Mozilla execs want change to ballot screen proposal

[d_ralphie]

The reality is, you're not providing what we have asked for

Such as? Give me a specific example of something you have asked for and I have not provided please.

This thread was about Mozilla questioning the proposal for the ballot screen. The Opera thread was about Opera wanting to fair access to the Windows Update website.

Why are you only mentioning access to windowsupdate.microsoft.com? This dishonestly gives the impression that Opera asked to be distributed through Windows Update.

[Ji@nBing]

Pure quote mining. Read the rest of the Wikipedia article before pretending that it support your position.

No, they are targeting Microsoft because Microsoft violated European Competition Law.

But they are NOT being targeted for having a 90% market share. They are being targeted for abusing that dominant market share.

Also, what Symod said.

Did you read the PDF I linked you to? About Microsoft's history of abuse? Furthermore, even if Microsoft didn't do anything illegal to gain domiance with Windows, they still did something illegal by abusing that dominance to destroy the competition in a different market. That's the whole point here!

Also, what Symod said.

Are you just trying to wind people up? If not, why are you constantly misrepresenting people's arguments and ignoring what they are actually saying?

Stop foaming at the mouth.

[Syanide]

And again, not providing these facts you apparently posted. Anybody can link to any article, but you are saying blood to stone that what you are telling us, is the gods truth, 100% correct, true fact.

The reality is, you're not providing what we have asked for, you're just trying to dismiss whatever answer we give you in light of the same old droll you've beel spilling for the last couple of days. This thread was about Mozilla questioning the proposal for the ballot screen. The Opera thread was about Opera wanting to fair access to the Windows Update website. Once again, you've driven this thread off topic.

No he hasn't. The people who didn't know what monopoly is, why the ballot screen idea ever happened, why EU is doing this, why MS can't bundle IE, and not just asked it, but claimed, like Calum, without any previous knowledge or information about the issue that it is wrong are the ones who've driven the discussion off topic. He actually replied to all your people's nonsense and backed it up. Your previous post was what again? 'I've read it.' Thanks for contributing.

[d_ralphie]

Installing basic software by default in an OS should not be considered a monopoly.

It isn't. You need to educate yourself before posting. Having a dominant position is considered a monopoly. The point is that Microsoft abused its dominance in the OS market to destroy the competition in the browser market. This is illegal.

Judges may have interpreted this to be illegal, but I for one, disagree

That's because you evidently lack basic knowledge about the case.

I disagree even more with government of any kind forcing MS's hand into promoting competitors.

So what do YOU propose they do to undo Microsoft's damage to the browser market?

Maybe it's the capitalist in me

You mean Anarchist, surely? In Capitalism, there are laws to protect the free market. With no laws, there is Anarchy.

[svnO.o]

I've answered your question a few posts back, something d_ralphie was not willing to do or couldn't.

The basis for the complaint is real simple actually, namely the fact that IE has been so far behind concerning standards that every site had to hack arround the IE bugs, thereby making it harder for standard compliant browsers to render the page correctly. This and the fact that microsoft bundles IE with windows gave it an unfair advantage and broke rule b of article 82. SO the EU commision acted upon this complaint and decided that yes microsoft had abused it's position to leverage their hold of the browser market.

That answers your question?

IE8 isn't behind standards anymore. They are abiding by standards fairly well now. As for CSS3 and such, those aren't even official standards yet so Microsoft isn't obligated to implement them. Also since a lot of businesses rely on Microsoft, Microsoft can't have regular release cycles like other products do because corporations rely on MS for reliability/compatibility (which updates often break). Frequent updates/releases of software (especially browsers) would make things hell for a lot of businesses. I do agree though that previous iterations of IE had major problems with standards, but I don't see any problem now, especially with the changes that they have in store for the EU version of Windows.

[Antaris Veteran]

It's as if they read from a list of talking points, completely ignoring the facts.

And the facts are?

@Antaris: Read the thread.

I have read the thread, several times, I just want to be clear on which facts you are on about, so please, enlighten us...

