and some cultures read right to left.

I don't think any cultures in the EU read right to left.

Warcraft Tauren

Oct 16, 2009, 01:53 PM

The letters of "Safari" are in smaller font than the others. Microsoft must have something against us! OH NO!

oldwatery

Oct 16, 2009, 01:53 PM

This is pathetic.
She shows her company in a really bad light with dumb emotional rants like this.
If she knew anything about the subject she would understand that placement alone is not the outstanding criterion.
Color and shape play a much larger part in the matter.
This deserves no room on this site.

jayducharme

Oct 16, 2009, 01:56 PM

Is anyone complaining that Safari comes pre-installed on Macs? Or that there's no IE for Macs? This all seems silly. As long as MS allows people to install whatever browser they want, what's the problem? The people who would want a different browser know which one they want. The people who don't know one browser from another probably won't care anyway and just stick with IE. IMO, there's only a problem if MS makes it difficult or impossible to install other browsers when you want to (like how they prevented other DOS systems from being installed).

FOXEO

Oct 16, 2009, 01:56 PM

As long as web developers quit making pages that load on only one browser (ahem, IE), who cares?

I honestly couldn't care less which one is listed first. It's ridiculous that so much effort has to be put into randomizing based on market share of a simple list of browsers.

Why don't we randomize the list using the current time and the stock market averages from the Nikkei and NYSE, based primarily on market share but secondarily on alphabetization of the developing company name, and then presented in a rotating circle with all icons in black and white.

kcmac

Oct 16, 2009, 02:00 PM

Uhhhhh. Center and to the right is most prominent. Graphic arts 101.

If it was a vertical list, different story. Big deal anyways. :rolleyes:

ntrigue

Oct 16, 2009, 02:03 PM

I think five choices the center will be most prominent in a horizontal layout.

Yvan256

Oct 16, 2009, 02:04 PM

Safari and Chrome are both waaaaaaay ahead of Firefox in the support of new technologies such as CSS3. I'd rather see more Safari and Chrome users than Firefox users.

Also, if Firefox is already #2, let the other browsers have a chance. The goal is not to have 50% Internet Explorer and 50% Firefox. The goal should be to have about even proportions of IE8, Safari 4, Chrome, Firefox 3, Opera 10.

adztaylor

Oct 16, 2009, 02:06 PM

MorphingDragon

Oct 16, 2009, 02:11 PM

There's no problem with the Mac, it's market share is much too small to cause any concern.

Plus it can be removed. IE on the other hand, this debate started in XP where IE was needed just to update etc.

jbernie

Oct 16, 2009, 02:11 PM

Why not just install all of them by default, but let users uncheck any browser they do not want installed by default?

I mean, it isn't like the early to mid 90s where hard drives were only in the few hundred megabyte range, we aren't exactly short on space these days.

Winni

Oct 16, 2009, 02:12 PM

[QUOTE=adztaylor;8652061As some people have mentioned, why is Microsoft penalised and Apple are allowed to still provide Safari as standard.[/QUOTE]

Apple does not have more than 90% market share -- Microsoft does, and they are using their dominant position in the desktop market to also gain the leadership in the browser or media player market. And that is actually illegal in Europe: Using a monopoly in one market to gain another monopoly in a second market.

dr. shdw

Oct 16, 2009, 02:14 PM

Why notjust install all of them by default, but let users uncheck any browser they do not want installed by default?

I mean, it isn't like the early to mid 90s where hard drives were only in the few hundred megabyte range, we aren't exactly short on space these days.

This was explored. Out of date versions could have potentially disastrous exploits..

hagjohn

Oct 16, 2009, 02:20 PM

the "browser ballot" is a dumb idea.

OllyW

Oct 16, 2009, 02:25 PM

the "browser ballot" is a dumb idea.

Why do you think so?

I think it's a fair way of doing it and it means I won't be getting the nobbled version of Windows 7 next week (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10262703-56.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1) which Microsoft originally planned.

miknos

Oct 16, 2009, 02:26 PM

There's many variables to choose:

Safari; because it's first.
Chrome; Because everybody thinks Google is internet.
IE; Most people are familiar with that symbol. "Better/faster/easier/safer" it's the funny part.
Firefox; well, it's the second major browser.
Opera; It's in a strong color.

I believe most people would choose Google.

logantx12

Oct 16, 2009, 02:31 PM

Frankly I really do not care who get the first or second billing on the ballot. All of them has cons and pros. Why make such a big deal about the browsers. :apple:

KingYaba

Oct 16, 2009, 02:32 PM

I'll bet Internet Explorer won't take much of a market share hit. And now Microsoft can brag about being open or something... Look at us, they'll say, we offer you choice.

carlosbutler

Oct 16, 2009, 02:32 PM

Why is the "order" a story.

Jenny is a douche.

Really, it's a ballot and some cultures read right to left.

The cultures that read from right to left would then have the location from right to left, to us it would appear Opera, Firefox, IE, Chrome, Safari...

Also, if FF was the first in the list she would not have said a word.

likemyorbs

Oct 16, 2009, 02:33 PM

Krevnik

Oct 16, 2009, 02:35 PM

Does the Euro version of Mac OS X have this too or is Europe ok with Apple including Safari?

The main point of contention here is that MSFT has 90% of the market, and the EU's claim is that because they bundle their own product with the OS, they are gaining unfair advantage using their OS monopoly to form and maintain a browser monopoly.

Usually, anti-trust requires that they have a monopoly first in one market before you can claim they are leveraging their monopoly to create new ones.

If Apple was the one with 90% market share, I can bet you that Apple would come under fire for the same thing if they didn't let OEM partners replace Safari during the install with something else and make it default.

The real thing that kickstarted this whole mess was back in the Win98 days because OEMs wanted to replace IE, MSFT said no, and governments started investigating.

simsandwhich

Oct 16, 2009, 02:35 PM

The only thing worse than IE8 on PC is Safari. It's slower and uses way more RAM, like all other Apple software on Windows.

Chrome all the way :cool:

Patrick J

Oct 16, 2009, 02:35 PM

Theoretically there is no way to garantee 100% non-biased list layout. Think about it - there is always something that will appeal to human psych.. the position, the colors, the size, the slogan..

Rodimus Prime

Oct 16, 2009, 02:37 PM

Personally I would of gone with the market share approach if I was Microsoft. IE first, then FF, Safari, Opera or Chrome.

Right now the 2 biggest players in the market are FF and IE. everyone else has what 5-6% of the market to compete over.

mtbdudex

Oct 16, 2009, 02:42 PM

analysis paralysis, how about election ballot preferences/etc?

I can see the random 5 selection method as being most "fair".

Shookster

Oct 16, 2009, 02:56 PM

Google Chrome: a new web browser for Windows

Why is the Chrome description so lame? Did Microsoft write it?

Bubba Satori

Oct 16, 2009, 02:57 PM

Uhhhhh. Center and to the right is most prominent. Graphic arts 101.

So, 23 people would notice.

Analog Kid

Oct 16, 2009, 02:58 PM

Wow, this has gotten absurd. What should have been a punitive finding against Microsoft for abusing their monopoly power became a corrective action that, frankly, looks ridiculous this many years later.

I do think MSs behavior during the browser wars was reprehensible, and did long term damage to the efficiency and utility of the Internet, but there has to be a better way of rectifying the situation. Are they going to do the same with Flash and Silverlight? WMP and Quicktime?

ChrisA

Oct 16, 2009, 03:08 PM

In every real election, at least around here, the candidates names are randomly placed so that in every polling place the order is different, so as not to give preference to anyone.

On a computer display the positions could be randomized each time the display is shown to a user. There is no reason to choose who goes first on a computer screen. Let the PC "roll the dice".

Center and to the right is most prominent. Graphic arts 101.

We all know this, and we all know that the designers at Microsoft know this. No doubt "alphabetical by manufacturer" was selected because "Microsoft is spelled with an "M".

It's clear they selected this to place themselves dead center and why only five browsers? How else to center the their own browser?

Why pick such a bizarre scheme what the obvious answer to to randomize the positions

shawnce

Oct 16, 2009, 03:12 PM

The real thing that kickstarted this whole mess was back in the Win98 days because OEMs wanted to replace IE, MSFT said no, and governments started investigating. The reality of this remedy is that it is ten years late and now, in many ways, no longer needed.

zombitronic

Oct 16, 2009, 03:24 PM

Personally I would of gone with the market share approach if I was Microsoft. IE first, then FF, Safari, Opera or Chrome.

To be really fair, I would've gone with the market share approach...backwards.

Chrome or Opera, Safari, Firefox, Internet Explorer.

Hey, look at that. Firefox is in the same place. Uh oh, Safari's in the center. And IE is in the prominent right hand spot.

And make the icons bigger to smaller. And pulsate and glow, more for the bigger icons. Maybe make a "chime" sound when you roll over them, sounding bright to dull, left to right.

Maybe have celebrity voice overs read the text. But more prominent celebrities for the browsers on the left. Johnny Depp for Chrome or Opera (whichever has a smaller share). Steve Buscemi for Safari. Jon Gosselin for Internet Explorer.

ivladster

Oct 16, 2009, 03:26 PM

It should be Safari, then Firefox, then Opera and the rest can be eliminated.

bbell2000

Oct 16, 2009, 03:27 PM

If Safari was listed last, they'd be claiming an advantage because the underdog encourages sympathy.

If they do it by market share, someone will complain about that biasing the user in some way.

And if they make it random, I'm sure someone will do some study that "proves" it isn't really random and that vendor x shows up in the first slot more than the others. Or that Microsoft made one of the logos slightly bigger or used slightly brighter colors to get the user's attention.

Kristenn

Oct 16, 2009, 03:31 PM

I don't know about everyone else. But my mom taught me to read from left to right. I don't see what the big deal is >.>

strike1555

Oct 16, 2009, 03:32 PM

arkmannj

Oct 16, 2009, 03:39 PM

Oh Mozilla please cry me a river...
I mean seriously, I think the screen looks great, and regardless if people will be more inclined to click the first option or not, at least all of them are getting exposure, and alternative browsers will be used, This can only help their market share (even if not as much as they want) and would certainly help the web as a whole. MS is being pretty good sports by the looks of the ballet option in my opinion. I may not like everything MS does, but I do think if the EU doesn't accept this option they are just wasting Euro tax money when they could be worrying about a lot better things.

(For the record, this message was typed using Firefox 3)

ValSalva

Oct 16, 2009, 03:41 PM

Hmmm. MSFT proposes putting an Apple product first. Somehow you have to believe that MSFT is just jerking the EU around (rightfully so). How can anyone expect anyone to take the EU seriously.

The ballot is a reaction to the idiotic demand that Windows be shipped without a browser. That's so the end user can download the browser of his/her choice with... er.. what??? ... there's no browser to download the browser with! :confused::confused::confused: Good thinking EU.

Eidorian

Oct 16, 2009, 03:44 PM

The ballot is a reaction to the idiotic demand that Windows be shipped without a browser. That's so the end user can download the browser of his/her choice with... er.. what??? ... there's no browser to download the browser with! :confused::confused::confused: Good thinking EU.You don't need a browser to do that. :p

throttlemeister

Oct 16, 2009, 03:46 PM

Plus it can be removed. IE on the other hand, this debate started in XP where IE was needed just to update etc.

FUD. Safari cannot be removed, like IE cannot be removed. You can remove the .app, just like you can remove the IE .exe, but you cannot remove webkit just like you can't remove the IE engine as they are used by the core OS for other things.

OSX and IE are setup quite the same in this regard.

ValSalva

Oct 16, 2009, 03:48 PM

You don't need a browser to do that. :p

Well no, of course not. But the majority of typical computer users would be lost. And I'll bet the powers that be in the EU would not know how to download anything without a browser :rolleyes:

arkmannj

Oct 16, 2009, 03:51 PM

Well no, of course not. But the majority of typical computer users would be lost. And I'll bet the powers that be in the EU would not know how to download anything without a browser :rolleyes:

Then The EU would complain that MS included FTP, and users are thus not being given a choice on choosing their own FTP client. Where would the cycle end. LOL

mytdave

Oct 16, 2009, 03:53 PM

OMG, is this person serious? Stop whining already. I'm impressed MS is even going to the trouble to do this. Will alphabetical by product name work for you? Geez.

MS: Just randomize it, be done, then tell any other whiners where to go.

throttlemeister

Oct 16, 2009, 03:53 PM

Hmmm. MSFT proposes putting an Apple product first. Somehow you have to believe that MSFT is just jerking the EU around (rightfully so). How can anyone expect anyone to take the EU seriously.

How about the simple fact that the EU market is significantly larger than the North American market?

And how exactly is this different from MS being convicted of monopoly abuse in the US of A? Oh wait, here they try to actually DO something instead of just slapping them on the wrist and say 'you've been a bad boy, you can't do that, now go on your merry business'.

Then again, only an American could apply double standards and think its the right way.

VenusianSky

Oct 16, 2009, 04:00 PM

The main point of contention here is that MSFT has 90% of the market, and the EU's claim is that because they bundle their own product with the OS, they are gaining unfair advantage using their OS monopoly to form and maintain a browser monopoly.

Usually, anti-trust requires that they have a monopoly first in one market before you can claim they are leveraging their monopoly to create new ones.

