Neowin.net

So what if it's last?

It is also the closest to the right, the RHS were most people have the mouse

Here come the childish Opera trolls for the 10 millionth time. You hate Opera, we get it. Grow the **** already and stop ruining discussions

The list is in alphabetical order:
Apple
Google
Microsoft
Mozilla
Opera.

(snipped)
https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noise...ber/008400.html

Microsoft still has not fixed this issue. Firefox had a fix out THE SAME DAY. Microsoft still have no resolution for this attack.

Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 08 Oct 2009 - 02:21

(snipped)
MS has been doing pretty good on security for the most part
and its common knowledge the most popular products get targetted first
COMMON..KNOWLEDGE

Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 08 Oct 2009 - 02:22

Show me a major corporation running Firefox on their workstations, that this fix needed to be certified on. Go on, I'll wait here.

Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 08 Oct 2009 - 02:22

Too bad they didn't go Maxthon then.

It's funny that you condemn Microsoft over one issue (Which may very well be mitigated by UAC), yet you staunchly defended Apple in another newsitem that highlighted their abysmal security reputation.

[snipped]

Last edited by rm20010 on 08 Oct 2009 - 03:54

It's not last, you can scroll right, to see more browsers. The problem is, as you have pointed out, it's not too obvious to scroll right in that frame, and those browsers will not get as much consideration, just because they are later on in the alphabet. Why not tile the browser list or make it scroll horizontally?

No idea what you are talking about. Any company messing up, deserves to have it pointed out, whether it be Apple, Microsoft, Google or Mozilla, and I will do so.

This issue has nothing to do with UAC, did you even read that link before launching into an attack.



Ok, so Microsoft are always going to be late in fixing security problems. Therefore we should not use Microsoft because they can't fix security problems quickly. This is what you are saying?



Yes, this is one issue, there are other issues affecting other browsers. Why has Microsoft not responded to this though, when other companies have, very quickly. You can't just remove this point, and talk about how good Microsoft are, except for the times when they are slow.

And the fact that you mention that the most popular products get targeted first is exactly the reason that MICROSOFT SHOULD HAVE FIXED THIS already. If you are not trying to say this, then I have no idea what point you are trying to get across.

Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 08 Oct 2009 - 02:23

Really? [snipped]

Consider for a moment the web-server market, and then compare the percentage of servers running GNU/Linux with those running windows. And yet the majority of compromised servers out there are running windows. Care to explain this anomaly in your rationale?

Last edited by rm20010 on 08 Oct 2009 - 04:23

The fact that MS takes so long to fix exploits doesn't worry you?

Not all 12 are listed alphabetically. As per the article, the top five browsers are bunched at the start and then the next seven are off screen (those two sub groups are then individually sorted). They're there because they are less popular, not because of their name.

Wait for Opera to change company name to Apera in a near future.

Does this have ANYTHING to do with the ballot screen? No. Then why are you discussing it in a news item about the ballot screen?

Off topic spam.

LOL

What the stonking great scroll bar isn't obvious enough?

Nope, because it isn't true. Whilst there have been 1 or 2 isolated cases of exploits that haven't been fixed (FYI the random # generation flaw in the Linux kernel went unpatched for YEARS, and at this year's pwn 2 own the guy hacked the mac using an exploit he discovered researching for the previous year's one showing that it is not just restricted to MS) Microsoft actually have the fastest industry turnaround on severe and critical exploit patches, in fact in some cases they even issue out of band fixes for really big issues.

Liar. http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/09/16/h...re-than-windows

If there is a security issue that allows for the browser to be compromised, UAC will prevent it from going furthur as IE is placed in a low-IL sandbox. What's so hard to understand?

Someone is getting emotional over a browser

Its not about Opera, its about the company.

As an Opera user, yes it is annoying because it presents the forum as being hostile, every time Opera is mentioned, a thread floods with idiots posting pointless comments. It isn't necessary it just reduces the quality of conversations, and it is pretty shameful that it hasn't been clamped down on.

still windows based
often vulnerabiltieis effect server and workstation OS's
NEXT

Only comments opposing MS and IE are clamped down on. GreyWolfSC and rm20010 are MS shills didn't you know?

