Sidebar Sidebar
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

what's the point in not abusing your monopoly if you have it?

One must be so competitive in life that he or she would like to eliminate all the possible rivals; that's the attitude to live your life with. Microsoft has done it and that's the right thing. One must always be determined to destroy all the rivals at any cost. That's the real victory
 
One would think that with the current browser wars, IE's market share in free fall, and the news this past week that Firefox has overtaken IE in Germany, would demonstrate to the Europeans that despite a monopoly position in the OS market, Microsoft isn't necessarily able to translate that into a monopoly position in the browser market.

You could argue that they did in the first round, but that was as much Microsoft doing things right and Netscape tripping up as it was the market share issue.

And to those throwing the 70% figure out as a continuing example... I ask what percentage of that 70% are people who are using IE6 for work, because I think there's a good argument to be made that, because of how long IE6 has been out and how a lot of corporate intranet sites and webapps are designed only for IE6, the IE6 share skews how much Microsoft's monopoly benefits its browser share today. Corporations did their webapps to IE6 when it was the only game in town and now corporations can't/don't want to spend money to update them.

Whatever happens, does this mean that Windows Update is no longer tied to IE?
 
it's fine

andylyon said:
Just because their market share is a lot smaller it doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

No, it's just fine. Apple doesn't have any monopoly to abuse, Safari already is an "alternate browser", Apple has never tried to exclude other browsers, and unlike PC lemmings, the majority of Mac users already know how to download and install other browsers.
 
SubtltzSir said:
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?
Click to expand...

What makes you assume that other people are well aware of alternate browsers? As bad as IE is, for the majority of people, it does the job, and if they're not aware that there are alternatives, then what makes you think that they will look for alternatives?

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.
Click to expand...

Of course people have switched to Firefox. Where has anyone said that they didn't? But compare Firefox's marketshare to IE's, and you'll see the problem. IE gained that 60-70% marketshare by being bundled with Windows, a position that wasn't available to Firefox. It's pretty messed up that Firefox, a better browser overall, has only a 20-25% marketshare. IE didn't beat Firefox or any other browser fair and square. If it wasn't for IE being bundled to Windows, I doubt it would have the marketshare it has now.

And while Firefox has begun to advertise a bit online, and there has been a greater public awareness of its present, it is very clear that MS was using IE to gain its market position:

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

You can see around Q1 of 2006 that IE had a marketshare of around 90%. It this was around when IE6 was the browser that was out. At that time, Firefox was CLEARLY better than IE6 (no tabs, HUGE security hole in Windows XP, no recognition of open web standards).

But even though Firefox has eaten into that marketshare, as evidenced by the charts, their advertising efforts could only so far. There was nothing that Firefox could do to beat the advantage that IE had on them.

That is what it's all about. IE had an unfair advantage by being bundled on Windows. I'm sure you'll agree with me that Firefox couldn't be bundled with a default Windows install, right? No amount of advertising can beat that, and it's unfair that a NPO has to spend millions in advertising costs to try to beat that type of advantage.

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.
Click to expand...

Err... What's the problem? You can still choose IE8 very easily. It's one extra click. Surely, for the consumer, it's not that big of an issue.:rolleyes:
 
Wakashizuma said:
what's the point in not abusing your monopoly if you have it?

One must be so competitive in life that he or she would like to eliminate all the possible rivals; that's the attitude to live your life with. Microsoft has done it and that's the right thing. One must always be determined to destroy all the rivals at any cost. That's the real victory
Click to expand...

Using one's monopolistic powers to one's advantage is all good.

However, abusing it through unethical practices, sleazy OEM deals, and vendor lock-in, far surpasses that threshold.

Microsoft has done this once, and although it shall remain their sole claim to fame, it is neither virtuous, nor anything to be proud of.
 
Wakashizuma said:
what's the point in not abusing your monopoly if you have it?