If Apple was the one with 90% market share, I can bet you that Apple would come under fire for the same thing if they didn't let OEM partners replace Safari during the install with something else and make it default.

The real thing that kickstarted this whole mess was back in the Win98 days because OEMs wanted to replace IE, MSFT said no, and governments started investigating.

Just a difference between the EU and the United States. I wonder how many countries would have adopted the same policy if the EU did not exist. Guess we will never know.

mytdave

Oct 16, 2009, 04:00 PM

I can imagine no possible reason why someone would want Safari on a PC

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3636

Superior browsing experience perhaps? 100% acid 3 compliance perhaps? Faster than all but the very latest Chrome, perhaps?

Eminemdrdre00

Oct 16, 2009, 04:04 PM

Doesn't MacRumors has a "Page 2" for this type of stuff? This isnt even about the mac or OS X.

larrylaffer

Oct 16, 2009, 04:05 PM

Would people really pick Safari simply because it is the first item on the page? Surely not?????

Absolutely they would. There are still plenty of folks out there that are not computer literate, and will chose the first option among anything because it seems like the safe thing to do.

With that said, this latest piece of FF propaganda has led me to decide to stop using FF for good. Chrome is fantastic on Windows, and Safari is fantastic on the Mac. Both are at least twice as fast, especially on my old Windows box where FF just lags and lags.

I think alphabetical order was a good choice. They could have randomized it, but that's just more work on their part. Alphabetical sorting is easier to do, and "fair".

ValSalva

Oct 16, 2009, 04:06 PM

How about the simple fact that the EU market is significantly larger than the North American market?

I should have made the distinction between the people of the EU and the ridiculous officials making these demands. (The USA doesn't have a monopoly on pompous, self-important officials). The people of Europe deserve much better representation that they are getting. They certainly deserve the same software the rest of the world is getting.

After all, it isn't still 1998.

arkmannj

Oct 16, 2009, 04:09 PM

Absolutely they would. There are still plenty of folks out there that are not computer literate, and will chose the first option among anything because it seems like the safe thing to do.

With that said, this latest piece of FF propaganda has led me to decide to stop using FF for good. Chrome is fantastic on Windows, and Safari is fantastic on the Mac. Both are at least twice as fast, especially on my old Windows box where FF just lags and lags.

I think alphabetical order was a good choice. They could have randomized it, but that's just more work on their part. Alphabetical sorting is easier to do, and "fair".

Agreed.

Also Alphabetizing made it an easy solution that is clearly unbiased, a random option would come under scrutiny for how the algorithm works, and blah blah blah. Alphabetizing is simple, it makes sense and in my opinion is fair.
You don't hear Chrome (Google) or Opera complaining.

seashellz

Oct 16, 2009, 04:11 PM

well, if Ms Borris has no problem funding the extra time for the work required, however large or small-why not?

Otherwise what a stupid thing to get upset about;
Would she complain if FF were listed first?-because that would happen if it were browser alphabetic

I guess MS had no other choice-one could accuse them of "rigging" a random
screen browser generator display on opening-ie MSIE might 'randomly' appear first more often than it should statistically...

what a loser

>>The ballot is a reaction to the idiotic demand that Windows be shipped without a browser. That's so the end user can download the browser of his/her choice with... er.. what???
... there's no browser to download the browser with! Good thinking EU.
---
Im sure on first boot a server connection like SOFTWARE UPDATE would open-and offer this browser menu....put a checkmark next to the browser of your choice then hit "download"...you dont need a browser to do this

mytdave

Oct 16, 2009, 04:23 PM

FUD. Safari cannot be removed, like IE cannot be removed. You can remove the .app, just like you can remove the IE .exe, but you cannot remove webkit just like you can't remove the IE engine as they are used by the core OS for other things.

OSX and IE are setup quite the same in this regard.

Wrong. You can remove Safari, and WebKit, which is in System/Library/Frameworks. You can also delete other associated files. And unlike IE, it won't magically re-spawn from the dregs of hell. You might not want to delete it however, since it's an API and other applications can take advantage of it.

Maserati7200

Oct 16, 2009, 04:51 PM

Apple does not have more than 90% market share -- Microsoft does, and they are using their dominant position in the desktop market to also gain the leadership in the browser or media player market. And that is actually illegal in Europe: Using a monopoly in one market to gain another monopoly in a second market.

So technically Apple selling their computers with only Mac OSX on it is illegal in europe, because Apple has the monopoly on Macs, and no other OS's even have a chance :p

Seriously, that's a stupid law.

SnowLeopard2008

Oct 16, 2009, 05:03 PM

xUKHCx

Oct 16, 2009, 05:07 PM

Funny how only Firefox complains and Google/Opera don't complain.

It was pretty much Opera's complaints that forced this position in the first place.

As per the other remarks that is obviously a point of discussion. Browser use comes down to personal choice based on a whole ream of different factors, UI, speed, features, adaptability, etc. etc.

willdenow

Oct 16, 2009, 05:20 PM

VoR

Oct 16, 2009, 05:25 PM

Seriously, that's a stupid law.

Of course it is.
It's all about cash though surely? Why wouldn't the IT gurus (EU) want to cash in on MS?

philipt42

Oct 16, 2009, 05:40 PM

It would be great for opera if it was the first choice...their market share would go up so much.

(typed using opera 10)

Rodimus Prime

Oct 16, 2009, 05:41 PM

As many other commentators have noted, Firefox reps would not be complaining if the browsers were arranged alphabetically by browser name, or better yet, if Firefox were placed in the starting column. Microsoft has made a reasonable attempt to comply with EU rulings. Enough is Enough.

For all of you pooh-poohing the EU, I say go back to school and get some "learnin" with regard to laissez-faire capitalist economic systems and the misery that entails for both workers and consumers. You guys are drinking entirely too much right wing , US Republican kool-aid. The current economic meltdown that has devastated the American economy is the direct result of W's 8 year onslaught of laissez-faire economic principals and has dished us up the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Or didn't they teach you youngins about the Depression in college (or high school)?

This is a good development for consumers in both Europe and North America. We should be commending the EU for having the guts to stands up to M$. Let's hope they issue similar rulings against Intel in its monopolistic attempts to run AMD out of business. Free market competition will always be the best way to benefit both consumers and companies. But, the markets must be free (level playing field for companies regardless of size) and competition must be fair (no predatory pricing, product tying, vendor intimidation, etc.) When those conditions aren't met, the biggest corporations can always rub out the little guy. Sometimes it takes government intervention to ensure that the markets are free and competition is fair. There is absolutely nothing "communist" or "socialist" about such regulations. If this were so, then we'd have to label Republican Teddy Roosevelt a Socialist because many of the laws the Bush Administration refused to observe and enforce were written, introduced and signed into law by the Teddy Roosevelt administration at the turn of the last Century.

I might like to point out that the US compared to the EU system for regulation of companies if any one cared to study and not just listen to the what the media tells them (which is only a 1/4 truth at best) would noticed something interesting.

That is the Good times in the US economy are better than the good times in the EU economy. On the flip side the bad times in the US are worse than in the EU.

Basicly the US has higher highs and lower lows than the EU. Unemployment in the US during good times is lower than in EU. Bad times well it is higher. It is take your pick on which system you think is better.

As for the article FF the blog is no official by FF or Mozilla but a personal bitching by yes a higher up.

Another fact to look at is Mozilla/Firefox has more cards against it than for it. It does not carry the name recognition with the general public as Microsoft, Apple and Google do. So yes it hurts. People know who Apple, Google, and Microsoft but not very many people know who Opera or Mozilla are.

I can see it from both points of view. Microsoft went with an easy far way to do it by going with the aphbical by company name. Another way they could of done it is based name of the browser which would of put Chrome FF, IE, Oprea, Saf. That would of look bad and yes the Apple Fan boys would of been screaming how it unfair for apple to be listed dead last yet it is alphabetical.

I personally think Marketshare would of been better but Alphabetical is the way it is.

Something I do want to ask is the people blasting the FF. How would you of felt if Safari was listed last because it is the last one listed by the name of the browser. I know for a fact that you all would not be happy about it.

joeshell383

Oct 16, 2009, 05:48 PM

There's no problem with the Mac, it's market share is much too small to cause any concern.

Safari for iPhone? Apple has a large smartphone marketshare.

joeshell383

Oct 16, 2009, 05:51 PM

Mozilla becomes... Amozilla!!!

elppa

Oct 16, 2009, 05:52 PM

This is stupid. Only one browser can be shown in that first spot. If it were Firefox, then Apple would be bitching.

No, they would have said nothing. I don't think they're remotely concerned about this browser ballot thing in general. It's not Apple's style to go complaining to regulators.

This whole thing was initialised by Opera. I bet whoever decided the ordering put much less thought into it than all those analysing their decision. You either do alphabetical by browser, or alphabetical by vendor.

Why is this on the main page?
Cause it's Windows related. All Mac only stories head to page 2 now.

birch25

Oct 16, 2009, 05:55 PM

Jenny Boriss should stop whining. Safari is the fastest browser in the world (currently) and the most secure. It renders pages much more elegantly than Firefox. Funny how only Firefox complains and Google/Opera don't complain.

Firefox is only good for plugins, the page rendering and other performance benchmarks rank it 3rd place after Apple and Google.

Safari is NOT only good for Macintosh computers. It's just as good on Windows. Safari 4.x is the ONLY browser in the world that passes the Acid3 test, Windows and Mac. While it's not the only indicator of web standard compliance, it does cover the vast majority that people actually encounter on the web.

For the record, Firefox and Chrome (and even IE, for that matter) render most web pages just fine. Standards compliance is great and all browsers should work towards them but just because Safari scores highest on the Acid 3 test doesn't mean the other browsers are unusable. Actually, even on OSX, there are times when a page doesn't render right in Safari (my default browser) and I have to open up Firefox to see the page.

Also, Safari 4 on Windows pales in comparison to both Chrome and Firefox.

OllyW

Oct 16, 2009, 05:56 PM

Safari for iPhone? Apple has a large smartphone marketshare.

But nowhere near a monopoly share. Windows has 90% of the OS market, while the iPhone had 14% of smartphone sales in Q2.

Frisco

Oct 16, 2009, 06:11 PM

No one on a PC even knows that Safari is a browser. I guess 1% of the World would know it's a browser. And a bad one at that. Firefox for me.

markie

Oct 16, 2009, 06:26 PM

"I can imagine no possible reason why someone would want Safari on a PC"

The option to use Apple font rendering (FAR more accurate and easier on the eyes than ClearType) is the biggie IMHO.

Sadly, in Safari 4 Apple turned this feature off by default which makes me worried they'll remove it entirely.

Dagless

Oct 16, 2009, 06:52 PM

Isn't Microsoft Exchange first on the list of email providers on the iPod Touch?

xUKHCx

Oct 16, 2009, 06:57 PM

^Yeah it is. Microsoft Exchange, mobile me, google mail, yahoo mail, aol, other.

Exchange support is a reasonably big feature/selling/advertising point where as an internet browser on a desktop machine really isn't.

bunty

Oct 16, 2009, 07:05 PM

Safari and opera are on the ends and IE is centered and prominent ...

The center position is the one that most people will choose. It's simple Bell Curve "normal distribution"...no wonder Microsoft is proposing this design.

http://pierianpuddle.blogspot.com/2008/04/mysteries-of-bell-curve-revealed.html

And interesting to read different interpretations on it.

Claustin

Oct 16, 2009, 07:08 PM

Wow. Can't believe I'm saying this but good job Microsoft. Great idea. On the other hand Jenny is being a whiney little beeotch. When I look at that screen my eye is actually drawn more to chrome than anything else due to the bright colors. It's not like it's a text list in order of 1 to 6.

Neotyguy40

Oct 16, 2009, 07:29 PM

Come ON! Can anyone tell me why the order matters? Most people that have FireFox will STAY with FF, because it's just a preference.

Most people who use IE8 only use it because it was the default browser, I wouldn't be complaining about the order, but rather what it says.

The Safari button says 'Free for Mac+Pc', which will make people think the others may cost some cash.

I think this is pretty good for Safari, but I doubt Apple cares about the browser market share...

amorya

Oct 16, 2009, 07:32 PM

FUD. Safari cannot be removed, like IE cannot be removed. You can remove the .app, just like you can remove the IE .exe, but you cannot remove webkit just like you can't remove the IE engine as they are used by the core OS for other things.

OSX and IE are setup quite the same in this regard.

If you remove safari app, there isn't (that I'm aware of) anywhere in the OS where you can type in a URL and get a webpage.

The problem was when Microsoft melded IE and Windows Explorer: if you typed a URL into the location field of Windows Explorer, it turned into IE and loaded the website. Even if you'd deleted the IE exe. That's the problem: nothing to do with shipping a rendering engine, but because it was a user facing feature for browsing websites that was unfair to other manufacturers of browsers.

amorya

Oct 16, 2009, 07:35 PM

So technically Apple selling their computers with only Mac OSX on it is illegal in europe, because Apple has the monopoly on Macs, and no other OS's even have a chance :p

Seriously, that's a stupid law.

No. Saying a company has a monopoly on its own product is obvious and irrelevant.

Firstly, monopolies are not illegal. Misuse of monopoly status is.