(snipped)

Why shouldn't you get all your applications from one vendor, saves on invoicing right? And they must all work together. And why not have the browser as part of the OS, despite the fact that no other OS in the universe does it.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=4167

This seems to have made the EU happy. Glad to see someone is sticking up to big companies.

Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 08 Oct 2009 - 02:25

Typical anti-Microsoft comment: Can't even get product details correct.

Word is a word processor, not an operating system.
Windows is an operating system, not a web browser.
Bing is a search engine, not an e-mail service.

You also conveniently forgot that Safari comes bundled with OS X and is just as removable from OS X as IE is from Windows. And it is in fact in this same universe if you can believe it.

Glad we could clear that up for you.

Last edited by C_Guy on 07 Oct 2009 - 21:29

@C_Guy: I think you may have missed Cakesy's point. He was trying to point out that the lowest common denominator of computer user doesn't really have a clue what they're doing (i.e. "I use windows on the internet"), and to an extent, the EU have established that Microsoft have taken advantage of that fact.

Not sure how that is typical. Most people use Windows so obviously most idiots will as well. They are no stupider than the Mac users I deal with at work who can only refer to their computer by year and screen size. Most of the perfectly well-educated and computer savvy folks I know use Windows as well. It's just more common due to hardware availability and cost.

Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 08 Oct 2009 - 02:25

Well a girl at uni once said "Vista is awesome, you can automatically add referencing and text effects" - obviously she's referring to MS Word 2007.

Yeah it's just possible he was joking... I think that was exactly the point he was trying to make....

ummm "no other OS does it?" Apple does it, why should they be given a free ride on Windows??


Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 08 Oct 2009 - 02:25

Agreed. Shame the US DOJ is incapable of acting on clear monopolistic abuses in the same way.

One is a convicted monopolist and the other has no desktop OS monopoly to speak of. That's like comparing apples (no pun intended) and oranges.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

It's a browser !

(snipped)

Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 08 Oct 2009 - 15:17

Safari can be completely removed from OS X, IE can only be disabled on Windows, it's a big difference.

Lie. IE can be removed from Windows. What About Webkit and OS X?

Can IE be removed from XP? No I thought not...

Does this ballot screen affect Windows XP? No.

Totally flawed logic. Just because a convicted thief has been released and robbed another house doesn't mean that a first time thief is let off the hook because they haven't got the same reputation. Abuse of power is abuse of power, regardless of who you are.



It can be disabled, but not removed. This is because the IE components are used throughout Windows (particularly XP) to provide things such as Windows update. Windows 7 has simply extended this to remove SOME of the binaries from the system which aren't used by other parts of the system. This is an issue in particular for applications such as XFire or Steam, which both use IE to show webpages integrated into their clients. If IE could be totally detached, then these applications would also fail.

You FOSS guys stick to these Microsoft topics like stink to s***. Why don't you actually go work on improving Linux rather than derailing discussions with anti microsoft dribble?

Is it? I thought it was just a software, with an internet browsing feature..somewhere in the mist of all the other included things that no one really uses and only takes up space. Seriously, Opera is just a big mess.

I'm going to make a browser, whine to the EU and get it added to the list.

Point is it was originally only 4 browsers Microsoft would provide, and given Opera's less than ideal marketshare they had to ensure they wouldn't be put off the list by Safari.

And as an added bonus they even get to keep being on the list even if a 5th browser turns up and takes a cut.

I know, too much choice is confusing. Where do you live, communist Russia?

Yeah, which is why Linux has been such a roaring success on the desktop. Oh...wait...

Too much choice can quite frequently lead to the problem called 'having to sift through the garbage'.

0.1% of the market is still around 1.5 million people.

Too much choice is a bad thing.

The whole point of the ballot screen was to give browsers a chance. That's why you get a choice of 7 more.

You don't hold an election without an election campaign.