@Antaris: I'm not going to waste my time on someone who completely ignores everything I post. You are just trying to change the subject.

The fact is, you haven't given any facts, you're just trying to force your opinion on others over and over again. It doesn't matter what any others are saying, you will completely ignore us and just recycle the same old arguments.

@Antaris: Oh, I get it, all the links I've been posting are obviously just nonsense. It's not like what the EU says is the reason for the antitrust case is relevant or anything, right?

And again, not providing these facts you apparently posted. Anybody can link to any article, but you are saying blood to stone that what you are telling us, is the gods truth, 100% correct, true fact.

I clearly asked for the facts you said you provided, which you havent.

Why are you only mentioning access to windowsupdate.microsoft.com? This dishonestly gives the impression that Opera asked to be distributed through Windows Update.

Where in the sentence "The Opera thread was about Opera wanting to fair access to the Windows Update website" have I said that Opera wants to be distributed through the Windows Update platform?

[d_ralphie]

IE8 isn't behind standards anymore. They are abiding by standards fairly well now.

It has certainly improved (because MS was scared of the government busting their balls again). But it is still WAY behind other browsers. And as the links I showed earlier show, Microsoft is actively trying to stall and sabotage open standards.

[Antaris Veteran]

It has certainly improved (because MS was scared of the government busting their balls again). But it is still WAY behind other browsers. And as the links I showed earlier show, Microsoft is actively trying to stall and sabotage open standards.

Microsoft actively work with the Web Standards Project, so how are they saboutaging standards?

[XerXis]

IE8 isn't behind standards anymore. They are abiding by standards fairly well now. As for CSS3 and such, those aren't even official standards yet so Microsoft isn't obligated to implement them. Also since a lot of businesses rely on Microsoft, Microsoft can't have regular release cycles like other products do because corporations rely on MS for reliability/compatibility (which updates often break). Frequent updates/releases of software (especially browsers) would make things hell for a lot of businesses. I do agree though that previous iterations of IE had major problems with standards, but I don't see any problem now, especially with the changes that they have in store for the EU version of Windows.

sure, but procedures like this always follow with somewhat of a gap ;)

[Syanide]

I clearly asked for the facts you said you provided, which you havent.

I can also quote a few words you've said and make it look bad. He has answered almost every idiotic question in this thread.

[Antaris Veteran]

^ Go ahead...

[d_ralphie]

I clearly asked for the facts you said you provided, which you havent.

So you are claiming that I haven't posted a single fact in this thread? Geez. Here's just a few examples:

- I pointed out the fact that Apple is not a legal monopoly

- The fact that Microsoft has filed antitrust complaints against Google, and vice versa (yet no one seems to be whining about that)

- The fact that Opera never asked to be distributed through Windows Update

- The fact that Opera is not in a position to demand anything from Microsoft

And so on.

Where in the sentence "The Opera thread was about Opera wanting to fair access to the Windows Update website" have I said that Opera wants to be distributed through the Windows Update platform?

The point is that you only mentioned Windows Update, and with the terrible reading comprehension skills of some people here, they will think that you were saying that Opera wanted distribution, not just access to websites.

Microsoft actively work with the Web Standards Project, so how are they saboutaging standards?

More evidence that you won't even bother to read people's comments. Read this post, which has a few links showing how Microsoft is sabotaging open standards:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=...p;pid=591462476

[Growled Member]

The basis for the complaint is real simple actually, namely the fact that IE has been so far behind concerning standards that every site had to hack arround the IE bugs, thereby making it harder for standard compliant browsers to render the page correctly. This and the fact that microsoft bundles IE with windows gave it an unfair advantage and broke rule b of article 82. SO the EU commision acted upon this complaint and decided that yes microsoft had abused it's position to leverage their hold of the browser market.

That answers your question?

It does answer mine and I appreciate the post. Got a question for you, though. From what I understand Opera's main complaint to the EU (and they apparently agree) has been that IE has held the web back because their browser is so far behind everyone else's. If MS had brought IE up to date then none of this would happened?