Secondly, monopoly status is per product category, not per brand. You can have a monopoly on hamburgers, but not on big macs.

Amorya

jgbhardy

Oct 16, 2009, 07:35 PM

Does the Euro version of Mac OS X have this too or is Europe ok with Apple including Safari?

There is a difference in the way Apple includes Safari and the way Microsoft includes IE.
Have you ever tried uninstalling IE on a windows machine, I could not actually do it. Microsoft actually includes IE into some of the system. Safari on OS X is different, the system doesn't need Safari and you can easily uninstall it.

Jelite

Oct 16, 2009, 07:42 PM

This

Safari and opera are on the ends and IE is centered and prominent ...

And this

Jenny is a douche.

Maserati7200

Oct 16, 2009, 07:49 PM

No. Saying a company has a monopoly on its own product is obvious and irrelevant.

Firstly, monopolies are not illegal. Misuse of monopoly status is.

Secondly, monopoly status is per product category, not per brand. You can have a monopoly on hamburgers, but not on big macs.

Amorya

Is your sarcasm detector broken?

kurosov

Oct 16, 2009, 07:51 PM

So it's unfair having a more popular browser first yet also having a browser with 'little market share' first?

aka list it as firefox | firefox | firefox | firefox | firefox :rolleyes:

jgbhardy

Oct 16, 2009, 07:56 PM

Only in Europe can a court come to such a retarded conclusion that including your software on YOUR software is anti-competitive. People have a choice either way, does Windows prevent people from downloading other browsers? This also adds to Windows history of confusion and user aggravation in Europe because some people don't care they just want to turn it on and have it work, not everyone is computer savvy enough to choose a browser or to even care

Honestly I just can't believe the ignorance of some people.
How is clicking an option using the ballot computer savvy? Surely having to download the browser and install it yourself would be more computer savvy:rolleyes: If you can't select an option from a panel on installation, why are you using a computer!
You obviously don't understand the point of how Microsoft is implementing IE as anti competitive. Its not just including your own software, its about Microsoft using their monopoly in one market to gain a monopoly in another.

Honestly some people.:rolleyes:

SactoGuy18

Oct 16, 2009, 07:57 PM

I can say that you just can't please those people in Europe. :rolleyes:

Anyway, for Windows 7 users, the more experienced users will mostly gravitate towards Firefox 3.5.3. Not the fastest browser, but Firefox 3.5.3 has WAY more third-party add-on support than other web browsers and displays most web pages very accurately, too.

GSMiller

Oct 16, 2009, 07:59 PM

The Firefox people are just cranky that their browser is still placed after Internet Explorer.

I think it's quite brilliant on Microsoft's part, because:

A) It keeps people off their back who claim they're giving IE an unfair advantage
B) They're listing a virtually unknown product in the World of Windows first, which will more than likely leave few people choosing it anyway.

AidenShaw

Oct 16, 2009, 08:04 PM

Is your sarcasm detector broken?

No - it probably uses WebKit so that it doesn't render sarcasm properly....

</sarcasm>

:D

cumanzor

Oct 16, 2009, 09:32 PM

Safari for iPhone? Apple has a large smartphone marketshare.

RIM is still on top. But this is interesting, how come no one has complained? After all, Apple ACTIVELY rejects any web browser app for the iPhone.

KnightWRX

Oct 16, 2009, 09:54 PM

RIM is still on top. But this is interesting, how come no one has complained? After all, Apple ACTIVELY rejects any web browser app for the iPhone.

No one complained because Apple doesn't have control over the smartphone market. If you want another browser, go to the competition, which is very healthy.

And RIM isn't on top, Symbian is.

fswmacguy

Oct 16, 2009, 09:58 PM

It's almost like Microsoft wants to lose market share.

jaw04005

Oct 16, 2009, 10:14 PM

There is a difference in the way Apple includes Safari and the way Microsoft includes IE.
Have you ever tried uninstalling IE on a windows machine, I could not actually do it. Microsoft actually includes IE into some of the system. Safari on OS X is different, the system doesn't need Safari and you can easily uninstall it.

And what’s the difference in Apple including WebKit, the foundation for Safari, which renders the iTunes Store, Apple Help, Mail’s HTML, etc?

You can’t uninstall WebKit either.

Internet Explorer 8 within Windows 7 has the ability to be completely remove it from the system, but the EU wasn’t impressed by that.

I’ve increasingly come to the conclusion that governmental bodies such as the EU and to a lesser extent the U.S. Justice Department have actually harmed consumers in their pursuit against Microsoft.

Internet Explorer 4 for Windows 95 was the first browser by Microsoft to be integrated with Windows. It was revolutionary at the time. It was mainstream consumers first exposure to the idea of desktop widgets with Active Desktop. It allowed Microsoft to do a lot in terms of file browsing (forward, back, URL bar, etc) and presenting your data (GIF and JPEG-based graphs and charts, etc). If you remember back then, it was almost like getting an entirely new operating system — for free.

They took it a step further in Windows 98 by introducing Windows Update, which was based on IE 5. For the first time in a consumer operating system, it was actually easy to patch your OS and software. Keep in mind, Apple didn’t introduce Software Update until Mac OS 9.

While Microsoft’s antics with Netscape were likely illegal, people didn’t quit using Netscape because Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer. They quit using Netscape because it fell behind Internet Explorer. Even Steve Jobs admitted Internet Explorer on the Mac was better than Netscape (see Macworld keynote, 1997).

As a consumer, I like bundled features in my operating system. It would be a sad day in the Mac world if Apple was forced to remove Safari, Address Book, iCal, Image Capture, QuickTime, Mail, Photobooth, etc from Mac OS X. Not to mention, all the great iLife software that ships with each Mac.

Microsoft has made a lot of concessions with Windows 7. There’s no more Windows Mail, Movie Maker, Photo Gallery or built-in Internet browser. Yes, you can still download their successors at live.com, but that’s not going to stop consumers from getting their Windows 7 PC and wondering “What the hell?”

AidenShaw

Oct 16, 2009, 10:53 PM

cocky jeremy

Oct 16, 2009, 10:54 PM

Why not have it done with every combination and randomize the way it loads when this page loads to pick your browser.. that way any browser could be in any position? Not that this SHOULD be a big deal anyway. Whiny idiots. lol.

richu96

Oct 16, 2009, 11:37 PM

Frankly why does this matter at all? couldn't one install all the browsers if they chose to? Alphabetical seems fair. Plus, I really wouldn't want to use safari on windows anyways. I prefer firefox.

twoodcc

Oct 16, 2009, 11:37 PM

well if they keep it like that, then it's good for safari

dirtyhen

Oct 17, 2009, 12:15 AM

as I remember, OS X also comes with Safari as a built-in web browser but I didn't see any action on it? lolz :D

Nikos

Oct 17, 2009, 12:29 AM

My experienced eye goes straight to Firefox.

ingenious

Oct 17, 2009, 12:46 AM

malachiman

Oct 17, 2009, 01:33 AM

Would people really pick Safari simply because it is the first item on the page? Surely not?????

If you think about they way we skim with our eyes, Safari is in the worse position, looks at the way placement is on shelves when merchandising... same thing. Safari will be mostly missed, Google partially and IE gets the main focus

malachiman

Oct 17, 2009, 01:34 AM

as I remember, OS X also comes with Safari as a built-in web browser but I didn't see any action on it? lolz :D

I think because IE is integrated into the OS not just an app

peterdevries

Oct 17, 2009, 01:49 AM

Does the Euro version of Mac OS X have this too or is Europe ok with Apple including Safari?

Safari itself is not an integral part of the OS and can be removed and replaced by say FF. Webkit on which Safari based is a part of the OS, but this does not hinder you from choosing another browser.

The whole reason for the EU being after MS, was that IE was integrated with the OS and could not be removed and replaced, and the fact that the marketshare of windows was considered high enough to be regarded as a monopoly.

peterdevries

Oct 17, 2009, 01:59 AM

So technically Apple selling their computers with only Mac OSX on it is illegal in europe, because Apple has the monopoly on Macs, and no other OS's even have a chance :p

Seriously, that's a stupid law.

Here we go again. Seriously, you don't understand the law. And no, reading it (it's on wikipedia) doesn't mean you understand it.

edit: sorry, my sarcasm detector was broken too..;)

NicoMan

Oct 17, 2009, 02:03 AM

inkswamp

Oct 17, 2009, 02:42 AM

This ordering is about the worst option possible, both for user choice and the web as a whole.

Please! Windows users would do well to consider Safari. I've been doing Web development for the last 10 years of my life and I have absolute confidence in saying that Safari is by far the superior browser in all respects to Firefox with the sole, albeit significant, exception of FF's plug-in architecture which has created a thriving ecosystem of cool plug-ins.

And that's it. There's nothing else Firefox beats Safari in. In fact, in some of the most important areas (launch speed, memory usage, Javascript execution speed, adherence to standards, rendering of animation, etc.) Safari kicks FF's ass around the block two-and-a-half times.

If this ordering encourages Windows users to download and try Safari, I say fan-freakin-tastic. They could do much worse.

adztaylor

Oct 17, 2009, 04:03 AM

This is why the government needs to stay out of people's lives...

Obviously, there's no way for this to be perfectly fair. No matter how Microsoft does it, somebody will be unhappy.

This brings us to a brilliant question... if Microsoft spends R&D money to develop Microsoft Windows and Microsoft wants to have their own Microsoft Internet Explorer featured as the default browser, why should anyone but Microsoft have anything to do with it? :rolleyes:

Exactly this, your buying a Microsoft operating system so you'd expect all the features that Microsoft include, at the end of the day Internet Explorer is just another feature of Microsoft Windows. When are they gonna stop? Just provide a shell of an operating system and have a ballot for every application Microsoft bundles with Windows cause it's not fair? :rolleyes:

SilenceBe

Oct 17, 2009, 04:27 AM

Does the Euro version of Mac OS X have this too or is Europe ok with Apple including Safari?
No, Apple is not in that position that it can abuse their powers to disrupt the whole market. Microsoft can and has shown in the past that they are willingly to do so. Companies (European mostly) are getting slapped with fines (thank god for that) when they are using their position to disrupt the European market. It's not because of their position that they are getting penalized, its when they are misusing the powers that comes with that position.

I don't have my book "Universal Design Principles" by hand, but there is a principle (with research backing it up) that the strongest position in a list are the first and last couple of items. So to be honest I really don't understand why the Mozilla foundation is complaining.

Shookster

Oct 17, 2009, 04:29 AM

Jenny Boriss should stop whining. Safari is the fastest browser in the world (currently)

Chrome is faster.

and the most secure.

Is it?

Funny how only Firefox complains and Google/Opera don't complain.

She doesn't work for Mozilla, so "Firefox" is not the one complaining. Google isn't complaining but they should in my opinion - have you seen the lame description under the Chrome heading?

And anyway, I believe Opera filed the original complaint that brought all of this about in the first place.

Safari 4.x is the ONLY browser in the world that passes the Acid3 test, Windows and Mac.

Opera 10 passes it too.

While it's not the only indicator of web standard compliance, it does cover the vast majority that people actually encounter on the web.

IE8 scores 20% and earlier versions score even less. The majority of the functions being tested are not in use on mainstream websites and will never be used until Microsoft catches up.

Also, some of the tests are worthless in the real world, like the one that tests whether a browser pays attention to a favicon that returns an image instead of a 404 page. It's nice to be compliant but that test is not really useful or noticeable to most users. Acid3 is a marketing point, that's all.

Nicolasdec

Oct 17, 2009, 04:29 AM

The Firefox people have to stop complaining about everything. This system is perfectly reasonable. Maybe if they made a better browser people would choose it over IE.

BongoBanger

Oct 17, 2009, 04:37 AM

I think because IE is integrated into the OS not just an app

Nope. It hasn't been for quite some time.

As for the points about ACID tests, etc, the reality is that outside a small part of the tech community nobody cares - the first question any commercial web developer will ask is "how do I make this compatible with IE" because that's where the market share is.

Please! Windows users would do well to consider Safari. I've been doing Web development for the last 10 years of my life and I have absolute confidence in saying that Safari is by far the superior browser in all respects to Firefox with the sole, albeit significant, exception of FF's plug-in architecture which has created a thriving ecosystem of cool plug-ins.

And that's exactly why it's so popular and why I use it on both my Mac and my PC. You can't claim Safari is superior when it doesn't have that killer feature. Sure, it might do some things quicker but it doesn't have the toolset FF has.

SilenceBe

Oct 17, 2009, 04:40 AM

This brings us to a brilliant question... if Microsoft spends R&D money to develop Microsoft Windows and Microsoft wants to have their own Microsoft Internet Explorer featured as the default browser, why should anyone but Microsoft have anything to do with it? :rolleyes:
It's not about developing, our spending R&D money. Nobody is complaining about the fact that Microsoft has developed a browser. It's about ABUSE.

Microsoft has abused it dominances of it's operating system as an unfair advantage to get a monopoly in other markets... . IE didn't become the dominant browser because it fought its competition on the ground of quality. It's quite simple really.