Simply put, people don't know what a browser is, let alone what the different one does, the issue is moot as it doesn't actually give users a choice nor other browsers a chance.

People will go with:

1. "Ask me later"
2. What icon they find familiar (Basically IE)
3. Whatever comes first on the list (Apple Safari(Then of course find out it isn't what you want and have a guy go change it back to IE)

Having more or less browsers on the list won't make a difference really.

nope, north korea

20% Share on netbooks and almost 50% share on web-servers isn't shady huh?


That's a typical rebuttal of monopolists.

How so? Competition breeds innovation. Monopolisation breeds stagnation.

That's why Google and MS are conducting advertising campaigns for their respective browsers.


Perhaps we should view this as an education campaign to encourage the questioning of the software which we use. And yes it does provide a choice, one which MS would have never given us had it not been for the EU's intervention.


Or perhaps they discover that IE is worst browser listed on that page and never use it again


It's better to have too much choice than too little.

+1
They really should have!

However, IE is smack in the middle, and will probably be the first thing you see when it loads up. A bit smart, if I must say.

Yes, this is an incredibly important point.

Opera should be in first place. It's Allmennaksjeselskap (ASA) Opera Browser. Microsoft should correct this immediately.

Looking at the picture they do use the browser name and it's logo. So the fact they order it by vendor name doesn't mean it's posted by vendor name only.

Oh christ, people are using this exact same argument to describe the left, middle and right positions are best.

Seriously, only one can actually be right, and none of us have the data to prove it.

That's not part of the browser name, but the company name, and it also follows the company name, not leads it.

Opera Software ASA. ASA is about the kind of company.

It was supposed to be a joke... LOL

They probably don't have internet explorer icons or anything like that . Its probably not even associated as the default out of the box.

It probably just turns it "on" more or less, while the core bits are still going to be in there because they're used by other apps and thus are needed for legacy support.

Strange they couldn't make a normal application to present the ballot isn't it? Almost as if they wanted to make their own browser choice more prominent...

How would you download the alternate browsers? Most companies serve them via HTTP.

And FTP as well. FTP is supported via command line in Windows without any need for a browser.

The command line FTP client in windows isn't all that great, sure you could run a type of automated script to use it, but what if it doesn't work with the FTP server? It doesn't support newer FTP type stuff, hell I don't think it even has passive mode?

I would assume it has enough basic web usage installed to be able to connect directly to the download locations. Also I would think IE isn't getting installed yet, since its giving you the choice up front. Its just in an IE window for demonstration purposes (i.e. for us to see).

They need to make every browser's option identical or Google, Mozilla, and Opera will have a fit. The "Install" button for IE probably just adds the shortcut back to the taskbar and makes it the default browser.

And therein lies the problem. IE is still installed by default. [snipped]

Last edited by rm20010 on 08 Oct 2009 - 04:24

Could be a security problem, yes, since some Windows components require IE, and in case that's lacking some security patch the others have, yes... But that's just in theory. The reverse could also be true, that a user gets less secure because he/she picked the wrong browser in the ballot screen.

I think mine made it on there, but I think I screwed myself by naming myself ZZ Industries...


In all seriousness, I'd kind of like to know as well.

Epiphany, Konqueror, Elinks !

I don't know. Most people probably know the IE 'e' more since thats what they probably used before anyway.

Perhaps this will give them the impetus to learn what a browser is and how IE is the worst of them all

Dare to dream. The moon is made of cheese!

Absolutely right. My mum & dad use "Google" to "search" the web, so that's what they'll click when they are asked about anything to do with the web.

One of the changes is an Introductory screen that explains things to the user.

That's a good one Billus :p , those browser names do seem interestingly "confusing" to novices.

True. Expecting humans to be able to learn things is just too much...

And I'm sure you can replace the engine in your car, fix your heating and perform major heart surgery? What, you mean you're not an expert at everything..?

Leaders do not get rights because the competitors whine to much otherwise. So to shut them up governmental bodies decide to control how the leaders run their businesses.

