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

[batchtaster]

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]

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

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

 

[opeter]

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.

Thanks God, times have changed, since then.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Thanks God, times have changed, since then.

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

and turn to utter crap.

 

[teknikal90]

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

 

[chadua]

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]

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]

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

Thats what the EU is best at, whining.

 

[batchtaster]

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.

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]

Thats what the EU is best at, whining.

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

 

[RazHyena]

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

Stop being so defensive! Geesh..

 

[BongoBanger]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[AidenShaw]

....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...

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

...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]

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.