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.
Safari for Windows Receives Prominent Placement on Microsoft's European 'Browser Ballot'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
Because for years Microsoft has pressured OEMs and even threatened them if they wanted to ship another browser configured as default.
You need to freshen up on why the web is the way it is today, with tons of published standards but very little browser support for them.
Solved it!
Problem Solved...
Aaaamozillz FireFox
Aaagoogle Chrome
Aasopera
Apple Safari
Microsoft Internet Explorer
Problem Solved...
Aaaamozillz FireFox
Aaagoogle Chrome
Aasopera
Apple Safari
Microsoft Internet Explorer
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. 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.....
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.
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.
But all other applications can access Webkit fully. There are no hidden APIs and Webkit is independent of Safari and the OS.
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?
Great. All of that may be true but it's all beside the point and doesn't excuse Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.
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?
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/
Some just shoot me
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.
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.
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.
What is the purpose of all this?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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...
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.
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.
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."
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.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.
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.
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?
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...
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%.