One must be so competitive in life that he or she would like to eliminate all the possible rivals; that's the attitude to live your life with. Microsoft has done it and that's the right thing. One must always be determined to destroy all the rivals at any cost. That's the real victory
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the fundamtentals of antitrust law. There's a big difference between being competitive, and being convicted for wrongdoing.
 
DMann said:
Using one's monopolistic powers to one's advantage is all good.

However, abusing it through unethical practices, sleazy OEM deals, and vendor lock-in, far surpasses that threshold.

Microsoft has done this once, and although it shall remain their sole claim to fame, it is neither virtuous, nor anything to be proud of.
Click to expand...

Who cares?

All that matters is who wins it all. Winning is not everything; it's the only thing

Microsoft won. They control over 95% of the PC market; the same Market that Apple and Steve Jobs created and Gates pushed them out of it. That's all that matters. What he or she did and how they did it is left for losers to discuss and cure their loss; otherwise you wont see mac fans cheering over a 0.2 worldwide makershare which is as much as a rounding error to Microsoft

PS: you have nothing against a monopoly or abusing it; that much I can bet on. Your only problem is that it's not Apple that does it. If it were Apple, you'd be quiet happy with it. Well too bad; stick to that 5% worldwide marketshare and continue making podcasts
 
*LTD* said:
You don't seem to understand the fundamtentals of antitrust law. There's a big difference between being competitive, and being convicted for wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

Antitrust laws are stupid. It's survivial of the fittest; that's the law of the nature. You either compete or quit it all together

To me being competitive means doing anything possible to win including locking our your competition. You must win at all costs. That's all that matters.
 
Is the order of candidates on election ballots randomized in Europe?

I'm sure whoever appears at the top of the ballot has a statistical advantage from voters who don't give a crap who they vote for.
 
Speedy2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the case was 10 years old. I said that MS's actions were. See the first paragragh from this EU memo: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/272

This whole issue with IE began due to the fact that MS tied it heavily to the Windows OS in such a way that it stifled the competition. This was seen as an abuse of the Windows monopoly position in the market. It prevented OEMs and users from removing IE and replacing it. No such OS hooks or restrictions exist with Safari on OS X.

There is a key statement in the first paragraph of the EU memo that states that it needed to determine if MS's conduct was abusive and what remedy was necessary. This tells me that if Apple had MS's market share it would only suffer the same fate if it's conduct was also deemed abusive. I don't see it happenig as Safari was developed to fill a gap in browser support on OS X, not to force out the competition.
 
Wakashizuma said:
Who cares?

All that matters is who wins it all. Winning is not everything; it's the only thing

Microsoft won. They control over 95% of the PC market; the same Market that Apple and Steve Jobs created and Gates pushed them out of it. That's all that matters. What he or she did and how they did it is left for losers to discuss and cure their loss; otherwise you wont see mac fans cheering over a 0.2 worldwide makershare which is as much as a rounding error to Microsoft

PS: you have nothing against a monopoly or abusing it; that much I can bet on. Your only problem is that it's not Apple that does it. If it were Apple, you'd be quiet happy with it. Well too bad; stick to that 5% worldwide marketshare and continue making podcasts
Click to expand...

We'll, that's a rather primitive way of justifying the "great fluke of the late 90s."

As far as Apple is concerned, I don't see them bribing consumers with cash handouts to buy their products.

What's more amusing, is that with 9% share in the US and 4% worldwide, they seem to manage as well as MS, and their share is growing while MS's is slowly dwindling.

Considering the 72% market share that remains XP, and the ~45% of that which is pirated, Microsoft's parade might be soon reaching its end.
 
This is completely stupid

Has anyone done any studies that suggest that when given a choice of five things in a horizontal row, that people in western countries will automatically pick the choice on the far left as their first choice?

I suppose that the "randomization" makes it "fairer," but a novice computer user won't have the foggiest idea of which one to pick anyway, or why.
 
john0879 said:
I didn't say the case was 10 years old. I said that MS's actions were. See the first paragragh from this EU memo: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/272

This whole issue with IE began due to the fact that MS tied it heavily to the Windows OS in such a way that it stifled the competition. This was seen as an abuse of the Windows monopoly position in the market. It prevented OEMs and users from removing IE and replacing it. No such OS hooks or restrictions exist with Safari on OS X.