And being a commercial webdeveloper I can write a book about Microsoft abuse with regarding the web. Their technology isn't developed for making our lives easier or better, no there whole web philosophy is about how to get their grip on the web stronger and introduce vendor lock in .

the first question any commercial web developer will ask is "how do I make this compatible with IE" because that's where the market share is.
Have you ever asked a commercial web developer what there feelings are towards IE ? When I think at the countless hours I have spend making things compatible in IE (A world where logic doesn't exist) I get spontaneous headaches. I was so fed up with Microsoft tactics that a year ago I made the switch to Apple.

I wouldn't downplay the importance of Safari (and thus correct markup) because most big Ecommerce sites that I have worked for had the idea that Apple users are more wealthy and thus would spend potentially more money.

OllyW

Oct 17, 2009, 04:57 AM

as I remember, OS X also comes with Safari as a built-in web browser but I didn't see any action on it? lolz :D

I think because IE is integrated into the OS not just an app

No, it's because Apple's OS market share is almost insignificant and they are in no position to monopolise the browser market by installing Safari by default.

199174

Janglo

Oct 17, 2009, 05:01 AM

I don't think this will make any difference at all. People who like and know about other browsers will have downloaded them themselves anyway and for consumers who just about know how to email, word process and go on their facebook page they are going to go straight to IE because that's what they know.

I'm willing to bet that most of the average PC users who don't know about the other browsers will just choose IE because they feel safe with that, with the mindset that they want to be able to go on websites and you need Internet Explorer to do that.

SilenceBe

Oct 17, 2009, 05:07 AM

I'm willing to bet that most of the average PC users who don't know about the other browsers will just choose IE because they feel safe with that, with the mindset that they want to be able to go on websites and you need Internet Explorer to do that.
I'm not that sure. To be honest I don't see a surge in Safari users, but I can imagine that Google Chrome will get a lot of new users. Google (brand) is popular and people seem to have a lot of trust in them.

But it really doesn't matter because with regards of standards its Microsoft versus the rest. Safari users/Apple will also be able to harvest the benefits if an other "standards compliant" browser gets more dominant especially with regards of web standards. It will force Microsoft to adopt them instead of releasing MS equivalent number xxx.

Now you have sometimes 2 code paths (standard compliant and IE) which introduces a lot of extra work. In a ideally world you would develop your stuff using 1 standard and it should work in all browsers.

mastgrr

Oct 17, 2009, 05:11 AM

I don't think any cultures in the EU read right to left.

No single official EU language does. There are however official languages who use the Cyrillic alphabet.

Graaah

Oct 17, 2009, 05:35 AM

When will Apple give us the choice to not install Quicktime and iTunes?

ox4dboy

Oct 17, 2009, 05:41 AM

It's strategic and clever marketing.

IE is right in the middle...or so it appears. Really, the middle is the first choice. Most users (especially Windows users) do not know what Safari and Chrome are, so they will immediately skip past them and find their eyes resting comfortable on a familiar name - "Internet Explorer"

It'd go something link this:

?...?...Internet Explorer, "Oh I know that one..I used to have that on my old computer," (not realizing it is actually newer better browser) click...install...forget about other options.

I am surprise Firefox is not at the end...or that Opera is not thrown in with the mystery Safari, Chrome choices to confuse the user even more towards choosing what they already know in IE.

Safari(?), Opera(?), Chrome(?), IE(!), Firefox

a cat *miaow*

Oct 17, 2009, 05:46 AM

batchtaster

Oct 17, 2009, 06:24 AM

I've found this whole thing pathetic, if people wanted another browser to Internet Explorer then just go online and download one of preference. Not hard!

As some people have mentioned, why is Microsoft penalised and Apple are allowed to still provide Safari as standard.

You must be one o' them younguns.

Why back in my day, we had ourselves the Browser Wars. Worse than the Cold Wars they was. Ol' Microsoft, yeah, he used to stop all them upstart browsers from even showin' up in town. And even if they found their-selves a patch o' land, why that Microsoft'd be buttin' hisself in all the time, wouldn't let them have a moment's peace. Thought he was the sheriff, he did. That's when them Guv-o-mint O-fish-alls came to town. He said he was just bein' right neighbourly. But nobody in town dared question him. Even the tumbleweeds was scared to go up again'im. Then, some o' the townsfolk got their cuurrrrage up and said they wasn't happy. Mighty big shock to him. Wasn't the same again. Ah, thems was the days....

/dances an old timey grizzled miner jig.

In all seriousness, Microsoft is allowed to do with Microsoft products what they want. The problem is that they were found to be interfering with, and penalizing other people's products. People love to turn around and point at Apple and Safari, but Apple has never done anything even in the same stratosphere as the underhanded tricks Microsoft did to third-party browser vendors. And once you find yourself under that microscope, it's hard to get out from under it. The EU was particularly incensed by it, as they had more courage to go up against Microsoft than the US government did, thus the more stringent requirements in Europe. So, once again - it's not about IE, per se. It's about levelling the playing field so that other companies aren't consigned to a rat-infested, leaking-pipe basement while Microsoft is partying it up in the penthouse.

elppa

Oct 17, 2009, 07:14 AM

When will Apple give us the choice to not install Quicktime and iTunes?

Nothing would work without Quicktime: no iLife, no iWork, no Pro Apps. It's a key framework in OS X? It would be a major hinderance for 3rd party devs as well. So I'd rather Apple didn't give "us" the choice not to install Quicktime.

As far as I am concerned it is part of the toolkit of the OS. In the same way I have no problem with Core Video, Core Image, Core Text and Direct X on the Windows side. And nor should any regulator.

iTunes is slightly different, but it is trivial to remove.

iSamurai

Oct 17, 2009, 07:52 AM

Safari 'prominent'? Looks like IE8 is placed in the centre on that screenshot...

Oh, and if it should be fairer, they could just write a simple math.random code that generates the order randomly :P

Bigdaddyguido

Oct 17, 2009, 07:57 AM

Let it go. I thinks it obvious from her suggestion she is creatively trying to find some algorhythm that leads to ff being first. I seriously doubt it matters, it's a sad state of affairs but I think almost anyone who installs there own os knows more about one of those browsers than some of the random elected positions we vote for. So while in a vote for judge when I never have heard of either candidate and they can't list party affliation people find some random ways to make their choice. In this situation most people will stick with what they know, not go alphabetically.

As for those who are comparing these complaints to apple with safari, I think it's a little different for two reasons. 1) windows market share is huge so they can actually be a monopoly, apple can't. 2) more importantly currently IE is vital to windows, you cannot install updates without it unless your willing to make some adjustments to FF. This is different than safari in OS X which can be completely disabled in favor of FF I believe.

fithian

Oct 17, 2009, 08:10 AM

I can imagine no possible reason why someone would want Safari on a PC

Recently, I was forced to use bootcamp with my old mac mini and run xp in order to watch a sopcast version of a baseball game. The web page said to use IE, so I did, and while it worked for a while, it kept losing the stream, and my monitor showed a complete loss of video signal.

I tried Firefox with the same address and it eliminated the ad at the bottom of the screen and changed the view from 4:3 to 16:9. No dropping the stream this time although the picture did freeze on occasion.

Ever the adventurer, I downloaded Safari 4 for Windoze and installed it with quicktime, returning to the same address. This view was the same as Firefox, but when there was a loss os stream, it held the picture, and gave me one of those circular clock like things in the center of the screen, until the stream returned and then was back to normal.

So, I guess the order that MS gave was about right, except that IE should be moved to the far right.

KALLT

Oct 17, 2009, 08:16 AM

I've never understood this. It's so true –*does this happen in any other industry? If Mozilla want's more influence on who installs their browser then do more work and develop a complete OS that's used by a vast amount of the population and put it on there by default.

I basically agree with you on this. Microsoft should be exclusively allowed to decide which browser will be present on the OS. But you have to look at the circumstances in this specific situation.

The world wide web is becoming more important every day. More users are joining the internet, more websites are launched and new technologies are developed. The www has become a huge market by now and can only be reached via a browser. Windows dominates the OS market with more than 90%, and by including Internet Explorer, the browser market as well.

This led to several annoyances in the past. Internet Explorer 6 does not accept all web standards, is not safe and makes big mistakes when a website is rendered. Internet Explorer 7 is better, but still does not accept modern standards. Internet Explorer 8 often only works correctly when compatibility mode is enabled and fails the ACID3 test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACID3#Browsers_which_do_not_pass) miserably. The conclusion is that this browser still dominates the market, although it is inferior to its competitors.

Usually the market would handle this by itself. Bad products are driven off by good products. This way only the best products survive. Since Internet Explorer is standard on Windows, Microsoft does not need to compete with Mozilla or others. While other browsers are developed further every day, you hardly see any news on Internet Explorer. In my opinion, Microsoft interferes too much with the development of the world wide web by doing nothing and abusing its market share. I am not saying that Internet Explorer is a bad browser, but it should compete with other browsers. This way browsers, and the entire world wide web, can be developed further.

Why adding this browser ballot? Most users do not even know what a browser is. They just click on the ‘internet icon’ and launch the browser. I bet most users never even heard of Firefox, despite its big market share and just use what is available. By using the ballot, many users can pick a browser themselves. As said before, Google could benefit a lot because it is a prominent name on the internet.

KnightWRX

Oct 17, 2009, 08:17 AM

I’ve increasingly come to the conclusion that governmental bodies such as the EU and to a lesser extent the U.S. Justice Department have actually harmed consumers in their pursuit against Microsoft.

So they've harmed the consumer by trying to punish Microsoft for... harming the consumer ?

I doubt it seriously. Microsoft didn't just harm consumers, they halted the progress of the Web by trying to lock it into their platform. We're just now getting back on track, but the web lost a good 7-8 years of possible innovation because of Internet Explorer.

opeter

Oct 17, 2009, 08:38 AM

So they've harmed the consumer by trying to punish Microsoft for... harming the consumer ?

I doubt it seriously. Microsoft didn't just harm consumers, they halted the progress of the Web by trying to lock it into their platform. We're just now getting back on track, but the web lost a good 7-8 years of possible innovation because of Internet Explorer.

That is so true. Man... it is still the main problem, that many companys have nothing other, than IE6 installed on their machines. And the will be never updated because of different reasons.

zwaldowski

Oct 17, 2009, 09:01 AM

It seems to me they just organized them in alphabetical order by developer (or, maybe, "full name" like "Apple Safari"). Apple, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera.

Dagless

Oct 17, 2009, 09:55 AM

OllyW

Oct 17, 2009, 09:59 AM

I'm glad Firefox isn't first. Has anyone used it recently? It's been my main browser under XP for the past couple of years but it crashes 5 or so times daily. It's a good idea they put a stable browser first.
Heh, I've had less problems with IE.

It's probably a problem at your end. I've got Firefox on my work PC running XP and my home PC with 7RC and I've never had it crash.

peter02l

Oct 17, 2009, 10:06 AM

I am looking at the descriptions for each choice. First of all Microsoft's is the longest. Second, the wording presents a choice of :

looks -Safari
new -Chrome
better -Mozilla
innovation -Opera

And then,

better, faster, safer, easier -IE 8.0

See you get more benefits from IE 8.0!

lamadude

Oct 17, 2009, 10:21 AM

This is just an example of EU competition policy, which is usually stricter than their US counterpart. All kinds of companies have gotten big fines because of collusion or abuse of a dominant market position. French yogurt companies, Dutch breweries, elevator makers, intel, and of course Microsoft.
You can debate over which approach is the better, the US or the EU version, but in the end, if you want to sell your product in the EU you need to follow EU laws, just like you follow US or Chinese laws in those countries. Nobody is forcing Microsoft to sell anything in the EU, but since it is their biggest market of course they don't want to pull out.

andylyon

Oct 17, 2009, 11:58 AM

This is one of those stupid things that actually makes me feel bad for Microsoft... here they are finally agreeing to let the users choose what browser they want, and they put them in Alphabetical order as to not be accused of playing favorites, and still people go out of their way to find a flaw in it....

Completely agree with that, I actually feel sorry for MS! They are in no way showing favouritism to their own browser, the opposite in fact.

AnDy

KnightWRX

Oct 17, 2009, 12:13 PM

Completely agree with that, I actually feel sorry for MS! They are in no way showing favouritism to their own browser, the opposite in fact.

AnDy

Yes, they are. Look at the description, the fact that it is the center position, etc... Internet Explorer is very dominant on that page.

If they weren't showing any favoritism for their browsers, the descriptions would have been written by Apple, Google, Mozilla and Opera for their own browsers and the marketing speak would reach ludicrous levels on that page.

And if they really were serious about offering a choice, there would be 4 on that page, and after scrolling you'd see the mention :

... Or you can continue to use Internet Explorer by clicking here (expert users) : [Install]

Why do I say that ? Because their Trident engine is so far behind the other browsers that until they catch up, it's not a proper choice at all for the average user and the good of the Web in general.

Terminal.app

Oct 17, 2009, 12:55 PM

The main point of contention here is that MSFT has 90% of the market, and the EU's claim is that because they bundle their own product with the OS, they are gaining unfair advantage using their OS monopoly to form and maintain a browser monopoly.

Usually, anti-trust requires that they have a monopoly first in one market before you can claim they are leveraging their monopoly to create new ones.

If Apple was the one with 90% market share, I can bet you that Apple would come under fire for the same thing if they didn't let OEM partners replace Safari during the install with something else and make it default.

The real thing that kickstarted this whole mess was back in the Win98 days because OEMs wanted to replace IE, MSFT said no, and governments started investigating.

