Mozilla execs want change to ballot screen proposal

[BajiRav]

There's a small difference between Microsoft and Adobe. Microsoft makes the OS and bundles/(connects?) everything with it.

Do you also object to Notepad, Paint, Calculator, Wordpad, Windows Explorer, WMP, Media Center, Defragment tool etc. bundled with Windows?

[Lechio]

Do you also object to Notepad, Paint, Calculator, Wordpad, Windows Explorer, WMP, Media Center, Defragment tool etc. bundled with Windows?

Obviously. There should be a way to replace/choose those at the time of install and also have those choices presented to the user in a package manager.

[Growled Member]

DrCheese - Apple are 100% abusing their monopoly by only supplying Macs with OSX, despite the fact that Macs can run Windows and Linux by itself, and they refuse to outsource production and sale of Macs to other companies. They also abuse their monopoly on the iPhone by only allowing Safari on there.

I don't think you understand what a monopoly is and how it works.

In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος alone or single + polein / πωλειν, to sell) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

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

Yes, Apple comes with only OS X but since it has only 8-9% of the marketshare, it is not considered a monopoly. Same for the iPhone. Windows is considered a monopoly since they have 88% of the marketshare.

To say that Apple has a monopoly on their computers with OS X is like saying that Dell has a monopoly on their computers since they use mostly Windows. It is not a legal definition.

[d_ralphie]

I just want to know why no ones bitching about OSX/Safari or itunes/iPod yet.

I notice that Microsoft is still handing out the same old talking points, despite all of them having been debunked a million times by now. You should get back to Redmond and tell them to update their propaganda talking points already.

Um, Microsoft made Windows and added the capability to browse the Internet with it. I still don't see whats wrong here?

What's wrong is that they broke the law.

Now if Microsoft forced Apple to include IE with OS X then I could see issues with it. Its hypocrisy that Mozilla doesn't ask the same of Apple, who also have their own branded browser, Safari.

The SAME talking point AGAIN? Seriously, Microsoft REALLY needs to update its talking points. Apple is NOT an OS monopoly FFS.

[Growled Member]

What's wrong is that they broke the law.

That may well be the law but it's a dumb law, in my opinion. Every other modern OS includes it's own browser. Microsoft should be allowed to as well.

They could still include the ballot box and list alternative choices for anyone who wanted to use them.

[Antaris Veteran]

Priceless! Wonder what the Official Neowin Microsoft Defenders Group has to say right now.

Are you just trying to troll, or what?

[d_ralphie]

So based on your idea's because Microsoft has been successful in the past we need to force them to change there business so that others which already have a decent market share can catch up?

No. It's because Microsoft broke the law. They gained dominance by breaking the law. Like an athlete taking drugs to increse his performance. Do you really think he would be allowed to keep his medal if he was busted? I can hear your whines right now:

"Oh, please don't punish the poor athlete. All he did was take illegal drugs to increase his performance. You are just jealous of his success!"

I am never using Firefox again, I'm uninstalling it right now.

Guess you'll have to uninstall Windows too. And stop using Google for search, Gmail, etc.

Oops! :D

[d_ralphie]

Are you just trying to troll, or what?

Are you just trolling in the Opera thread? You know, takes one to know one? :D

That may well be the law but it's a dumb law, in my opinion.

Which law, specifically? What does this law say? What's dumb about it?

Every other modern OS includes it's own browser. Microsoft should be allowed to as well.

Yeah, so? Did anyone say that Microsoft had to remove IE from Windows? I mean, did you actually read the article before commenting??

[Antaris Veteran]

Are you just trolling in the Opera thread? You know, takes one to know one? :D

I would love for you to point out in the Opera thread where I have been trolling....

[petrossa]

even so, they could just issue a mandatory patch via Windows Update that patches in this behaviour into the OS if the final decision takes place after Windows 7's general availability date.

Uhhhh NO.?

