That's assuming these people know about their existent. Fact is, a fairly large number of users are content with what's out of the box. They expect electronics to "just work" when they bring it home and hook it up but we all know it can greatly improve if you tweak them. How many know how to tweak their audio system? As daunting as that is to some, so is installing a browser for some.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft Modifies European 'Browser Ballot' to Eliminate Safari's Advantage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's assuming these people know about their existent. Fact is, a fairly large number of users are content with what's out of the box. They expect electronics to "just work" when they bring it home and hook it up but we all know it can greatly improve if you tweak them. How many know how to tweak their audio system? As daunting as that is to some, so is installing a browser for some.
All the cable and satellite providers should randomize their channel lineups daily so the lower ones don't get an edge, since most people channel surf sequentially.
Also, stores in malls should be placed on some random mechanical carousel that is constantly rotating their positions.
Also, stores in malls should be placed on some random mechanical carousel that is constantly rotating their positions.
Why is it that everyone thinks this is due to MS's size? It's because of the abuse of that size and monopoly of the market. MS tied IE to Windows as a way for their technology to unfairly eliminate the competition and dominate the market. They are being punished for actions that took place about a decade ago.
Apple bundling Safari in OS X is not the same situation. Safari supports open standards and is just an application. It is not tied to the OS. I doubt this would be an issue today had MS done this from the beginning.
I would suggest using the search function with the words "monopoly" and "Microsoft". There are countless threads about this on this board. It would be great if someone who really understands international competition law would explain this in layman terms. There is always someone quoting the usual wikipedia stuff and getting it wrong.
Not to mention, exposure to the outer peripheral rings of the 'halo effect,' for those who would be more likely enticed to check out an Apple store, after having become familiarized with an Apple product.
As long as you don't break any laws (in MSFT's case: antitrust laws) you can do with your software whatever you want.
That's great for your Mom, but if it hadn't been for you, your Mom would be using Internet Explorer because it was the default, and she probably wouldn't even know about other options. How incredibly convenient for Microsoft. Don't you think?
You can buy your spots there.
Please try and buy a spot on a default MS Windows desktop.
So tell me, why are Europeans idiots? The point is that Microsoft abuses its very dominant OS market position to control the browser market, which is a big market by now. Other browsers don't have a fair chance, because Internet Explorer is pushed a lot by Microsoft. That prevents fair competition and eventually keeps the web from evolving. Other browsers compete against each other with more speed, new technologies and so on – all except Internet Explorer.
Mac OS X has a very small market share and is limited to Apple hardware. That hardly has any negative effect on the browser market. It should also be noted that Internet Explorer used to be an integral part of the system that could not be removed. Luckily that has been changed in Windows 7.
So bad comparison. But really, as long as there are any other alternatives out there, there are no true monopolies. Monopolies can only be created when LAWS are enacted that cause a consumer to have no other choice or recourse. Had MS blocked any external IP access except through IE, I might have interpreted that as using its market share to limit any competitive activity. Did the EU consider that according to Wikipedia, there are dozens of other possible browsers available? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers
If Apple wants Safari on Windoze, advertise. If Opera wants in, advertise. The common consumer wants to buy a machine ("PC") and have it just work. A company's reputation and exposure is up to them - not some government body saying that you HAVE to be given a choice the first time you use it. Let the BEST win - not in any alpha or random order.
Sorry for the analogy, but really - Sony (I think) first invented a PMP. Apple seems to have taken the idea and refined it to since become number 1. IE8 is a vast improvement to IE7 and 6. Why? Because they saw they had competition. Not because some government said they should have a choice.
Oh, and I did switch to a Mac from a PC a few years back and (so far) see no compelling reason to switch back. And no reason for me to do anymore than "look" at other Mac browsers so I have stayed with Safari (again, so far).
When the EU forces every OS to inflict a current and constantly updated 20+ list on the unsuspecting consumer, then it's a fair "law." Otherwise, it's a waste of taxpayer dollars.
It has nothing to do with Safari being an application and IE not. Neither do open standards change anything. If OSX had 90% market share, Apple couldn't get away with their bundling of iTunes and Safari they way they do it now. At least according to EU law.
btw, the case is not 10 years old. It is a current issue. The inital complaint that led to the ruling was filed by Opera just last year.
That'll be the day when Goodyear lobbies for exclusive deals and vendor lock-in for all American, German, and Japanese auto manufacturers.
I think you are looking for the monopoly in the wrong place. This is not about their position in the browser market, but their monopoly in the desktop OS market (which no sane mind could dispute with a worldwide market share of over 90%.)
They were convicted for abusing that monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in other markets. This is the reason why they are now forced to present other options for the default browser at first startup.
If then, as a result, IE had still 70%+ market share in the years to come, that would be totally legal, because it was a result of fair competition and a free market.
Please elaborate. What do you mean with "international law" and what is wrong with the Wikipedia "stuff" that is usually linked ?
Right. So IE's actually been blocking anyone from linking to a download/review site for alternate browsers in the past 2 years that I haven't been using MS? I must have missed that part. Wait, 90% of the market who use MS haven't found anything compelling to switch - no wait, 20% <edit - 22.22222%> of them did (if IE has 70%). Must be a rounding error.
Sorry, this whole monopoly argument is getting "tyre-ing" (for my UK friends). Government has no place in helping me decide anything. Short of a decision to shoot someone for still insisting on using IE6 of course.
This happens to be the most salient point - MS inextricably tying IE to Windows is what got them into trouble in the first place.