Not to mention the fact that Apple has been waking up lately and adopting many open-source technologies, while MS continues to try and push their own proprietary standards crap on everyone. WebKit was the best thing to ever happen to web browsers, but MS shuns it.

Rodimus Prime

Oct 17, 2009, 01:15 PM

If they weren't showing any favoritism for their browsers, the descriptions would have been written by Apple, Google, Mozilla and Opera for their own browsers and the marketing speak would reach ludicrous levels on that page.

l.

Umm those little description you see under the web browser were not made my Microsoft.

Go digging though the some of the sayings about each one and look not to far in the past and you will noticed that each saying was pulled from the browsers advertisements.

Firefox's saying I have seen multiple times during the development of firefox.
Safari--- description.. Very apple saying to me. Hell go to apple.com and you will see right below the download link "See the web in a whole new way...."

Opera I seen a saying like that when I was getting Opera mobile 5 for my blackberry.

This just goes to show you that the description for each were pulled from the marketing sayings from each browser. The only reason IE is longer than the others is it has ALWAYS been longer than the sayings of the others.

picataggio

Oct 17, 2009, 01:28 PM

First let me state up front I own 4 Mac's and love them all.

I am completely offended that the EU is even putting this restriction on MS. Who is next, Linux Distro's, Apple and so forth.

We use PC's at the office and I can give a crap about which Web Browser I use to be honest with you. On a MS Operating system I will IE because of the great Integration on a MAC I will use Safari for the same exact reason.

On each machine I have a copy of FIrefox for those just in case web sites that do not seem to work with Safari or IE.

I even have a Ubuntu Laptop and guess what on that machine I use FIREFOX.

So the EU can kiss my ARZ. Do not dictate **** to me.

By all means MS you know whats under your hood better then I and if you can integrate IE tighter than Safari can by all means go ahead.

Should the EU dictate what brand Radio Ford put in their Trucks or Car's?

Or how about letting the EU dictate condoms. After all I think Trojan is the biggest selling brand in the world, that seems like a monopoly. To be fair they need to give other choices on the packaging after you rip the box open.

Toe

Oct 17, 2009, 01:30 PM

Look at the shelves in any retail store. The products go up in price as you look to your right. That is because most people tend to tend toward the products on the right.

However, people sometimes avoid things on either extreme (ie, the ends).

So the most prominently-placed product on this ballot is in fact... Firefox.

KALLT

Oct 17, 2009, 01:33 PM

Look at the shelves in any retail store. The products go up in price as you look to your right. That is because most people tend to tend toward the products on the right.

I could give you dozens of examples where this is not the case, so I don’t think this is something Microsoft thought about.

KnightWRX

Oct 17, 2009, 01:47 PM

Umm those little description you see under the web browser were not made my Microsoft.

Go digging though the some of the sayings about each one and look not to far in the past and you will noticed that each saying was pulled from the browsers advertisements.

Firefox's saying I have seen multiple times during the development of firefox.
Safari--- description.. Very apple saying to me. Hell go to apple.com and you will see right below the download link "See the web in a whole new way...."

Opera I seen a saying like that when I was getting Opera mobile 5 for my blackberry.

This just goes to show you that the description for each were pulled from the marketing sayings from each browser. The only reason IE is longer than the others is it has ALWAYS been longer than the sayings of the others.

So you're saying Microsoft just went around and picked whatever they felt like ? And you're saying this is fair ? Meanwhile, you doubt that the little paragraph under IE went through a thorough approval process in Marketing before being included ?

Get real. Just look at Chrome's description. A new browser for windows. Wow I'm in awe and want to try it :rolleyes:. For Apple, they ripped off the HTML title of Safari's page instead of going for the much more marketing speak little paragraph on the banner.

Seriously, if they were being fair, a simple e-mail to each company saying "submit a 10 word description of your browser for inclusion on the ballot, you have 20 days" would've been fair. As it stands, it's obvious they just made their browser stand out more than the others.

AidenShaw

Oct 17, 2009, 01:51 PM

I could give you dozens of examples where this is not the case, so I don’t think this is something Microsoft thought about.

Some Microsoft.com web pages that list partner applications use random ordering - refresh the page and the icons move.

For example: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/antivirus-partners/windows-7.aspx

bobertoq

Oct 17, 2009, 02:02 PM

baryon

Oct 17, 2009, 02:08 PM

KnightWRX

Oct 17, 2009, 02:20 PM

furi0usbee

Oct 17, 2009, 02:24 PM

Problem Solved...

Aaaamozillz FireFox
Aaagoogle Chrome
Aasopera
Apple Safari
Microsoft Internet Explorer

Rodimus Prime

Oct 17, 2009, 03:26 PM

So you're saying Microsoft just went around and picked whatever they felt like ? And you're saying this is fair ? Meanwhile, you doubt that the little paragraph under IE went through a thorough approval process in Marketing before being included ?

Get real. Just look at Chrome's description. A new browser for windows. Wow I'm in awe and want to try it :rolleyes:. For Apple, they ripped off the HTML title of Safari's page instead of going for the much more marketing speak little paragraph on the banner.

Seriously, if they were being fair, a simple e-mail to each company saying "submit a 10 word description of your browser for inclusion on the ballot, you have 20 days" would've been fair. As it stands, it's obvious they just made their browser stand out more than the others.

No by digging I mean every one of those phases was something that was used during the launch of each of the browsers and has been a saying that has gone with it for a long time.

Firefox was exactly like it says there up until the the launch of 3.5. Those phrases were the hype descriptions of each one.

You are on your standard MS bash and have done no real research.

Apple phase for safari is directly under the download link for safari. Googles was the from the announcment (google never had anything speical.) Firefox was the one on Getfirefox.com until 3.5 was launch. Opera is the only one I am not sure of but it looks exactly like what is used for Opera 5 beta so I am not surpised by it.....

powers74

Oct 17, 2009, 03:27 PM

[quote=manowarwi;8651733]This is one of those stupid things that actually makes me feel bad for Microsoft... here they are finally agreeing to let the users choose what browser they want, and they put them in Alphabetical order as to not be accused of playing favorites, and still people go out of their way to find a flaw in it....[/quote

Yeah, I agree, Communism really gets on my nerves.

I'm being serious by the way.

KALLT

Oct 17, 2009, 03:30 PM

I don't understand: Why can't Microsoft have their own browser in their own operating system? What's wrong or "anti-competitive" with that? People can download another browser any time if they want to. OS X ships with Safari, why couldn't Windows ship with IE? It's like saying "Honda cars can't come with a Honda steering wheel." Why? Imagine the frustration of a user who buys a brand new computer with Windows 7 on it, and it DOESN'T have a BROWSER preinstalled! So why can Windows ship with Windows media player? And why can Windows ship with Microsoft Outlook Express? Following this logic, Windows should be a desktop background picture, with everything else set as an optional install.

First, Microsoft holds a market share of more than 90% in operating systems. Apple has a very small market share and only ships Mac OS X on its own hardware. There is no need to restrict Apple. In addition, Safari is just pre-installed but can be simply deleted. Unlike Internet Explorer, which is an integral part of Windows (not counting Windows 7).

The problem with operating systems, as you noted correctly, is that it actually combines multiple markets. From browsers to media players, everything is present. However, the browser market is a quite important one. Currently companies need to have a web presence, as well as governments. The Dutch government for example publishes some types of regulations only on the web now. Social networking has been becoming more and more important. Just look at the developments of the past years. YouTube offers HD-quality videos, for example. The internet has become a big market itself and it is important that this market functions properly. Competition between browsers is important, as it is vital to the development of new technologies and standards (SVG, HTML 5 etc.). If Microsoft continues to abuse its market share of Windows and brings Internet Explorer, which is inferior to other browsers in various aspects, development will be jeopardized.

The average user needs to be confronted with several browsers and make a choice. Currently Internet Explorer is pre-installed and users that are not aware of other browsers will probably use what it already there. By confronting users with other browsers, they will eventually choose the browser that is the best for them, not because it is pre-installed or appears first on the left. Microsoft has done a good job on adding information about each browser.

OllyW

Oct 17, 2009, 03:32 PM

Yeah, I agree, Communism really gets on my nerves.

I'm being serious by the way.

Are Microsoft communists? :confused:

I'm being facetious by the way.

TimUSCA

Oct 17, 2009, 03:48 PM

We should have a "method to arrange browsers in browser ballot" ballot. That would solve everything.

inkswamp

Oct 17, 2009, 04:05 PM

And what’s the difference in Apple including WebKit, the foundation for Safari, which renders the iTunes Store, Apple Help, Mail’s HTML, etc?

Drag and drop Safari or iTunes into the trash. Try doing the same with Internet Explorer on Windows prior to the monopoly charges. Apple includes a library for Web-related functionality which all programs can access equally and which can continue functioning just fine with or without Safari. The same could not be said of MS's way of doing things.

You can’t uninstall WebKit either.

But all other applications can access Webkit fully. There are no hidden APIs and Webkit is independent of Safari and the OS.

I’ve increasingly come to the conclusion that governmental bodies such as the EU and to a lesser extent the U.S. Justice Department have actually harmed consumers in their pursuit against Microsoft.

Do you have any recollection of what was happening in the tech world prior to MS going to trial for monopolistic practices? Consumers were being harmed far more by MS's anti-competitive behavior than anything the EU is doing. If you want to persist in this fantasy that some kind of capitalist utopia can happen in the absence of all government regulation, then you should be angry at MS for screwing up in the first place and necessitating it. If big companies can't behave ethically, whose fault is it when the government has to step in?

Internet Explorer 4 for Windows 95 was the first browser by Microsoft to be integrated with Windows. It was revolutionary at the time. It was mainstream consumers first exposure to the idea of desktop widgets with Active Desktop. It allowed Microsoft to do a lot in terms of file browsing (forward, back, URL bar, etc) and presenting your data (GIF and JPEG-based graphs and charts, etc). If you remember back then, it was almost like getting an entirely new operating system — for free.

They took it a step further in Windows 98 by introducing Windows Update, which was based on IE 5. For the first time in a consumer operating system, it was actually easy to patch your OS and software. Keep in mind, Apple didn’t introduce Software Update until Mac OS 9.

While Microsoft’s antics with Netscape were likely illegal, people didn’t quit using Netscape because Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer. They quit using Netscape because it fell behind Internet Explorer. Even Steve Jobs admitted Internet Explorer on the Mac was better than Netscape (see Macworld keynote, 1997).

Great. All of that may be true but it's all beside the point and doesn't excuse Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.

As a consumer, I like bundled features in my operating system. It would be a sad day in the Mac world if Apple was forced to remove Safari, Address Book, iCal, Image Capture, QuickTime, Mail, Photobooth, etc from Mac OS X. Not to mention, all the great iLife software that ships with each Mac.

Microsoft has made a lot of concessions with Windows 7. There’s no more Windows Mail, Movie Maker, Photo Gallery or built-in Internet browser. Yes, you can still download their successors at live.com, but that’s not going to stop consumers from getting their Windows 7 PC and wondering “What the hell?”

People always seem to miss this, so pardon me for making it so huge but it gets tiresome explaining this over and over again.

Bundling isn't illegal. It was the anti-competitive, monopolistic abuse of power that bundling gave Microsoft which was illegal.

Microsoft and Apple can bundle software to their heart's content, but if doing so treads into anti-competitive behavior, then all bets are off. And so far, Apple has done NOTHING even remotely close to what Microsoft did (although since Apple doesn't have 95% of the market, it would hardly matter as they don't have monopolistic power to abuse to begin with.)

What's so hard to understand about this?

Consultant

Oct 17, 2009, 04:10 PM

And what’s the difference in Apple including WebKit, the foundation for Safari, which renders the iTunes Store, Apple Help, Mail’s HTML, etc? ...

Why Apple is betting on HTML 5: a web history
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/09/19/why-apple-is-betting-on-html-5-a-web-history/

kiljoy616

Oct 17, 2009, 04:22 PM

This is a story, who cares, when I first saw it I did not think anything of which one was first or in the middle, they all looked the same to me. I would pick either of 3 and nothing else because that is what I know, first choice yes even for the PC is Safari, I like how they do RSS. Second was IE8 because it has the least problem when it comes to Netflix, and Fire fox for there added features.

What makes me crazy is why do people not use multiple browser, its not the end of the world to use 2 or even 3. A primary one and a second or their if it does the job you want to do at that time. But I guess that is asking to much thinking from people.

This story just show how much sheep thinking people are becoming. Maybe soon they will scream about IE having Internet on its hame when no one else has it. That not fair they will say because people can't think for themselves. I understand the part of having to find and download other browsers that can be a pain for some (ok many people) but this is different you pick what you want and move on.

KnightWRX

Oct 17, 2009, 05:39 PM

You are on your standard MS bash and have done no real research.

I was actively doing web developpement during the Browser wars where Microsoft basically went from a non-player to a monopoly over Web browsers with the launch of Windows 98.

Yes, it's standard MS bashing. It's because Microsoft deserves everything it's getting today. They are a horrible player in the market, using their IBM-given monopoly over OSes to basically lock you in to any of their other products and forcing OEMs to not bundle the competition by threats of not being able to sell Windows PCs.