MS is forced to do this because we live in a time where ****ty companies are given a helping hand because they cried. Instead of making your browser earn IE type status they file lawsuits and get a push. Oh and they say they arent advertised properly when everytime i install something its begging me to install google this or firefox that.

Yes, but the point is that IE got that "IE type status" because Microsoft embedded it with an existing product (Windows) that was already number 1 in its field. The vast majority of users will just use what they are given out of the box and will not be bothered to even look for an alternative, no matter how good the competition is.

And can these consumers not take responsibility for themselves? Like those who purposely chose to go out and get FireFox did?

Or is that too much to ask these days?

Because they broke the law. Is that simple enough for you people to understand? In most countries, except the USA, when companies break the law they have to make amends. If they want to sell their good in other countries, then they have to obey the laws.

How was *your* life impacted by what they did? Other than your ideological bull****, what has Microsoft done *to you*? Yeah, thought so.

The whole bit about bundling IE and hurting the market doesn't match up with the market share numbers. The verdict in this case is BS imo. The law can be changed/bent or twisted to fit whatever political motives you may have.

The fact is, while IE has come with windows for years that in no way stopped or hurt Firefox from gaining a big chunk of the pie. It also hasn't stopped Chrome from coming outta nowhere and gaining more market share in half a year than it's taken Opera 10 years to get to.

This whole bit about MS breaking the law by having IE in windows is pure BS used by the EU to try and show it's got the ability to actually do something in the global world, when in reality it's more political crap than anything good for the user. In the EU firefox gets used way more than IE compared to the US I bet. So this whole idea that consumers are being hurt is also BS.

Good point, well made. I guess only stuff that directly affects me should be enforced as the law. Big on the old logic, aren't you.

My life has been impacted because I am a web developer, and I have been forced to work extra hard to get stuff working in ie6, because it has a large market share. Ask any web developer. We have all cursed Bill Gates because of ie6, the most standards-non compliant browser ever.

Also, I have to use rubbish like active-x, which crashes the browser constantly (yes, even ie7 and ie8, i have tried), because some genius thought it was a good way to manage their applications.

Also I had to put up with a crappy web experience that has only improved in the last few years, and not because of Microsoft, but because of Mozilla, Google, Apple and Opera.

As much as I'm surprised to be defending cakesy here ... wow.

Pot calling the kettle black?

I'm all for having an opinion, but christ, this guy comes in every single news article about Microsoft, and spams it up responding to every single comment made. He acts as though a Microsoft rep came to his house and slapped his mother then kicked his dog. It gets old.

Because they are a convicted monopolist whose circumvention of sanctions is infamous.


It has nothing to do with producting a good product and everything to do with MS shipping their own browser as default which obviously gives them an advantage. This is a step toward equality.


Oh the horror of it


Got to reduce RSI huh?

Perhaps you would prefer a world with no regulation where the banks are free to set their own arbitrary fractional reserve?

Shipping IE with windows doesn't give MS a "helping hand"[sic]?


What's this "IE type status"[sic] you speak of? Monopoly advantage status?


Abusing a monopoly in the EU is illegal. So the union was obligated to take action. Just as it does with other crimes.


But they aren't installed with the OS?

And so the EU shouldn't act against illegal activities because you don't think it's relevant?


MS broke the law and will suffer the consequences regardless of your pity for them.

Give it a rest before you have an aneurysm.

People, this news is about the ballot screen, not which web browser or company is best or worst. Please try to keep the discussion on-topic.

apparently it has always been too much to ask... that's how microsoft got their browser monopoly...

Bloated? A 7MB install file, and uses 60 meg of ram for a browser and mail client.

It's not bloated at all. It's feature rich, but it's not bloated, heavy, sluggish, or any other definition of the word.

Yes, Opera is bloated and Hitler was a saint...

Well, you got one right!

M comes before O last I checked, if Maxthon has more market share than Opera, shouldn't it be before it on that list? I don't care that Opera is in there, but you are talking about fair right?

Source?

Because Opera is a decent browser?