As is Windows 7 can not be sold in the EU. No way no how.

This issue is so old, it is like beating the dead horse once again.

I don't see why Microsoft should have to include any browser in their software.. and why stop at browsers? why not include a bunch of bloatware while we are at it. It should come with AIM, Yahoo Messenger, WLM, ICQ and more messenger clients, so you spend the first hour or so uninstalling this crap.

Funny you should mention that, i don't think Microsoft Security Essentials will be well received. If i were a MacAfee, Norton, AVG, ESET, Comodo i'd be the first to pose a plaint if they are going to bundle that.

[d_ralphie]

I would love for you to point out in the Opera thread where I have been trolling....

For example, making groundless assertions:

"Yeah, but Microsoft aren't pushing any sort of Anti-trust complaint about Google's search engine."

And not bothering to even apologize after being corrected:

"Actually, Microsoft has filed antitrust complaints against Google, e.g. when Google bought DoubleClick. But I guess "whining" is fine as long as it's Microsoft doing the "whining", eh? The double standards of some people are amazing..."

Then there's this. And straw men.

[ichi]

Since when does Windows Update or Office heavily rely on IE? Also, if the user makes a conscious decision to choose something else other then IE, does it really matter if it's on the user's HDD? He probably won't use it anyway. If the user uses Firefox, or Opera, and then says "No, thanks, I don't like this" and then switches back to IE - it means you've ****ed up, not MS.

He said "tied", not "heavily rely on". And he was talking about Office, the WU bit was about MS being able to force IE as default browser again whenever it was updated (either itself or through an update to any other program tied to it).

[dead.cell]

Are you just trolling in the Opera thread? You know, takes one to know one? :D

Good, so you're both trolling. Shut the hell up already.

On the Windows Update front, Anderson countered with an idea of Mozilla's own. "The proposal should be modified to expressly state that Microsoft cannot use Windows Update to trigger any 'Make IE the default' consideration unless the user launched IE intentionally and not just as a requirement of another process," he said, fearing that Microsoft would unfairly leverage the update service.

Anderson also questioned the download link part of the proposed ballot screen. Saying that a link was "insufficient," and citing Mozilla data that claims only about 55% of its users who click a download link actually complete the installation process, he said the link should trigger both a download of the alternate browser and its installation. He also called on the commission to make Microsoft add a launch of the browser maker's instruction page to the process.

I'm okay with this I suppose. While I disagree with ballot idea in general, if they had to make one, they might as well make one function properly. Pull the install file from the browser's site, and then proceed to install. Makes things a bit easier. Also, not being prompted about "default browser" by a window that wasn't launched by the user, sounds nice at least in terms of annoyances.

While some are fully against the ballot box altogether, please put your anger aside as it seems Microsoft will probably be creating one anyway. At least here, we have some good suggestions for the inevitable, as opposed to bitching about the IE logo.

On the preemptive, let me just clarify that this has nothing to do with "double standards". As a user, and a tech even, if Microsoft were to create a ballot box, these changes suggested by Mozilla would simplify the Windows install experience even further. The idea that was tossed around, supposedly by Opera, about software in general updating through Windows Updater just sounded ludicrous. I can't even comprehend that being anywhat of a "good idea".

Edited August 19, 2009 by dead.cell

[Tech Geek Alex]

Yeah, except OSX/Safari has never really gone above 10% market share so you can't argue that they are a monopoly and abusing their position.

But it is a monopoly if I can only get my hardware, O/S from the same place. Isnt monopoly mean that. Additionally for those who said you can now use any player with iTunes, have you tried. Try to use anything (not just a Zune) and see how it works really.

[Lechio]

Good, so you're both trolling. Shut the hell up already.

Hey dead.cell are you going to remove the Firefox, Chrome and Safari icons from your "Browsers worth trying." signature too now? :laugh:

[petrossa]

I'm okay with this I suppose. While I disagree with ballot idea in general, if they had to make one, they might as well make one function properly. Pull the install file from the browser's site, and then proceed to install. Makes things a bit easier. Also, not being prompted about "default browser" by a window that wasn't launched by the user, sounds nice at least in terms of annoyances.