[toadeater]

You fail to see my point. I didn't say Microsoft don't have significant control over the operating system market, they just don't determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Hypothetical situation:

Your company is standardized on Windows. You are required to purchase a new PC. Your preferred choice is Windows XP, but MS has pulled XP from the market and demands you buy Vista for a higher price--and soon Windows 7. MS controls what OEMs can and cannot do with Windows, by extension MS controls the PC market.

Hypothetical situation:

A government contract requires that your organization use Windows Server, because Microsoft lobbyists bribed a corrupt politician or high-ranking officer in the military to sign an exclusive no-bid deal with the devil. The licensing cost of Windows Server is arbitrarily controlled by MS, even though in many cases Linux could do the same job for $0 in licensing costs. US taxpayers are extorted for the high price of Windows Server licensing for no reason other than MS's ability to influence purchasing decisions rather than because of necessity or a "genuine advantage."

Hypothetical situation:

You are a web developer that works with OS X and Linux systems and open source software. A client requires that his website runs Silverlight and a bunch of other proprietary MS mumbo jumbo and have full IE compatibility. You have no choice now but to develop on Windows, and the website will lock out Linux and OS X users. Through proprietary formats and its non-standard web browser MS controls other markets and strengthens its OS monopoly--or at least has TRIED to! Had the situation been different who knows what extortion schemes MS would have invented next? Perhaps licensing fees for Silverlight? Perhaps sabotage of HTML 5 and XML?

Hypothetical situation:

That world famous philanthropist Bill Gates wants some more good publicity so people stop saying he's a megalomaniac and a way to seize the emerging market in third world countries. He decides to "donate" Windows systems to schools, and set up Windows indoctrination programs in those schools to create a new generation of brainwashed Windows zombies. Millions of children around the world are taught through MS-designed programs to believe that Bill Gates created the internet and the PC and that MS software and services are the only "legitimate" software out there, that everything else is created by commies and freaks. Meanwhile, look at the prices MS charges for its software...

MS has no control over the market!? LOL. MS continues to be a monopoly in every sense of the word. There are no alternatives to Windows for most people at this point. This is changing, but the change is not something that MS has supported, MS has actively attempted to sabotage it. That's just business? Ok, maybe it is, but when you're a monopoly it's no longer just business. MS has been ****ing with us all for a very long time now. Things would be very, very different if MS had genuine competition.

[Antaris Veteran]

So you are claiming that I haven't posted a single fact in this thread? Geez. Here's just a few examples:

- I pointed out the fact that Apple is not a legal monopoly

- The fact that Microsoft has filed antitrust complaints against Google, and vice versa (yet no one seems to be whining about that)

- The fact that Opera never asked to be distributed through Windows Update

- The fact that Opera is not in a position to demand anything from Microsoft

And so on.

At last, thats all I wanted, I never said you didn't post facts, I said you were not providing the facts you've already posted.

The point is that you only mentioned Windows Update, and with the terrible reading comprehension skills of some people here, they will think that you were saying that Opera wanted distribution, not just access to websites.

So thats my fault because others might not read it properly. The word "website" was there for a reason. You're the one who's jumped on it.

[XerXis]

It does answer mine and I appreciate the post. Got a question for you, though. From what I understand Opera's main complaint to the EU (and they apparently agree) has been that IE has held the web back because their browser is so far behind everyone else's. If MS had brought IE up to date then none of this would happened?

more or less yes :) The truth is there has been evidence (internal mails) that microsoft deliberatly made some products in such a way that services by competitors wouldn't work on them. IE is such an example. So there has been factual and provable abuse in the past, however I really think they have improved since and are now on the right track. Therefore I do consider the ballot screen unjust as IE 8 already is a very compliant browser (not counting the support for drafts like html 5, css 3, etc). But we'll see how it turns out, either way, the competition isn't a bad thing if you compare IE8 with IE6. Without firefox, we would still be using some IE6 clone :p

MS has no control over the market!? LOL. MS continues to be a monopoly in every sense of the word. There are no alternatives to Windows for most people at this point. This is changing, but the change is not something that MS has supported, MS has actively attempted to sabotage it. That's just business? Ok, maybe it is, but when you're a monopoly it's no longer just business. MS has been ****ing with us all for a very long time now. Things would be very, very different if MS had genuine competition.