You can deny it all you want, that's what MS was, is and will be. They are bad for innovation and progress and have held us back for years in many domains, the web being the most prominent of these.

rumplestiltskin

Oct 17, 2009, 05:40 PM

Let's see if I have this correct: Microsoft offering IE as the default browser is bad so they have to offer more choices but, without IE, Microsoft/Windows Update won't work (because the other browsers don't support ActiveX).

In addition, users are too stupid to have more than one browser present (because they have to choose in the subject screen the one they want to use and can't, presumably, be provided the choice for another browser which permitting this screen to be displayed again would do nicely).

What is it about European users that makes this such a noxious and contentious issue? Does the organization determining the proper course of action believe European users are this stupid?

Lest anyone believe I'm a M$ fanboy, I use a Mac. But I can't understand what the problem is here. I hope this org becomes responsible for the telephone tech support that will be required.

KnightWRX

Oct 17, 2009, 05:42 PM

Let's see if I have this correct: Microsoft offering IE as the default browser is bad so they have to offer more choices but, without IE, Microsoft/Windows Update won't work (because the other browsers don't support ActiveX).

Your premise is false. Windows update does not work with the browser anymore, it's its own application and runs in the background. There is no requirement for ActiveX anymore.

So this doesn't harm the users. At all. Quite the contrary.

Rodimus Prime

Oct 17, 2009, 05:59 PM

I was actively doing web developpement during the Browser wars where Microsoft basically went from a non-player to a monopoly over Web browsers with the launch of Windows 98.

Yes, it's standard MS bashing. It's because Microsoft deserves everything it's getting today. They are a horrible player in the market, using their IBM-given monopoly over OSes to basically lock you in to any of their other products and forcing OEMs to not bundle the competition by threats of not being able to sell Windows PCs.

You can deny it all you want, that's what MS was, is and will be. They are bad for innovation and progress and have held us back for years in many domains, the web being the most prominent of these.

You are to jaded to even bother with the truth.

Sorry but you do not even bother doing any research before you go smearing them on the current stuff. You bash a completely legit browser descriptions (which were pulled from each browsers tag lines)

yes Microsoft played dirty earily on but now you just bash and well you are so jaded you could not see the truth nor care for the truth and your information is worth about as much as something coming out of a politicians mouth (which is next to nothing).

strike1555

Oct 17, 2009, 06:38 PM

*snip*
Bundling isn't illegal. It was the anti-competitive, monopolistic abuse of power that bundling gave Microsoft which was illegal.

Bahwhahhaahahahah.....breathe....hahahaahhaahha.

It's an uncompetitive, monopolistic abuse of power if you don't active promote your competition?

Hey, let's have McDonalds put Burger King logo's on all their windows and doors so people know they have another choice!

Why not just have MS put a bullet to their head (figuratively of course ;)) You are basically saying they should encourage their own demise.

*facepalm*

I swear you people need to get your heads checked.

You can deny it all you want, that's what MS was, is and will be. They are bad for innovation and progress and have held us back for years in many domains, the web being the most prominent of these.

In what ways? Examples? And take your medication before answering.

likemyorbs

Oct 17, 2009, 06:58 PM

KnightWRX

Oct 17, 2009, 07:03 PM

In what ways? Examples? And take your medication before answering.

CSS support is lacking in Internet Explorer compared to published standards that other browsers follow, DOM support (Microsoft's DOM and the w3c DOM aren't the same in many places). All this as led to a divide in the Web. Not to mention for years they stagnated with Internet Explorer 6.0 while the standards were still evolving. They were already late implementing them, now they are just barely catching up.

If they hadn't forced OEMs into shipping IE but had allowed for other browser bundling deals like the days before IE 4.0 and Windows 98, this would've never happened. IE would've died by stagnation in the early 2000s. Or they would have had to properly implement standards and the W3C today would be playing catch up to browsers like in the early 90s, not the other way around.

The fact that they push IE down everyone's throat and are still losing market share goes to show how much IE is downright stagnant and retarded. Now they can't shove it down the EU's throat anymore. Maybe the days of the open web will comeback now.

You know what i hate most about this story? I HAVE TO DEFEND MICROSOFT! and i despise them and their atrocities that they call windows. but in this case they're in the right. europe is becoming so communist-like its kinda sickening. microsoft should not be punished for not actively promoting their competitors.

It's an uncompetitive, monopolistic abuse of power if you don't active promote your competition?

Both of you are tools. Microsoft isn't being punished for not promoting their competition's product, that's ludicrous. They are being punished for actively locking out the competition from competing in the market. That's a whole different affair and that is very worth punishing. Microsoft is being anti-capitalist here (monopolies usually are) by preventing the market from growing through innovation and competition, not the EU.

Pure capitalism can never work. The market forces are completely useless in the face of a monopoly and that's why for capitalism to work, you need government intervention. Economics 101.

jzuena

Oct 17, 2009, 07:06 PM

We need to ban the alphabet as it currently is and make it random. I mean, how fair is it that "A" always gets first billing and "Z" is always last? Does no one care about Z's feelings? Or what about all the other letters that people don't even remember what number they are? Quick, name the number for "P", "R" and "K". See, totally bias, we should take this to the Supreme Court, it's discrimination I tell you!

*end sarcasm*

Us Zs get to learn that life isn't fair very early in life!

And I don't think Microsoft should have to even do this. But since they are, they should come up with a new ordering that has Firefox as the last item, then when Mozilla complains again it will be obvious that they aren't looking for fair, they are looking to be listed first. Or Microsoft should say "fine, Mozilla gets to pick the ordering on the condition that they can't have either of the first two spots... after all, our own attempt at ordering left our own browser out of the first two spots."

jzuena

Oct 17, 2009, 07:20 PM

What makes me crazy is why do people not use multiple browser, its not the end of the world to use 2 or even 3. A primary one and a second or their if it does the job you want to do at that time. But I guess that is asking to much thinking from people.

Maybe Microsoft could have checkboxes for which browsers you want installed and require at least one be selected in order to continue. Then you could install all five if you want. Personally I use two browsers on all of my machines: Safari and Firefox on OSX, IE and Firefox on Windows, Firefox and um... Lynx I guess ;) on Linux.

KALLT

Oct 17, 2009, 07:35 PM

You know what i hate most about this story? I HAVE TO DEFEND MICROSOFT! and i despise them and their atrocities that they call windows. but in this case they're in the right. europe is becoming so communist-like its kinda sickening. microsoft should not be punished for not actively promoting their competitors. If i were microsoft i wouldn't even comply with this order, because it's absurd. whats the EU going to do about it? stop using windows? i doubt it...

You’re completely missing the point. No company is forced by the European Commission to “promote its competitors”. Again, Microsoft controls with Windows more than 90% of the OS market and abuses this position to control the browser market as well by pre-installing Internet Explorer. Other, better browsers hardly have a chance against the Internet Explorer, what should not be the case. In the end it’s better for us customers if every browser improves to compete with others.

whats the EU going to do about it? stop using windows? i doubt it...

The European Commission has several options, most notably fines. Did you know that European Commissioner Neelie Kroes fined Intel more than $1,4 billion? Even Microsoft cannot withstand such high fines in the long run.

likemyorbs

Oct 17, 2009, 07:46 PM

You’re completely missing the point. No company is forced by the European Commission to “promote its competitors”. Again, Microsoft controls with Windows more than 90% of the OS market and abuses this position to control the browser market as well by pre-installing Internet Explorer. Other, better browsers hardly have a chance against the Internet Explorer, what should not be the case. In the end it’s better for us customers if every browser improves to compete with others.

Ok so why stop at the browser? why doesn't microsoft just ship windows completely stripped down and empty? this way they could make a "ballot" for everything. browser, mail, photo editing. they should get rid of windows media player because that doesnt give itunes a fair chance. and while we're at it lets just remove the included games! this way EA Games has a fair chance. because some users might not know there are other options available! poor puppies....

PS
This just complicates things for the non-tech savvy user. can you imagine receiving your brand new mac and then having to choose a web browser? that's retarded...it comes with one, and if you want another one then go to their site and download it. why do some people need their hand held through everything?

likemyorbs

Oct 17, 2009, 07:56 PM

You’re completely missing the point. No company is forced by the European Commission to “promote its competitors”.

Well, yeah, it is... If they can no longer bundle internet explorer, then the only 2 options are either the ballot system which promotes the competition, or no browser at all, which would be a problem because most people don't know how to download something without a browser, so theyre screwed either way. so yeah they are being forced promote their competitors...

bobertoq

Oct 17, 2009, 08:21 PM

Bundling isn't illegal. It was the anti-competitive, monopolistic abuse of power that bundling gave Microsoft which was illegal.

Microsoft and Apple can bundle software to their heart's content, but if doing so treads into anti-competitive behavior, then all bets are off. And so far, Apple has done NOTHING even remotely close to what Microsoft did (although since Apple doesn't have 95% of the market, it would hardly matter as they don't have monopolistic power to abuse to begin with.)

What's so hard to understand about this?Microsoft never did anything illegal. Just because they have a massive market share doesn't mean they did anything illegal. Internet Explorer only has about 65% market share, by the way, not 95%.

KnightWRX

Oct 17, 2009, 08:27 PM

Toe

Oct 17, 2009, 08:35 PM

BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA!

Please do not assume that your one comment is this much more important than everyone else's.

Imagine a world where everyone took that approach.

:(

RazHyena

Oct 17, 2009, 08:44 PM

So who is to blame here? The EU or psychologists? :D

JAT

Oct 17, 2009, 09:12 PM

The US courts and the EU courts disagree with you. IE losing market share is a recent turn of events.

Give it up, man. Some people just can't be taught, and will argue anything in the face of myriad, obvious facts.

stagi

Oct 17, 2009, 09:13 PM

queshy

Oct 17, 2009, 09:32 PM

Why should MS have to have a browser ballot? MS made the OS, so it should be able to ship it with whatever browser it wants.

likemyorbs

Oct 17, 2009, 09:39 PM

Why should MS have to have a browser ballot? MS made the OS, so it should be able to ship it with whatever browser it wants.

Thats logical thinking, some of our commie counterparts on this site are incapable of that, hopefully they never become judges

KnightWRX

Oct 17, 2009, 09:50 PM

Why should MS have to have a browser ballot? MS made the OS, so it should be able to ship it with whatever browser it wants.

They lost that right when they interfered with the deals between their competition and OEMs.

Maybe the capitalists on this site will learn that everything isn't black and white and that regulating monopolies is actually helping capitalism and isn't just some form of communism or socialism.

strike1555

Oct 17, 2009, 09:58 PM

CSS support is lacking in Internet Explorer compared to published standards that other browsers follow, DOM support (Microsoft's DOM and the w3c DOM aren't the same in many places). All this as led to a divide in the Web. Not to mention for years they stagnated with Internet Explorer 6.0 while the standards were still evolving. They were already late implementing them, now they are just barely catching up.

If they hadn't forced OEMs into shipping IE but had allowed for other browser bundling deals like the days before IE 4.0 and Windows 98, this would've never happened. IE would've died by stagnation in the early 2000s. Or they would have had to properly implement standards and the W3C today would be playing catch up to browsers like in the early 90s, not the other way around.

The fact that they push IE down everyone's throat and are still losing market share goes to show how much IE is downright stagnant and retarded. Now they can't shove it down the EU's throat anymore. Maybe the days of the open web will comeback now.

Notice the abhorrent use of third party terms. In every single case, the market reacted in a positive way towards Microsoft. If people were so sick and tired of IE, then why did AOL die down? Why did people buy computers with Microsoft? There were other OS's available at the time.

I'll tell you why. Because others tried and simply failed as happens in the world. Some, like Apple gained some customers. But the majority apparently were satisfied with what they had.

Your statement is a fallacy - you just proved yourself wrong.

Pure capitalism can never work. The market forces are completely useless in the face of a monopoly and that's why for capitalism to work, you need government intervention. Economics 101.

LOL! How does a monopoly become one in the first place? It's successful. If the quality begins to suffer, then so does the product. (think Vista and OSX/Firefox surge to be relevant. I suggest you put down the communist manifesto and pick up some reading by Ludwig von Mises or Milton Friedman.

The stupidity of your statements are shocking. Your rants demonstrate a fundamental lack of economic knowledge.

chris200x9

Oct 17, 2009, 10:07 PM

gooooooooooooooooooo jenny! One problem it's fair, alphabetical order but I can fix this...hurry up and change your name to "Aardvark firefox" THEN b!tch at microSUX lolololawl ROFL I AM A GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cool:

KnightWRX

Oct 17, 2009, 10:13 PM

Notice the abhorrent use of third party terms. In every single case, the market reacted in a positive way towards Microsoft. If people were so sick and tired of IE, then why did AOL die down? Why did people buy computers with Microsoft? There were other OS's available at the time.

I'll tell you why. Because others tried and simply failed as happens in the world. Some, like Apple gained some customers. But the majority apparently were satisfied with what they had.

Your statement is a fallacy - you just proved yourself wrong.

I don't see how I proved myself wrong. It's only after years of stagnation and dominance and not playing nice with standard bodies and security flaws worse than the last that people finally started moving away from Internet Explorer.

Most people endured and still do IE 6 for way longer than any sane person would because in a sense, they had no choice. The web itself and nowadays, internal web applications were just written the Microsoft way or using Microsoft tools instead of the standard way and caused this lock in.