Does it come with a nail clipper, a fan and an automatic spam can opener besides mail, torrent, web server etc?

Firefox ~= 500M downloads.
Maxthon ~= 200M downloads.
And Firefox market share is ~10 times more than Opera's

So we can (very roughly) estimate that
Maxthon ~= 4 * Opera

It has a download client that can cope with torrents. It's combined in a incredibly simple interface. It's actually too simple to compare with a desktop torrent client. It's suitable for a quick, one file, torrent.

Firefox/chrome have a download client too, and it's comparable to Opera's.

Web server? I wasn't aware of it having a webserver.

It does have a spam filter on the mailclient. You can turn it off. I don't use it the spam filter. You can turn off the mail client too. You won't even see it.

What other add ons are you unhappy with?

It still uses under 100meg of ram with a load of pages open. (much less on initial run). So by definition, it's not "bloated". Bloated is when the interface is overcrowded and you cannot make it otherwise.

When was the last time you tried it and spent any time using it? I hated Opera until I actually tried it properly. I use Firefox for web development (firebug).

Once you dig deeper on all browsers, you'll find features you don't want and don't have a need for. Opera is no exception.

Very VERY roughly. Cause those results aren't reflected in the usage share website stats.

You could say it's because they aren't weighting China high enough - but then what difference does that make? This is the EU, not China.

What the hell is Maxthon?

It's an IE shell. Apparently the upcoming version will also be a Webkit shell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxthon

Yeah it's an odd situation. My initial reaction was, "What?! Come on, it's their operating system, let them put whatever the hell they want on it!". But then I thought about the situation further - many people who use Internet Explorer simply use it's already there. These people are probably okay with it not being particularly tech-savvy but it is still potentially a lost user simply because Microsoft have already forced their browser on the operating system.

I found it hard to think this way being a nerd, but I always come to the same conclusion when looking at it from a distance.

P.S Scottish/British.

You realise that capitalism is not a system of laws? Maybe you think it is ok for a company to do whatever they want. Maybe there should be no laws. Maybe companies should be able to dump any chemicals they want into rivers, maybe drug companies should be able to sell drugs that kill 10% of people who use them. Maybe Microsoft should ban anyone from running anything else on their OS. Yes, that sounds like a great place to live in.

They have never banned anyone from running whatever browser they want. They offer their option included. If you want something else you are free to install it. It's one of the simplest systems I've ever seen. If having IE somehow blocked you from installing another browser I could see a problem but it does not. It's not up to a company to keep up with all of its competitors and introduce you to them. I have no problem installing Firefox and Chrome on my Windows machines and if someone wants to do so they are free to do so. I don't even use IE unless I have to but I could care less if it's there. I don't use Safari on Mac OS either.

That's why MS doesn't have a true monopoly at all, going by the definition of the word. You do have choice, the fact you have to go and find it yourself doesn't change the fact. I suppose people like to have their hands held and walked through such things, but that's not how the world works.

MS at best has a virtual monopoly, just how Google has one in search for the most part. You're still free to run Linux on your hardware, a PC doesn't equal windows. You can run any apps you want, you don't have to use MS's only. It's hardly a real monopoly o the PC market.

It's easy to spin it as one and sue them for some easy money when you have bills to pay though.

That might be your definition of Monopoly, but who cares. It is not the economic or legal definition of Monopoly. But who cares about that, lets just make up our own definitions of words, what fun that will be.

This is very simple, the fact that some people still don't understand why Microsoft is a monopoly is only a reflection on those people.

Pure capitalism has no government regulation. This is why the banks went bust, that is, a lack of regulation. The US has laws to prevent monopoly abuse and it's called antitrust. MS broke that law. Unfortunately the DOJ hasn't done anything about it, whereas the EU has.


IE is free like every other browser. And most forms of capitalism are crooked by design.


Firefox is the exception to the rule. Why should the other browsers have a disadvantage to IE? This ballot is a first step towards a level playing field. And no the EU wont back down because even if IE's market share dips the ballot screen still ensures all browsers have an equal chance to succeed.