From all solutions possible i guess the ballot screen is the best compromise between MS right to design their OS as they want, and still complying to the legislation.

I can't really imagine another way to comply, without going to extremes.

EU finds MS bundles IE and stifles competition.

a) get rid of a browser altogether. Not user friendly and very likely to backfire on MS.

b) a preinstallation window, where you can choose either to install IE or nothing. Not much better. No average Joe is going to say no and be without browser.

c) supply all market browsers installation packages. Unfair to MS

d) ballot box. No excessive extra design, installation gets plucked from the browsers own servers. Everyone has a fair chance to get installed by preference. Market forces will then decide which browsers survive.

Can't see how anyone could be against that?

[Circaflex]

so does apple have this same problem in EU too?

[SMELTN]

I am never using Firefox again, I'm uninstalling it right now.

Agreed. Google Chrome you are not complete yet, but here I come....

This is seriously STUPID.. I NEVER use IE, yet I still find this utter bull****.. Firefox OWNS the market, yet they still complain? Screw that.... Be gone from my pc.

I love the fact that you can be penalized for making a product that is the "majority".

[dead.cell]

Hey dead.cell are you going to remove the Firefox, Chrome and Safari icons from your "Browsers worth trying." signature too now? :laugh:

I support browsers I like, and that's not the topic of the discussion.

But if you're interested in my likes and dislikes, feel free to PM me. I'll hook you up with my cell number too, and we can make a date. :wub:

[BajiRav]

Obviously. There should be a way to replace/choose those at the time of install and also have those choices presented to the user in a package manager.

So where does it stop? The command prompt? The HAL? or the NT kernel? If someone doesn't want to use these things that come "bundled" with Windows - they might as well not use Windows?

If I start getting ballots for every single thing in Windows, I will go crazy! Launch calculator - oh you must choose between these and these. Launch WinExplorer - please choose.

That is just stupid.

[morphen]

lol, well, nice; here's my point of view on the "include the browsers on installdisk not just a download link".

browsers are outdated due to exploits the day after a new version is released (ok, overdoing it a bit). It would even be better if

no browser would be included, just download links, and you had to even download IE. maybe then people would have

updated versions of browsers on their computers. And after that; SILENT updates trough MS update (in vista/7) for all browsers.

I know, I know, silent updates are the devil :devil:, but i believe that people would be satisfied with knowing that their browser is

secure for all their online browsing needs.

I really cannot believe that their still at this topic. just really shut up.

[Antaris Veteran]

For example, making groundless assertions:

"Yeah, but Microsoft aren't pushing any sort of Anti-trust complaint about Google's search engine."

How is that trolling?

And not bothering to even apologize after being corrected:

"Actually, Microsoft has filed antitrust complaints against Google, e.g. when Google bought DoubleClick. But I guess "whining" is fine as long as it's Microsoft doing the "whining", eh? The double standards of some people are amazing..."

Well, actually you didn't correct me, as Microsoft have not lodged any antitrust case against Google's Search business, as is what I had originally stated. Also, thats not trolling either.

Then there's this.

That I'll give you, but it was inresponse to another troll.

And straw men.

...Fail much?

[ichi]

But it is a monopoly if I can only get my hardware, O/S from the same place. Isnt monopoly mean that.

That would be if Mac was the only brand of personal computers available.

[BajiRav]

@Antaris

Don't mind him. He is just some internet guy fighting for Opera as proven/shown in the other thread. Paid Opera shill or not, just ignore.

That would be if Mac was the only brand of personal computers available.

Windows is not the only general purpose OS available.

[brentaal]

Obviously. There should be a way to replace/choose those at the time of install and also have those choices presented to the user in a package manager.

Why?