And if you think Microsoft never played dirty, you seriously need to revise your history. Heck, Windows 3.1 had that check where if it wasn't running under MS-DOS, it failed to load. Caldera, who bought DR-DOS, sued them and won over this. This was one of the points of the anti-trust suit by the US DOJ during the Clinton administration.

People in 90s and even today don't choose Windows. They are forced into it. Microsoft killed DOS' competition in the late 80s and early 90s. They then used MS-DOS to promote Windows as the only graphical shell worth using. Finally, they made Windows something that no one but Windows could have access to, by not publishing interoperability specs for a very long time (it took court orders). Once everyone was locked in, they basically told OEMs that if they tried to ship anything else or offer alternatives like OS/2 warp, they would lose the privilege of even shipping Windows.

You're a tool of the system if you truly believe Microsoft earned their place. They were given their monopoly by IBM and they kept it through anti-competitive behavior that landed them in hot water. They deserve everything they are getting.

LOL! How does a monopoly become one in the first place? It's successful. If the quality begins to suffer, then so does the product. (think Vista and OSX/Firefox surge to be relevant. I suggest you put down the communist manifesto and pick up some reading by Ludwig von Mises or Milton Friedman.

Monopolies are born through various means. Being successful in the market rarely leads to a monopoly. Usually, outside factors are involved. Think Telephony, Electrical or Cable TV monopolies, they are born through government intervention granting limited monopolies over airwaves/frequencies/land.

In Microsoft's case, they were given their monopoly by IBM, which defined an open hardware platform that once reversed engineered became ubiquitous as players all moved to it. The only problem is that Microsoft got to be the only OS at the beginning and then they played unfair to stay that way, killing things like DR-DOS, PC-DOS and others using unfair and anti-competitive tactics.

The PC should have always been an open platform, be it hardware or software. You have Microsoft to thank for the closed and proprietary crap we have to deal with today. If it had not been for their behavior, the PC landscape would be much different today and probably a whole lot more competitive.

And again with black or white. I am not a communist. I am very opposed to many socialist programs and the providence state. However, I can see where regulations are required in order to promote competition and innovation. Monopolies stagnate over time and are hard to displace. This is a fact. Most capitalists are very anti-monopoly because the market forces in a monopoly position don't apply and capitalism is very much about market forces.

But of course if all you're reading is the capitalism.org propaganda, you can't have a good understanding of any of this. They label anything as marxist in order to discredit it. They obviously have no idea what monopoly abuse is.

StrudelTurnover

Oct 17, 2009, 10:26 PM

Why should MS have to have a browser ballot? MS made the OS, so it should be able to ship it with whatever browser it wants.
The European Commission does not agree. Maybe you could have a word with them?
Couldn't hurt.

Speedy2

Oct 17, 2009, 11:52 PM

Microsoft never did anything illegal. Just because they have a massive market share doesn't mean they did anything illegal.

Uhm, actually
this (http://www.stockbloghub.com/2009/09/14/msft-microsoft-loses-court-ruling-in-south-korea/15126)
this (http://news.cnet.com/EU-ruling-deals-setback-to-Microsoft/2100-1014_3-6208385.html)
and this (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm) directly contradict your ... naive statement.

Speedy2

Oct 17, 2009, 11:54 PM

You are to jaded to even bother with the truth.

The truth (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8657865&postcount=210)

I wonder who is jaded and not bothering.

Speedy2

Oct 17, 2009, 11:57 PM

Why should MS have to have a browser ballot? MS made the OS, so it should be able to ship it with whatever browser it wants.

Not if that is practically destroying a very significant other market. Read the law, both in the US and the EU.

Speedy2

Oct 17, 2009, 11:59 PM

Thats logical thinking, some of our commie counterparts on this site are incapable of that, hopefully they never become judges

Please read before posting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

zey

Oct 18, 2009, 12:26 AM

[...]Safari is by far the superior browser in all respects to Firefox with the sole, albeit significant, exception of FF's plug-in architecture which has created a thriving ecosystem of cool plug-ins. And that's it.
The problem is, that ecosystem is an absolute killer as far as contemplating Safari goes. There's simply no way I'd ever consider browsing the web without NoScript or similar to block ads that insist on getting in your face. That's without even considering the extra security they provide.

jdawgnoonan

Oct 18, 2009, 12:41 AM

jdawgnoonan

Oct 18, 2009, 12:49 AM

Okay. I see all of the talk about IE killing AOL and Netscape due to the monopolistic behavior...and to a point I agree. I do feel that IE6 flat out poisoned the Internet and that it did cause all other more standards compliant systems (and OSes that did not run IE) to appear to be "broken" when in fact IE is what was broken. But. But, but, but. IE 5 was the best browser on earth when it was released. Netscape was already old and tired and irrelevant after version 4.x. Netscape 6 was garbage. AOL was worthless. At the time when IE 5 was released it was the only browser worth having.

jdawgnoonan

Oct 18, 2009, 12:49 AM

And I am a Safari/Firefox guy.

IE went to hell at version 6.

MorphingDragon

Oct 18, 2009, 12:51 AM

This whole ordeal is dumb. I am an Apple guy and Safari is bundled...where is our "Browser Ballot"? Come on. I am tired of European countries dictating crap like this. I think Microsoft eats enough crap due to releasing sub-par products that they really don't need this type of unfair baloney. Most users do not care what browser they use and more than likely they will be confused by this. I hate Internet Explorer myself and on Windows I always choose to use Firefox. But I am sick of all of the behavior that is born of envy.

Safari isnt attached directly to the OS. IE Is/Was. Plus Microsoft have been abusing their monopoly and ActiveX was born. So the EU went tut tut.

The internet is supposed to be OPEN, it just takes governments to remind companies that. This is just the EU reinforcing that belief. Now if only they'd do Adobe next and their Flash.

Maserati7200

Oct 18, 2009, 12:52 AM

Even if the whole sort order mattered, I'd rather be in the center. Most people don't have a bloody clue what a browser is, never mind what it does. You give them a choice, they will want to make a non-choice. Pick the middle. I'm not saying that Microsoft put themselves intentionally in the center (whether you sort by company name or by browser name, they'd still be in the center... funny, heh?) but it sure is convenient.

The other thing that makes the whole thing completely irrelevant is:
most tech-oriented (or tech-savvy) people already have a preferred browser so they will pick that one. Most of the rest (who have little to no clue about the concept of browser) will try to find something familiar. The only thing they understand, is that the round blue e takes them to the internet. I believe they will pick that one.

All in all, it will have very little to no impact IMHO.

I have to say, this really isn't true at all. Most people, including the non tech savvy, know what a browser is, and have preferences. Consumers aren't as stupid as you put them out to be. My highschool uses laptops. Almost everyone in my grade has Firefox installed, and actually prefer it over Safari. And in conversations about the internet it's mentioned.

My mom, who knows almost nothing about computers, knows what firefox and safari are. She installed FF on her MBP because she liked it better than Safari.

And for those of you saying that it doesn't matter about the people I know I have a question for you, do you actually know who thinks Google is the internet, and does not know what a web browser is? I doubt it, and if you do, it wouldn't be a lot. I have a feeling most of you are getting this information from assumptions.

Speedy2

Oct 18, 2009, 01:59 AM

This whole ordeal is dumb. I am an Apple guy and Safari is bundled...where is our "Browser Ballot"? Come on. I am tired of European countries dictating crap like this.

I'm tired of Americans who are unable to read the law and not willing to understand the underlying reason for the court ruling.

Speedy2

Oct 18, 2009, 02:17 AM

double posting

Speedy2

Oct 18, 2009, 02:17 AM

AOL was worthless. At the time when IE 5 was released it was the only browser worth having.

1. The way MS won the browser war was not only by developing a (at that time) good product, but also by giving it away and forcing it on every Windows PC sold. Netscape Navigator was initially a software you had to pay for. Microsoft's vast financial powers allowed them to give IE away for free and destroy their opponent's business model. Netscape, being a small company, did not have the resources to counter a free, preinstalled software. By the time AOL took over Netscape, the war was lost already. To the contrary, the takeover made everything worse for the Navigator.

2. It's not all about Netscape. There had always been other decent browsers around like Opera. They never had a real chance to compete against IE.

3. The main problem came after IE5. IE6 had already been a minor update to IE5 and after that MS went into complete hibernation in terms of innovation since they had a 85%+ tight grip on the browser market thanks to their bundling policy. It took 10 years until others browsers gained SOME sort of market share and the browser market is STILL far from fair and really competitive.

batchtaster

Oct 18, 2009, 02:17 AM

Microsoft never did anything illegal. Just because they have a massive market share doesn't mean they did anything illegal. Internet Explorer only has about 65% market share, by the way, not 95%.

While it's true that massive market share doesn't mean they did anything illegal, the fact they were found guilty in a court of law says that they did something illegal. Their monopoly status isn't just rhetoric. It's a legal fact.

I'm starting to feel old, because it's been some time since this occurred, and all these ppl have shown up who have no idea of the events of the past, and are yammering about present-day stuff, like IE (supposedly) having "only... 65% market share". Not even the point. If Microsoft had not been forcibly reigned in, do you think Firefox, Safari, Google, etc would have even had these opportunities to erode IE's share? No, they wouldn't. Because it wasn't about those vendors not having good products. It was about Microsoft putting other vendors at a disadvantage, both technologically and competitively (eg: eliminating choice both directly and through hardware OEM vendors).

Please do not assume that your one comment is this much more important than everyone else's.

If people would stop repeatedly ignoring the point being made, then fine. But inkswamp is correct, and most of the people going on about this thing aren't even brushing past the actual issue that has placed Microsoft in the position with the EU that they find themselves in. How soon we forget history. Here is an exact example of what lead to the large, red type:

This whole ordeal is dumb. I am an Apple guy and Safari is bundled...where is our "Browser Ballot"? Come on.

The entire reason this ballot is occurring is specific to Microsoft's own illegal activities. It's not because a browser "is bundled". IE was the weapon, not the crime.

That doesn't excuse Boriss for being a complete idiot for being so pedantic and paranoid about the fricking image placement on a fricking web page. But it's the reason the ballot is necessary in the first place. I'm certainly not going to tell you that Microsoft isn't getting unusual, unique treatment in this regard. But it's because they were found guilty, and like human criminals, will attract more attention and scrutiny afterwards. So, people complaining about the EU, stop and think about other situations all around the world where those who are found guilty of something are monitored more closely. Offender registers, parole conditions, etc. It's the same thing. It's not some weird European fixation. The EU just happens to have had more guts to tackle Microsoft than the US government did, so went in harder on them, where the US government wimped out and struck deals with Microsoft. eg: instead of mandating penalties, Microsoft was allowed to come up with their own penalty.

Speedy2

Oct 18, 2009, 02:31 AM

I have to say, this really isn't true at all. Most people, including the non tech savvy, know what a browser is, and have preferences.

How can you say that?
30-50% of the population of Western countries don't even HAVE internet access. By choice. It can be safely assumed that most Internet users are happy if SOMETHING allows them to read their emails and surf the web, especially the ones who didn't grow up with it.

Read: Only 8% knew what a browser is (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/10/what_is_a_web_browser.html)

I'm aware that this is not a valid statistical survey, but it gives a general idea.

opeter

Oct 18, 2009, 02:33 AM

MorphingDragon

Oct 18, 2009, 02:39 AM

Thanks God, times have changed, since then. :)

Maybe FireFox will reach that Fabled 50% mark...

and turn to utter crap. ;)

teknikal90

Oct 18, 2009, 03:28 AM

im starting to like microsoft again..
the period of bad business between xp and vista seems to be fading away...
go competition!

chadua

Oct 18, 2009, 07:12 AM

If they weren't showing any favoritism for their browsers, the descriptions would have been written by Apple, Google, Mozilla and Opera for their own browsers

I'm pretty sure they were as I'd read them all before. (Except IE's.)

Gunga Din

Oct 18, 2009, 08:01 AM

This is pointless. Most users have used a browser they like before and will just pick the one they prefer. Whats the problem?

If they havent, then a sensible person will research first then choose.

"I want my browser first !! It should be random !! " Whine whine whine. Bunch of babies.

likemyorbs

Oct 18, 2009, 08:19 AM

"I want my browser first !! It should be random !! " Whine whine whine. Bunch of babies.

Thats what the EU is best at, whining. :D

batchtaster

Oct 18, 2009, 09:47 AM

This is pointless. Most users have used a browser they like before and will just pick the one they prefer. Whats the problem?

Yep, here's another one (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8658152&postcount=223).

There's, like, 5 people in this thread explaining the reasons and history behind this thing, yet so many people are not reading, not comprehending or just plain ignoring those facts.

Yes, TODAY you can easily choose a browser. But not so many years ago, things were much different, certainly on Windows. Microsoft deliberately, systematically and successfully eliminated choice. It's BECAUSE of this action that you now have the browser freedom you take for granted now. These kids today with no notion of the state of the world before Twitter and Facebook.....

Speedy2

Oct 18, 2009, 10:43 AM

Thats what the EU is best at, whining. :D

Yeah. I'm pretty sure, you know soo much about the EU ...