That's not a bad thing in itself. Stop saying monopoly like it's against the law and pure evil. There is now law that says you can't have a monopoly, you're not allowed to abuse it! Which is an entirely different thing altogether.

[d_ralphie]

I really think they have improved since and are now on the right track. Therefore I do consider the ballot screen unjust as IE 8 already is a very compliant browser (not counting the support for drafts like html 5, css 3, etc).

Unfortunately there is fairly recent evidence that Microsoft keeps sabotaging open standards:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=...p;pid=591462476

The fact that they are pushing Silverlight doesn't really help either.

[Chasethebase Veteran]

You see I don't understand what we have here, Microsoft can keep Internet Explorer updated through Windows Update, if it isn't selected at the start, the updates will be downloaded in the background as to not expose the user to risk when they open it once, applied to the browser in the background. The only thing that Microsoft can do to keep the EU off their tail is to not make IE default after the updates and not change anything.

Even though I did bash Opera for all their complaining, because well, they wanted the IE icon removed from the ballot which is a bit far, but this does seem a little bit reasonable because it's true, Microsoft have the ability to change IE to the default browser when they like afterwards through Windows Update which is a bit unfair. I have never noticed them do this to be honest but I've noticed Apple do this each time Safari downloads an update.

[XerXis]

Unfortunately there is fairly recent evidence that Microsoft keeps sabotaging open standards:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=...p;pid=591462476

The fact that they are pushing Silverlight doesn't really help either.

That's a rather one sided link, microsoft wasn't the only one opposing ecmascript 4 :)

[ew2x4]

It isn't. You need to educate yourself before posting. Having a dominant position is considered a monopoly. The point is that Microsoft abused its dominance in the OS market to destroy the competition in the browser market. This is illegal.

That's because you evidently lack basic knowledge about the case.

First off, I know exactly what the case is presenting, so don't talk down to me or act holier than though.

Microsoft has more than made up for it in being able to uninstall it and being able to run other browsers just as easily. They are beyond that. This isn't 1998 anymore. You can actually remove the IE icon from the desktop believe it or not! This is not about MS abusing their dominance any longer as that is long gone. It's about the smaller browsers fighting for brand recognition and it's painfully obvious this is what it comes down to. The EU's claim that "IE being installed on Windows hurts innovation and reduces customer choices" is laughable and ignorant. There are more quality browsers now than ever and innovation has never been higher with Chrome putting out new versions every couple of weeks and FF not that far behind.

As for what I would do? Who says anything needs to be done at this point? The market is correcting itself. IE is at a steady decline, and Chrome, FF, Safari, etc are all increasing in market share percentage. So please tell me why we need government intervention.

[ccoltmanm]

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.

You are not serious are you?

[Growled Member]

more or less yes :) The truth is there has been evidence (internal mails) that microsoft deliberatly made some products in such a way that services by competitors wouldn't work on them. IE is such an example. So there has been factual and provable abuse in the past, however I really think they have improved since and are now on the right track.

So Microsoft is primarily being judged by what they've done in the past and not what they are doing now? That doesn't seem fair. I will be one of the first to agree that MS has done many, many bad things but you can't hold on to that forever. It matters more what they are doing now. Has anyone ever proven that IE got a dominate position in the market just because MS bundled it with Windows?

[d_ralphie]

Even though I did bash Opera for all their complaining, because well, they wanted the IE icon removed from the ballot

Actually, all Opera did was to point out the fact that the IE icon had a huge advantage over other browsers.

So Microsoft is primarily being judged by what they've done in the past and not what they are doing now?

Nope, it's being judged for both. See the post I've linked to several times now that show Microsoft still playing games and undermining open standards.

Has anyone ever proven that IE got a dominate position in the market just because MS bundled it with Windows?

