Mozilla / Opera said:
pfff get over it, mozilla and opera both suck thats why they are on the end of the list. hahaha.
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
pfff get over it, mozilla and opera both suck thats why they are on the end of the list. hahaha.
The right to form a corporation and thus to shield your personal assets from corporate creditors is not a natural right; it's a right granted by the people through their government. In exhange for availing themselves of this right it's fair to ask the investors to operate their corporation according to rules. One set of these rules is antitrust laws. When a corporation used predatory practices, and when that corporation has distorted the free market and achieved economic market power (the power to set prices above the supply-demand curve), the people who granted the right to incorporate have the right to seek to eliminate this problem.
No 2 desktops look the same? I've seen hundreds that are identical. Users want something which works. You actually did make me laugh *i'm not talking about introducing a communist state, i'm talking about the majority of users using the same browser!! hahaha 'dangerous' and 'highly questionable'?? Wow. Come on, get serious.
So you think it's right for Microsoft to gain a monopoly in the browser market just because they have a monopoly in the OS market?
I see, and when you have one company effectively so huge that innovation is stifled, and no-one else with the infrastructure to compete (as we had with MS 2 years ago) you will get a monstrosity (like Vista)
As opposed to what? IE and Safari?
Please, even at version 8, IE is horrible. And Safari it's all looks and no functionality, at least in Windows. Chrome is almost the same, extremely fast, but no functionality at all.
Opera and Firefox and the best browsers out there, and then again, FF is bloated and slow, and Opera breaks websites every know and then.
Why it was not random from the beginning is beyond me.I guess MS look good fixing the issue though.
Will be interesting to see if the choice,then install goes as smoothly for all browsers listed in 7.I suppose it will,but it is MS so I am a tad suspicious on that front.
Will be interesting to see if the choice,then install goes as smoothly for all browsers listed in 7.I suppose it will,but it is MS so I am a tad suspicious on that front.
Safari/Chrome no functionality?
full acid3 compatibility, compatible with all major plugins (java, flash etc), fastest browsers by a long way... What more do you need.
Well, you can always do what you want as long as you stay within the given laws.
Microsoft made the mistake of not bundling Internet Explorer with Windows 95 when it was released - they sold it separately in the "Plus Package" for Windows 95. And that laid the foundation for the legal problems they're in today: They've integrated IE too late in the OS.
The same happened when they made Windows Media Player a part of the OS. Having software like that in the core system just makes it near to impossible for any competition to sell any copies of their software. An OS is an OS, not a whole desktop system. Yes, Apple once again gets away with bundling iTunes with OS X because they only occupy a tiny market share. On the other hand, Apple already ran into legal trouble in the EU because their iPods only work well with iTunes. And iTunes only works well with iPods.
Microsoft also tried to push an EULA that only allowed the use of an OEM version of Windows with the computer it was installed on -- which is not very far from what Apple is doing with OS X. That bundling practice is also illegal in Europe - we can freely re-sell pre-installed OEM versions of Windows or other pre-installed software if we want to. Now Microsoft wasn't allowed to force people to use their copy of Windows on only one specific computer, and only be allowed to sell said copy -with- the computer it came with. I don't see a reason why Apple should be allowed to tell people that the copy of OS X that they've bought can only be used on an Apple computer. It's like saying that you are only allowed to put this gasoline in a car from Ford, but not in an Opel. Or that you can only watch Columbia movies on a Sony DVD player.
But back to why Apple would gain from that weird ballot: It enables millions of completely computer illiterate people to get this web browser called Safari - a piece of software they probably have never even heard of before. Then again, they probably have never even heard the word browser before. They've heard the word Internet, and that's what they want to use. They only thing they know might be that they need a computer for that. But the words operating system or web browser don't mean anything to them. They want to use Amazon, Google and FaceBook. They don't give a damn about how to get there, and they certainly don't care about Microsoft or Apple. And those people are the majority of computer users out there.
I doubt the result would have been any different had they integrated IE from the start. The problem was that they had a monopoly in the OS market (which is not a problem in and of itself - it's how you get a monopoly and what you do with it once you have it that gets you into trouble), and the browser market was considered a separate market (and would have been a separate market no matter when IE was integrated into Windows, because of the history of browsers and the various companies in the browser market). Leveraging the OS monopoly to crush the browser market is a no-no.
As for why Apple can do things MS can't - that's the penalty MS pays for being a monopoly.
As for why Apple can do things MS can't - that's the penalty MS pays for being a monopoly.
Hard to get penalized for monopolistic behavior when you've got a 5% market share. Also, Safari has never had anywhere near a monopoly on Macs. When my mom went to pick up her new Macbook from the Apple Store, there were lots of people there recommending Firefox over Safari. Compare that to Windows where, for the longest time, you needed IE to view the help files.
Not only does Apple not abuse a monopoly in this area, but they have no monopoly to abuse in the first place. Further, Apple was never convicted of antitrust violations a la Microsoft, anywhere in the world.
Mac OSX can only run on Macs NAITIVELY. Until the IBM clones adopt full blown EFI, its illegal in most countries to run Mac OSX on a PC. As I remember it, the EU's version of the DMCA is a lot more strict than the US'. So your silly little German argument flies out the window.
---
I'm so sick of people that push off the end user as complete f' tards. Its disrespectful and just not true. Just because your Aunt Clair doesn't understand as advanced components as you doesn't mean they don't know what they're using. I probably have a lot better reflection of this as I did some X-Mas work at an electronics store. People call mac users elitists... Ha! The real elitists are the technology freaks.
---
iTunes and Firefox are doing pretty well despite your so called "competition".
Illegal is a little strong. Against the EULA, yes. But illegal.. I wouldn't say that only because it strikes me as silly to go out and purchase OS X then install it on my PC and somehow be thrown in jail for it. ;]
It counts as reverse engineering I believe in Europe. But I think the charges go to the person who did the reverse engineering not the end user.
*Feel free to correct me.
IE: EFI-X advertise that their module can run Mac OSX, you buy it. You don't get in trouble as you're the innocent consumer.
Actually, to an economist it often does (as compared o an oligopoly, where there are a few powerful competitors).
In general though, monopoly refers to a broken market in which a supplier can set it's price high without affecting demand - that is, where the law if supply and demand doesn't apply.
Like to the general public where burglary means breaking in to steal something, where it actually means a break in with the intent to commit a crime.
Like to the general public where burglary means breaking in to steal something, where it actually means a break in with the intent to commit a crime.
Ah, yes, sorta. Under common law burglary was breaking in to a dwelling house, at night, with intent to commit a felony. Lots of bar exam questions where the window is already open, or it's an apartment over a store, etc.
Of course, in most jurisdictions "burglary" is defined by statute in a manner much more broad than that.
"Burgery" is always preferable, and happens to be my favourite misspelling of "burglary."
"Burgery" is always preferable, and happens to be my favourite misspelling of "burglary."
Mmmmmm...... I'd gladly steal one o' those.
In NYC, a place called Nick's makes 'Sumo' burgers - 1 lb fresh, ground Canadian steer...doesn't get much better than that.