There is a key statement in the first paragraph of the EU memo that states that it needed to determine if MS's conduct was abusive and what remedy was necessary. This tells me that if Apple had MS's market share it would only suffer the same fate if it's conduct was also deemed abusive. I don't see it happenig as Safari was developed to fill a gap in browser support on OS X, not to force out the competition.
Click to expand...

Regardless of how 'tied in' IE was to Windows, you could still go right ahead and download and install an alternate browser is you chose to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SubtltzSir View Post
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?
What makes you assume that other people are well aware of alternate browsers? As bad as IE is, for the majority of people, it does the job, and if they're not aware that there are alternatives, then what makes you think that they will look for alternatives?

Quote:
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.
Of course people have switched to Firefox. Where has anyone said that they didn't? But compare Firefox's marketshare to IE's, and you'll see the problem. IE gained that 60-70% marketshare by being bundled with Windows, a position that wasn't available to Firefox. It's pretty messed up that Firefox, a better browser overall, has only a 20-25% marketshare. IE didn't beat Firefox or any other browser fair and square. If it wasn't for IE being bundled to Windows, I doubt it would have the marketshare it has now.

And while Firefox has begun to advertise a bit online, and there has been a greater public awareness of its present, it is very clear that MS was using IE to gain its market position:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...f_web_browsers

You can see around Q1 of 2006 that IE had a marketshare of around 90%. It this was around when IE6 was the browser that was out. At that time, Firefox was CLEARLY better than IE6 (no tabs, HUGE security hole in Windows XP, no recognition of open web standards).

But even though Firefox has eaten into that marketshare, as evidenced by the charts, their advertising efforts could only so far. There was nothing that Firefox could do to beat the advantage that IE had on them.

That is what it's all about. IE had an unfair advantage by being bundled on Windows. I'm sure you'll agree with me that Firefox couldn't be bundled with a default Windows install, right? No amount of advertising can beat that, and it's unfair that a NPO has to spend millions in advertising costs to try to beat that type of advantage.

Quote:
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.
Err... What's the problem? You can still choose IE8 very easily. It's one extra click. Surely, for the consumer, it's not that big of an issue.
Click to expand...

I'm all for Firefox, but I'm sorry, but this is just rubbish. Microsoft are perfectly entitled to bundle IE with Windows - I see it ALL the time on this forum about how Apple are perfectly entitled to restrict OSX to their own hardware. The same goes for IE and Windows.

Mozilla can also go right ahead and create their own OS and bundle Firefox with it as a way to compete with Microsoft and IE. Just the same as the comments on this forum about how Dell et al are pefectly entitled to create their own integrated OS to compete with Apple.
 
KingRocky said:
Has anyone done any studies that suggest that when given a choice of five things in a horizontal row, that people in western countries will automatically pick the choice on the far left as their first choice?

I suppose that the "randomization" makes it "fairer," but a novice computer user won't have the foggiest idea of which one to pick anyway, or why.
Click to expand...

All this dilemma, sans the "Hanging Chad's."
 
Wakashizuma said:
Antitrust laws are stupid. It's survivial of the fittest; that's the law of the nature. You either compete or quit it all together

To me being competitive means doing anything possible to win including locking our your competition. You must win at all costs. That's all that matters.
Click to expand...

In order to be permitted to form corporations which have the legal status of "people" and which shield liability so that the owners of the corporation don't have to worry about losing their homes, society demands a trade-off in return. And part of that trade-off is that the corporation can't be bad for society in certain ways. Monopolies which have certain properties are bad for society.
 
DMann said:
We'll, that's a rather primitive way of justifying the "great fluke of the late 90s."

As far as Apple is concerned, I don't see them bribing consumers with cash handouts to buy their products.