No, but they put all other browsers at a disadvantage by shipping IE as the default!

MS have unequivocally used their desktop monopoly to try and monopolize the browser market.


The key difference is MS has illegally violated competition law where Google has not.


It does if you buy it from most OEMs due to the MS tax. MS regularly uses coercion tactics against OEMs to hurt competitors.


MS has a desktop OS monopoly. This is indisputable.


The law applies to everyone, including billion dollar evil corporations. At least in the EU anyway. The US doesn't seem interested in preventing anti-competitive behaviour.

So fill me in on your definition then, oh wise one. Because anyway I look at it, it goes like this...

1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service

2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.

3. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.


Now, I can at least assume you are smart enough to understand what the above 3 share in common right? But just in case I'll point it out, in each case it's down to a single person/company/government that has EXCLUSIVE control over a specific market.

Does MS have EXCLUSIVE control of the PC market? No. Does it have the right to be the only exclusive PC OS? No. Does it have the exclusive right to be the only PC software maker and seller? No.

It's not a real monopoly. I see how you don't want to admit this simple truth, but oh well. Being the market leader makes you a virtual monopoly in that you have more push true, but the same applies to, Intel with x86 CPUs, IBM with big-tin mainframes, Google with search. and so on. Due to the shear size of their market slice they are each a "virtual monopoly" if you want to call MS one as well.

So fill me in on your definition then, oh wise one. Because anyway I look at it, it goes like this...

1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service

2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.

3. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.


Now, I can at least assume you are smart enough to understand what the above 3 share in common right? But just in case I'll point it out, in each case it's down to a single person/company/government that has EXCLUSIVE control over a specific market.

Does MS have EXCLUSIVE control of the PC market? No. Does it have the right to be the only exclusive PC OS? No. Does it have the exclusive right to be the only PC software maker and seller? No.

It's not a real monopoly. I see how you don't want to admit this simple truth, but oh well. Being the market leader makes you a virtual monopoly in that you have more push true, but the same applies to, Intel with x86 CPUs, IBM with big-tin mainframes, Google with search. and so on. Due to the shear size of their market slice they are each a "virtual monopoly" if you want to call MS one as well.

O rly?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/monopoly.htm
Ill go ahead and quote that last one. "A monopoly is when a business, usually a large corporation, is the only provider of a good or service."
Hmmmm last I checked Firefox and Chrome both had good sized market shares. This isn't like when AT&T was the only way to get phone service. Other comapnies can compete MS does not control alll aspects of the browser market.

If a user can manage to install an OS. then I'm sure they can a few lines of text then make a decision. I mean that's why we have brains right? We aren't some vacant shell unable to make decisions are why?

Nah I don't think that's right. They'll pick the one with the most recognisable brand. That includes a combination of the name and the logo. So I think IE will win out here.

I disagree with neufuse too. I bet most people will choose IE over the other potions because they are familiar with the logo and the name Microsoft as the maker of Windows.

That ballot screen could lead to many tech calls, advice, questions, doubts, etc from average users to company support or even we as geeky friends. It is an odd decision because it can set precedent for other companies to reclaim being offered as choices for their software.

Does it have a monopoly? No didn't think so...

They most certainly do in their relevant market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
I would hardly call 64% a monopoly.

You don't understand because you don't have a clue about EU competition law. The law applies to Microsoft because it has a dominant market position. Internet browsers are separate to an operating system, and thus MS has been found to be abusing its market share.

This law doesn't apply to Apple and its range of MacBooks, because Apple doesn't have a dominant market share. Sizeable, yes - but not dominant. As for iPods... headphones are part of the actual MP3 player, and thus there's no problem there. Internet browsers are different.

So all of you whining about how the EU sucks, about how all the other companies are crybabies, etc. - try to read an article explaining WHY such an outcome was reached. THEN post. But not before knowing about what you're typing about.

I'm sorry, however, I believe Apple should be held accountable to do similar stuff with their OS as well.