RazHyena

Oct 18, 2009, 01:12 PM

Yeah. I'm pretty sure, you know soo much about the EU ...

Stop being so defensive! Geesh.. :rolleyes:

BongoBanger

Oct 18, 2009, 02:12 PM

There's two points to note here:

1) Microsoft did abuse their monopoly of desktop systems to make IE the world's default browser.
2) No-one really suffered because of this. Things had become increasingly silly in the arms race between Netscape and Microsoft so it was a relief that we actually ended up with one platform to build for.

Of course it's nice that other browsers are there to choose from but don't be fooled that ACID tests and standards actually mean anything outside the tech community - IE will still be coded for first because it is the standard ny marketshare.

That may change. Who knows?

KnightWRX

Oct 18, 2009, 02:57 PM

2) No-one really suffered because of this. Things had become increasingly silly in the arms race between Netscape and Microsoft so it was a relief that we actually ended up with one platform to build for.

Of course it's nice that other browsers are there to choose from but don't be fooled that ACID tests and standards actually mean anything outside the tech community - IE will still be coded for first because it is the standard ny marketshare.

That may change. Who knows?

Wait, no one is armed by having 1 vendor control the entire Web ? Are you crazy or something ?

That leaves Mac, Linux, Solaris out of the web game as clients. It leaves Smartphones out of the picture also. Basically anything that can't run Trident.

It's crazy to think that IE being "standard" is better than a standards body dictating what everyone should be aiming for. One promotes competition, the other promotes using IE on Windows.

Get real, the standards that are final and out by the W3C contain great innovation for the Web. Because of IE, they aren't implemented yet. The Web could be way ahead of what it is if it weren't for Microsoft.

So yes, someone was hurt. The entire Web using population. If that's not enough people for you, you're delusional.

BongoBanger

Oct 18, 2009, 03:10 PM

Wait, no one is armed by having 1 vendor control the entire Web ? Are you crazy or something ?

You're right. No-one could independently install a browser on Windows and there were no competing browsers to IE. Oh wait. There were and they could.

That leaves Mac, Linux, Solaris out of the web game as clients. It leaves Smartphones out of the picture also. Basically anything that can't run Trident.

Nonsense. They used their own products.

It's crazy to think that IE being "standard" is better than a standards body dictating what everyone should be aiming for. One promotes competition, the other promotes using IE on Windows.

You misunderstand. Business doesn't - or certainly didn't - give a crap about the W3C standards. The most dominant platform was always going to be the one everyone geared to.

Get real, the standards that are final and out by the W3C contain great innovation for the Web. Because of IE, they aren't implemented yet. The Web could be way ahead of what it is if it weren't for Microsoft.

How? Give me specifics as to how the web could be more advanced, what these innovations were and what the trade offs against the homogeneous solution IE offered were. Because it actually isn't nearly as clear cut as you make it out to be.

So yes, someone was hurt. The entire Web using population. If that's not enough people for you, you're delusional.

LOL! How were they 'hurt'? As long as they could view their sports results and porn do you think the consumer market cared in the slightest what browser was used and do you think organisations preferred to code for one world wide browser rather than a dozen or so competing browsers in the early days of web commerce?

You go an about 'hurt' but nobody cared. Not really.

Of course that doesn't excuse Microsoft's actions and I'm glad there's choice now - I use FireFox myself (you know the browser that achieved over 20% market penetration just be being available and good despite IE still being bundled with Windows?) - but to claim that the web has been held back when there was probably more innovation precisely because Microsoft had such a dominant product is nonsense.

AidenShaw

Oct 18, 2009, 03:34 PM

You misunderstand. Business doesn't - or certainly didn't - give a crap about the W3C standards. The most dominant platform was always going to be the one everyone geared to.

Also remember that "balkanization" of the web was already common as IE was establishing itself as the "lingua franca" of the web.

Different browsers were adding "differentiating features" - which of course didn't work on any other browsers. Eventually some of these made their way into the standard (kind of like Apple creating a proprietary display port connector, shipping it, then offering it to the standards bodies).

For example, Mosaic introduced tables into HTML in late 1994 - which was not than a standard. It was about 2 years later that W3C endorsed tables.

Internet Explorer's dominance during this "Wild Wild West" period of the web was a very powerful force that got business interested in supporting web sites. Had the balkanization continued, the web would have taken longer to take off.

inkswamp

Oct 18, 2009, 03:51 PM

Bahwhahhaahahahah.....breathe....hahahaahhaahha.

It's an uncompetitive, monopolistic abuse of power if you don't active promote your competition?

Hey, let's have McDonalds put Burger King logo's on all their windows and doors so people know they have another choice!

Why not just have MS put a bullet to their head (figuratively of course ;)) You are basically saying they should encourage their own demise.

*facepalm*

I swear you people need to get your heads checked.

In what ways? Examples? And take your medication before answering.

I'm not here to educate you. There are plenty of sources for information about the MS monopoly trial. Google it and you'll see the issue had nothing to do with not actively promoting the competition. Microsoft was using their monopolistic power to undermine their competitors in ways that were determined in court to be illegal. That's not my opinion. It's a matter of public record. It will take you less than 15 minutes to get most of the details straight and then, hopefully, you'll understand what was so embarrassing about what you just posted.

inkswamp

Oct 18, 2009, 04:00 PM

Please do not assume that your one comment is this much more important than everyone else's.

Imagine a world where everyone took that approach.

:(

I'd be happy to never do that again and would promise it if we could get to the point where the MS apologists understand what MS went to trial for (hint: it wasn't bundling) and stop making meaningless comparisons between MS and Apple.

Everyone keeps citing Safari or iTunes being bundled with OS X but that's not the same situation. Bundling wasn't the crime. Bundling was a single aspect of a bigger problem.

Here's what Apple would have to do to be on the same level as what MS was doing in the late 90s. Let's say Apple makes changes to the next revision of OS X that somehow makes it next to impossible for DoubleTwist (an iTunes competitor) to run and uses their music industry muscle to force some behind-the-scenes deals to stop music companies from dealing fairly with the makers of DoubleTwist and starts including some secret APIs that give iTunes access to killer features that other music software cannot access and bundles iTunes in such a way that users cannot uninstall it then, and only then, can we start making comparisons between Apple and MS with a straight face.

Until then, such comparisons are a lot of nonsense and only reveal one's lack of familiarity with the details of the MS monopoly trials.

KnightWRX

Oct 18, 2009, 04:23 PM

You misunderstand. Business doesn't - or certainly didn't - give a crap about the W3C standards. The most dominant platform was always going to be the one everyone geared to.

But businesses do today. Most businesses stuck on IE6 because they wrote their web apps for IE instead of standards can't upgrade. They are stuck on old technology, with old security flaws instead of being able to move forward or switch to other vendors.

The web was stuck in this too for a while. Now the bigger players are willing to drop IE6 support in order to get things moving, even if it means blocking out a big portion of users. See Google's push through Youtube and their search engine.

The web has everything to gain from being multi-vendor. 1 single vendor controlling the web, especially once that isn't interested in shipping a multi-platform product can only result in locking people out or removing choice from the consumer.

inkswamp

Oct 18, 2009, 04:41 PM

But businesses do today. Most businesses stuck on IE6 because they wrote their web apps for IE instead of standards can't upgrade. They are stuck on old technology, with old security flaws instead of being able to move forward or switch to other vendors.

The web was stuck in this too for a while. Now the bigger players are willing to drop IE6 support in order to get things moving, even if it means blocking out a big portion of users. See Google's push through Youtube and their search engine.

The web has everything to gain from being multi-vendor. 1 single vendor controlling the web, especially once that isn't interested in shipping a multi-platform product can only result in locking people out or removing choice from the consumer.

Very good observations and quite accurate. I've watched such a change occur in the industry. 10 years ago, it was common to code to IE and hope for the best with the rest of them. It's not like that anymore. In addition, site owners are starting to understand that security problems in browsers like IE are going to open them up to lawsuits (consider the recent malware thing going on with the NYTimes ads.) The common belief that sites code only in consideration of the most popular browser is wrong.

BongoBanger

Oct 18, 2009, 05:48 PM

Internet Explorer's dominance during this "Wild Wild West" period of the web was a very powerful force that got business interested in supporting web sites. Had the balkanization continued, the web would have taken longer to take off.

Exactly. That's the point that a lot of people miss who weren't around at them time. Microsoft certainly leveraged that advantage for as much as they could and beyond the letter of the law, but it made things better in the long run.

But businesses do today. Most businesses stuck on IE6 because they wrote their web apps for IE instead of standards can't upgrade. They are stuck on old technology, with old security flaws instead of being able to move forward or switch to other vendors.

No, they stuck with it because everybody used it.

The web was stuck in this too for a while. Now the bigger players are willing to drop IE6 support in order to get things moving, even if it means blocking out a big portion of users. See Google's push through Youtube and their search engine.

Quite so. This is a good thing but you need a stable platform to begin with and improve on. That's what IE - rightly or wrongly - gave.

The web has everything to gain from being multi-vendor. 1 single vendor controlling the web, especially once that isn't interested in shipping a multi-platform product can only result in locking people out or removing choice from the consumer.

And yet MS appear to be the only ones offering multiple choices of browser at installation. Perhaps we should ask the Linux Foundation and Apple to do the same so we can see what consumers and businesses really want to use across all platforms?

KnightWRX

Oct 18, 2009, 05:52 PM

Exactly. That's the point that a lot of people miss who weren't around at them time. Microsoft certainly leveraged that advantage for as much as they could and beyond the letter of the law, but it made things better in the long run.

I was there and I don't see it that way. I was writing web apps before IE 4 was ever a glimmer in MS's eye. The fact was Web apps were coming and everyone that understood it was already writing some in their spare time. The LAMP stack was already coined before Windows 98 shipped.

MS just took advantage of the platform early on to lock people into their platform, and they succeeded in doing it. Without MS or IE, the Web would be today more advance than it currently is.

MS didn't make things better or bring the Web into the light of day. The web was already a smash hit, they simply locked it down and made it downright of a pain for anyone not running Windows.

BongoBanger

Oct 18, 2009, 05:54 PM

I was there and I don't see it that way.

As was I and my recollection is somewhat different. We shall have to beg to differ on this one.

KnightWRX

Oct 18, 2009, 06:05 PM

As was I and my recollection is somewhat different. We shall have to beg to differ on this one.

A windows user running IE perhaps ? Maybe that's why you didn't see it as Microsoft proceeded to destroy the open web. :rolleyes:

AidenShaw

Oct 18, 2009, 06:19 PM

....that isn't interested in shipping a multi-platform product can only result in locking people out or removing choice from the consumer.

Oh, the irony of an Apple fan complaining about lockin and lack of choice... :D

A windows user running IE perhaps ? Maybe that's why you didn't see it as Microsoft proceeded to destroy the open web. :rolleyes:

...you mean as Microsoft unified the web with a single platform available on the majority of systems?

The "open web" as you call it was a "wild, wild web" of incompatible browsers all trying to one-up each other.

I see nothing wrong with the ballot approach to selecting your default browser, but I do find it odd that the system has to ship with *no* browser. Leave the ballot, but let MS ship IE so that the system is usable out of the box.

What about the poor soul with no network - how will she download a browser?

musukosan

Oct 18, 2009, 06:51 PM

Obviously they should do like those old school javascript-heavy webpages where the links all bounce randomly around the screen and you have to chase them down to click on them.

LMAO. :D

KnightWRX

Oct 18, 2009, 06:55 PM

Oh, the irony of an Apple fan complaining about lockin and lack of choice... :D

I told you again and again, I am not an Apple fan. I love Unix and everything Unix. I happen to use a Mac at this time because I was tired of Linux on Dells.

...you mean as Microsoft unified the web with a single platform available on the majority of systems?

That's what the w3c sought to do at the time and is still doing today. And you know what ? They are doing it the proper way, including all systems and all platforms, not just One system and One platform.

There is no lock-in by following standards because they are available for all. IE ? Not so much.

Microsoft simply tried to lock the web away to Windows so they could profit from it and destroy any and all competition. You can spin it however you want, the fact is Microsoft almost succeeded in locking out everyone but Windows user from the Web. If they had done it, you wouldn't have any iPhones or Macs today. You wouldn't have Linux desktops.

All you'd have is people trying to play catch up to IE and never succeeding. Kind of like the Mono project is trying to catch up to .NET and never quite making it. Microsoft then gets to say .NET is multi-platform when it's obviously pretty much Windows only.

inkswamp

Oct 18, 2009, 08:59 PM

Exactly. That's the point that a lot of people miss who weren't around at them time. Microsoft certainly leveraged that advantage for as much as they could and beyond the letter of the law, but it made things better in the long run.

What an abstract bunch of bulls$%&*

How can you possibly know that?

Do you have access to some alternate reality where Microsoft didn't do that with IE? Are things just awful over in that alternate reality? Is there panic in the streets, rioting and looting 24/7? Seriously, I'd love to know how you can authoritatively state that IE "made things better." Better than... what exactly? What are you comparing it to?

You realize, I hope, that the Internet is founded on lots and lots of applications and protocols based on open, agreed-upon standards, not lots and lots of proprietary products. You don't even have history on your side to make that statement. I'm certain, in the absence of IE, standards would have been set and things would have been pushed forward. You give MS entirely too much credit, I think.