What's more amusing, is that with 9% share in the US and 4% worldwide, they seem to manage as well as MS, and their share is growing while MS's is slowly dwindling.

Considering the 72% market share that remains XP, and the ~45% of that which is pirated, Microsoft's parade might be soon reaching its end.
Click to expand...

Yup Keep thinking that Microsoft is going down in next two years

I remember when PowerPC was supposed to end the Intel's reign

Or how every year people say it's the year of linux and yet people choose Microsoft; even netbooks couldn't make people turn away from Microsoft

Or how some of the world's biggest corporations use Microsoft software to conduct their business; for which Apple has no competition to offer

How their server business has grown at the expense of Linux

How Vista was supposed to end Windows and with Windows 7 it have already passed the entire marketshare of Mac OSX together


Yup Microsoft is doomed; every corporation will start using iChat and Photobooth instead of Exchange and Microsoft office in the next 2 to 4 years

Microsoft has won. Even Steve Jobs had to accept it and beg Microsoft for money. To this day, Apple is the only company in the world that has been saved by Microsoft's money!

PS: It's funny that how you people have no problem with Intel's monopoly and their abuse of it (which has also been proven and they had to give AMD money for it) because Apple happens to kiss Intel's ass now; lol
 
*LTD* said:
They go back around 2000 years. They exist for a reason. If you can't understand that, or won't, then you can guess how much your uninformed opinion means.

These laws exist to protect both business and the consumer.

Enjoy.

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

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

http://www.hg.org/antitrust.html
Click to expand...

Again these laws are for those who are unable to compete; for instance the way Apple has failed consistently to gain any meaningful worldwide marketshare from Microsoft

For those weak ones, these laws might come useful. The same with those geeks who go to gym classes and are unable to keep up with athletes

Again I dont expect you to understand it.
 
Wakashizuma said:
Microsoft has won. Even Steve Jobs had to accept it and beg Microsoft for money. To this day, Apple is the only company in the world that has been saved by Microsoft's money!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you've got your tech history completely wrong.
 
KingRocky said:
Has anyone done any studies that suggest that when given a choice of five things in a horizontal row, that people in western countries will automatically pick the choice on the far left as their first choice?

I suppose that the "randomization" makes it "fairer," but a novice computer user won't have the foggiest idea of which one to pick anyway, or why.
Click to expand...

Thank you as I most whole heartedly agree. Most computer users never frequent blogs like this one so they don't weigh anything more than affordability and usability to get what they consider their "task" done. They don't give a royal <bleep> what computer they use, nor what browser comes with it. Chrome seems to be "getting it" and realizes that it's not the OS that matters - it's the browser in this new connected age we're in. The market, not a law, will decide who (at any one point in time) reigns.

Now, I shall go off and spend my better used time considering whether Elin chose the appropriate club in her recent Tiger hunt or not. I see a whole new market potential for womens' golf clubs that I'd like to monopolize - at least until the EU notices. :rolleyes:
 
Wakashizuma said:
Again these laws are for those who are unable to compete; for instance the way Apple has failed consistently to gain any meaningful worldwide marketshare from Microsoft
Click to expand...

You're on an Apple fansite, yet you don't seem to be aware of the fundamentals of Apple's operation.

They don't license out their OS.

They intentionally lock out/ignore a substantial portion of the market.

This naturally limits their overal market share, though they command the lion's share of the most coveted segment of the market - and the one which ensures your product's desirability: the Premium segment.
 
*LTD* said:
You're on an Apple fansite, yet you don't seem to be aware of the fundamentals of Apple's operation.

They don't license out their OS.

They intentionally lock out/ignore a substantial portion of the market.

This naturally limits their overal market share, though they command the lion's share of the most coveted segment of the market - and the one which ensures your product's desirability: the Premium segment.
Click to expand...

The premium segment, the most coveted segment of the markert? Hang on, what other companies compete in this premium segement?

The big bucks are in the corporate segment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back