Are you really claiming that it didn't?

Microsoft has more than made up for it in being able to uninstall it and being able to run other browsers just as easily.

Nope. This shouldn't even be a requirement. It's just something you take for granted. Doing the very least they can is not good enough to restore competitionin the market.

This is not about MS abusing their dominance any longer as that is long gone.

Wrong. IE is still the dominant browser, and it's still holding back the web. Many sites still require IE!

The EU's claim that "IE being installed on Windows hurts innovation and reduces customer choices" is laughable and ignorant.

What's laughable and ignorant is to misrepresent other people's position.

There are more quality browsers now than ever and innovation has never been higher with Chrome putting out new versions every couple of weeks

So "new version" == "innovation"? Weird logic.

Who says anything needs to be done at this point?

Let Mozilla explain:

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser."

IE is at a steady decline, and Chrome, FF, Safari, etc are all increasing in market share percentage.

Actually, Safari is bundled with Mac and despite this, it fails to gain much traction. The same is the case for Chrome, which remains at a relatively low market share despite Google pushing it heavily through all channels.

[Subject Delta]

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.

MSE isn't going to be bundled with Windows, so there is nothing that McAffee, Norton or AVG can do about it. If I where them I would be worrying about improving their products right now, because MSE is a threat.

And? The point was Mac doesn't hold enough market share in the computer market to be regarded as a monopoly from a legal POV.

MS, on the other hand, does on the OS market.

Every company has a "monopoly" on their own brand, over their own line of products, but that's not what monopolies are about.

I think the general complaint is that Apple use proprietary lockdowns to tie users into their own closed platform, and couple that with anti competitive practises to stymie competition. They won't continue to fly under the radar forever though, their time will come.

The arguments of the Microsoft cheerleaders are getting increasingly self-contradictory and nonsensical. It's quite amazing what happens when you make up stuff as you go along in order to defend an indefensible position, instead of actually thinking about it before posting your opinion.

I am a huge Opera enthusiast, and even I find your posts absolutely nauseating.

Also, I have to laugh because now a lot of the trolls that where blathering on about how Mozilla where sweetness and light and how Opera are evil are going to be forced to eat humble pie, as are a lot of the opera trolls in general.

[Lechio]

They have sufficient control over the operating system market, if you want to call it 'control', but in no way to they determine the terms on which other individuals shall have access to Windows. Please inform me of how they do this?

By bundling their own software solutions with the OS. They certainly do not provide access to others, that's the main reason for the ballot screen implementation. Or do you see any other browsers being distributed with the OS?

Windows has an entire industry that evolves around it, for which Microsoft exclusively dictates the rules.

When Microsoft decides to bundle another product with the OS they make, the entire industry is affected and many companies will run out of business. I believe that this is something of easy interpretation.

Ha, so I could be seen as a troll because I realize that some companies rely on Microsoft technologies for their needs? Examples being SharePoint Intranet websites and applications developed using the .NET framework. Nowhere in my post did I say Linux was a crippled operating system and I am fully aware Linux is not a crippled operating system.

Way to jump to conclusions there, though. You've just lost absolutely any respect I may have had for you. I am actually astounded somebody would assume things like that when my post simply did not say anything of the sort. I'm utterly astounded!

Sharepoint is a perfect example of the lockdown efforts from Microsoft as it depends on IE. This can be easily replaced with other standard compliant solutions like Alfresco, that do not depend on the browser used.

The .NET framework is available in Linux too, it's called mono.

Not to mention the other advanced solutions available that can easily surpass in features and replace the .NET implementation...

I'm sorry that you feel that way and, if it is worth anything, I present my apologies to you. It was in relation to this comment of yours that I've replied that way:

If Microsoft took their operating system away, companies and home users could still use Linux or any other operating system. They may not be able to do everything they desire, but they'll certainly have access to an operating system.

Maybe you should have explained in detail what you meant and also have added that those same people and companies could do a lot more when using an OS like Linux that does not have the limitations that Windows has. Maybe this would be a more correct observation.