Microsoft had to make a ballot screen, Apple should be forced to do the same. As for linux, well its open source so they cannot really be told to do something now can they?

we both know apple is far worse than MS when it comes to business practices, in MS's place apple would probably DESTROY the pc industry

Headphones are part of an MP3 player as much as IE is a part of Windows.

They come bundled but the consumer can easily change them out for a different one.

It's the exact same principle and not a difficult concept.

The outcome was reached because Opera can't sell their product on their own merits.

They haven't even tried to sell their product, thats my largest problem with them. I've never seen any real, serious Opera marketing campaign.

They should have to prove they tried to sell their product, before they can claim Microsoft kept them out of the market.

You're sorry you disagree with the law? Maybe you should propose an amendment to the EC. Again, the law concerns companies with DOMINANT market share. Apple is not dominant in the OS market.


@C_Guy: It isn't the same as bundling headphones. An internet browser is not an inherent part of an operating system. By your logic, MS could freely bundle antivirus, a firewall (a fully-featured one), a music player, a photo organiser, an internet messaging program, a photo editor, etc. and really make it hard for competitors to compete.

You can't use an MP3 player without headphones - for your analogy to ring true, that would include Apple bundling (for free) an FM transmitter, a leather pouch, screen protector, stereo dock, etc. and making extremely difficult to compete on that basis.


How is this hard to understand? A company has around 90% market share WORLDWIDE. They begin slowly, but surely, to bundle (for free) their own products to add on top of their core product, until they supply EVERYTHING.

With people who purchase software legitimately, what proportion of that 90% will buy extra software, if everything they need has been provided for free? Not including the 10% of computer-savvy people that know what a browser even is, of course.

Microsoft seems to get targetted more than other companies because NO OTHER COMPANY ON EARTH HAS A 90% WORLDWIDE MARKET SHARE. Maybe Apple with the iPod, but they're not bundling in extra stuff to try to drive out other competitors... yet.


It is a controversial case, yes... but at least debate it on the REAL controversies. All the comments on this page are just knee-jerk reactions typed out without even thinking about the entire context or the broader implications.

Last edited by dewaaz on 07 Oct 2009 - 22:18

That's funny as they are the only browser in recent memory that required you to pay for the full version.

There is no need to speak so much at me!

It was an opinion, deal with it.

And looks where its got them, tiny market share and no real prospects for the future.

I do believe that's exactly what he did.

It's a good job you don't write the laws then.


Sign.. Apple isn't a monopoly.

Or perhaps bundling IE with an OS that has a desktop monopoly might put Opera at a wee disadvantage?

MS has kept everyone out of the browser market for years. Why do you think web standards stagnated for so long?

Isn't Opera the default browser on the Wii? That's a pretty large market.

Yet this hasn't stopped Firefox from gaining a big chunk. And in the EU i believe it's market share is even higher vs the US.

Also this hasn't stopped Chrome from coming out of nowhere and gaining more market share in 6months than Opera has had all this time.

The argument that IE in windows is a big competition changing disadvantage doesn't match with the current market numbers on the desktop at all.

Opera has been around longer than Firefox as well, yet couldn't seem to get anywhere, I wonder why?

It's more to do with competition, and because IE is installed on a Windows OS it essentially limits the competition to people who wouldn't normally know any better. I'm not saying the EU are in the right, just explaining the rationale behind it.

Also the less people using IE the better as I see it.

The MORE people using IE the better... Those other browsers crash way to much.

Because the search market is worth billions in advertising revenue, and whoever controls the browser inevitably has a greater influence on the search engines used, mail etc. So the browser market is indirectly worth billions of dollars. A lot of cash, that's why MS so stubbornly refuse to detach IE from the OS.

Given that IE has been losing market share every year for years it would seem that more and more people prefer other browsers to IE.

I don't think so, i agree with DomZ. The Less people using IE the better it is. Got anything to back that statement up [other browser crashing to much], i use all the browsers none of them have that problem when i use them.

Blablabla. IE can be uninstalled from Wondows. Go away troll.

But Google controls the search market.......

... They will go crying to the EU again, it wouldn't surprise me if they push for this in the American releases of Windows.

Uh, last I remember, the US is not part of the EU.

And no, this isn't just Opera vs Microsoft.

They probably will gain market share. In fact I imagine all browsers will compete better after this.

"Alphabetize the list of browsers so that the five most popular are listed first (by vendor), followed by the next seven most popular (also alphabetically ordered), so that 12 choices are displayed in total"

Why MS chose such a convoluted method of ordering perplexes me. Then again, if that had ordered it by the browser name, wouldn't Firefox come before IE? Perhaps they are more concerned with Firefox's popularity than any of the other browsers.

Also Chrome, which will only go from strength to strength, and I would imagine, anyone with a nervous disposition at MS would be more nervous about a (relatively) new product from Google than an established one from Mozilla.

Ahh so it does say that. My bad.

Thats why I added (by vendor) because I knew people would ask about this.
Microsoft claims to of done this by vendor, which is odd, but they did it for a marketing strategy.. as Shockz said, people look at the center first.

hahaha!

Err Safari has been around for a tad bit now. Chrome is the new player.

Uh, just how many products do you apply this "logic" to?

And IE is safe? LOL

I could see how picking what bits you want during Install mattered more back in the early 90's but do you really care if the bits for stuff like media center or media player are installed by default? You don't have to use them, and I doubt you have a small HDD so space isn't the issue.

Users want an OS that does all the basic stuff OOTB, not having to install it later or pick it from some list.

That said, in the end you're going to install the browser you want or the media player you want. When you do that, it takes over as default from any default MS apps they could have in there. So the whole argument is pointless.

Then they would have to abandon the self-advertising of offering a ballot running in IE hehe.

Find the source for that one lol, how could they possibly complain anymore? They are on the ballot, they just want to be the top browser... greed grits

It really depends on the users. I had to do a thesis for one of my classes, and one of the things I had to study was user interactions. You'd be suprised how many users click the center option first. Which in this case, you guessed it, is IE.

Haha. That's pretty clever of MS then.

I've usually found most computer n00bs tend to go for the things they have heard of, or the logos they recognise most... Again IE wins there

Fun thing: other people have tried to justify the link on the far right as well this way.

At least shockz has data though

lol, then I'd say Google has a good shot then, considering everyone recognizes their logo. Maybe Apple too if they got their name in somewhere on there, but they didn't.

And yet, if you're savvy enough to install an OS, you already know all about every one of these browsers and have no problem choosing the one you want.

People here seem to be forgetting that "n00bs" will undoubtedly buy a PC with 7 pre-installed, and the OEM will have more than likely made this choice for them already.

The IE one is the funniest. It almost makes it sound like it's the safest and most secure browser there, which of course it isn't!

It isn't acceptable. Because it clearly means IE is pre-installed and also promotes IE above all the others.

That's BS. Number one, MS should NOT be required to preinstall any software that they do not produce, therefore, the only way for them to offer alternatives is by allowing people to click on a link that opens up their browser to download the software. My god, is the EC SO against MS, that they can't even allow ONE IE opening per machine??? Once the user downloads what they want, that's it... they can turn IE off and never see it again. What's the big deal?

They're just doing this to punish MS and fatten their wallets.... I see nothing wrong with this type o setup.

How do you think Windows Update works? It looks nothing like IE, but manages to download stuff just fine.

Safari and Chrome use the same rendering engine, but Opera and Firefox use completely different engines.

The european commission successfully forced MS into making a ballot screen, what did the DOJ in the US achieve? Yep thought so.. nothing. And this was done for its citizens. Now we have real choice. It's a shame our american brothers and sisters can't share the same liberty. Let's hope the DOJ sees the virtues of this decision and takes action.

Ummm yall always had a choice, Im sorry that Europe must be to stupid to go and find browers on their own. I guess all FF, Chrome, and other browser users are in the US>

If you're talking about the web page, people CHOOSE to go to that. If you're talking about browser search engines, they all ask you which one you want to use, even Chrome does.