Mozilla execs want change to ballot screen proposal

[shakey]

I know you aren't going to boycott anyone. I was pointing out to the boycott whiners that either they practice what they preach consistently, or they are hypocrites and liars.

As for being on Microsoft's side, they are continuing their abuse even today. So that doesn't sound very rational.

Ralphie, agian, whats your age and have you ever tried to run your own business? Don't dodge questions that can help us gain insight into your biased hatred to Microsoft.

This isn't about any antitrust case, this is about this one specifically. Must we keep telling you to actually read our post?????

The biggest hypocrite of them all would be the one saying , " its the law you have to follow it." Knowing full well that you break many laws day in and day out, that you probably aren't even aware of. You either follow what you preach, or be called a hypocrite.

We are saying that this single ruling is unfair. Not every other antirust case, only this one.

[ew2x4]

I'll just refer to Mozilla's point again:

"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."

So this is how the game is played? If we keep saying this over and over will it come true?

No one said that either. That wasn't my point. How about trying to actually comprehend what people are writing?

Just like you are taking the new releases statement out of context. Get over yourself and stop being a hypocrite about little crap like this.

On the contrary, Microsoft consciously made IE incompatible, and the only way to do many things in IE was to rely on proprietary Microsoft technologies.

I even said they should adhere to standards. To claim you can't do everything you want in all browsers is a joke.

Yay, quote mining. Just like Creationists. How about reading the full context?

Did you even read your own link?

The Commission is concerned that through the tying, Microsoft shields Internet Explorer from head to head competition with other browsers which is detrimental to the pace of product innovation and to the quality of products which consumers ultimately obtain.

How is this any different?

It's just crazy talk to claim that all new versions of anything result in innovation.

When did I say this? I never said new versions result in innovation. Innovation results in new versions. I even gave a very recent example which you conveniently ignored.

Reading comprehension problems? He was referring to other browsers than Firefox. That was the whole point. That it took a non-profit organization relying on donations and free labor to make a dent shows just how broken the market is.

Broken can also mean oversaturated. When you have 10 no name browsers fighting, you will need something big to push yours through the mud.

No half credible source puts Chrome at 7%. 3% at best, and that is after a full year of constantly bombarding Google sites and millions of sites around the web with Chrome ads.

The only source I could find even close to 7% was W3Schools at 6.5%, but those stats are for that single site alone, a site that isn't representative of anything but itself. It's a small specialist site, and is irrelevant when talking about overall market share.

Less than 3% is extremely low for a product being pushed this heavily by one of the most powerful companies on the internet.

This is just dishonest of you. As I pointed out, Chrome is being listed with a maximum of 3%, mostly well below that.

Dishonest? I saw numbers some big sites were getting. So sue me if it's wrong. It's not like I'm trying to make stuff up. The fact that IE's market share drops 10% and nobody picks up the slack dramatically only means that it's oversaturated. A point I've consistently been making. So do you seriously think forcing MS to promote other browsers is the most fair way to go about this? The market has proven IE's share numbers are going down dramatically. Do you really believe it's MS's fault nobody can take that 10%+ a year and run with it? IE's influence is shrinking rapidly and there's no denying that. If that is really the problem, there should be no debate here. Leave it alone and let the weakest browsers die out so the mid range browsers can gain market share in a completely over saturated market.

[d_ralphie]

I am not as anti-microsoft as you are

So anyone who criticizes Microsoft and explains how Microsoft's abuse continues to this day is "anti-Microsoft"? Wow.

Ralphie, agian, whats your age and have you ever tried to run your own business? Don't dodge questions that can help us gain insight into your biased hatred to Microsoft.

The only one displaying hatred here is you. You are evidently unable to come up with a proper argument, so you start reflecting your own hatred onto other people.

Yes, I do run my own business.

But guess what, I asked you a question which you failed to answer: What law are you referring to and how is it "stupid", exactly?

This isn't about any antitrust case, this is about this one specifically. Must we keep telling you to actually read our post?????

Which post are you referring to, and how is what you are writing here relevant?

The biggest hypocrite of them all would be the one saying , " its the law you have to follow it." Knowing full well that you break many laws day in and day out, that you probably aren't even aware of. You either follow what you preach, or be called a hypocrite.

I strive to be a law-abiding citizen. You apparently think Microsoft should be above the law just because you don't give a damn about the law, and break the law all the time. Sorry, but that isn't how the world works. Microsoft broke the law, and must now face the consequences.

It's amazing how you are desperately trying to call ME a hypocrite just because I exposed YOUR hypocrisy.

Or are you going to boycott Mozilla, Google and Microsoft too?

We are saying that this single ruling is unfair.

And you have failed to demonstrate this. In fact, all you have demonstrated is your lack of knowledge.

[Growled Member]

Ralphie, agian, whats your age and have you ever tried to run your own business? Don't dodge questions that can help us gain insight into your biased hatred to Microsoft.

I don't know if you've noticed it or not, but I'm ignoring Ralphie. I'd advise you to do the same. He speaks with forked tongue.

[d_ralphie]

Growled is evidently unable to defend his own contradictions and hypocrisy.

So this is how the game is played? If we keep saying this over and over will it come true?

I'm repeating it because you simply ignored it the last time, and repeated something which the quote had already refuted.

I even said they should adhere to standards. To claim you can't do everything you want in all browsers is a joke.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? I replied to this and pointed out that the web designers often had no choice due to Microsoft's lock in strategy:

"the sites that require IE, that's because of lazy web designers. Not Microsoft"

Did you even read your own link?

You evidently didn't because you left out this:

"In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers."

I never said new versions result in innovation. Innovation results in new versions.

So what is your point? Because Chrome gets a new version number all the time, it must be innovating?

Broken can also mean oversaturated. When you have 10 no name browsers fighting, you will need something big to push yours through the mud.

Broken does NOT mean "oversaturated". But what does this have to do with your misunderstanding of what Mozilla said, and my correction of your misunderstanding?

What do you mean by "you will need something big"?

Dishonest? I saw numbers some big sites were getting.

What big sites?

The fact that IE's market share drops 10% and nobody picks up the slack dramatically only means that it's oversaturated.

Huh? Are saying that there are too many browsers? And hasn't Firefox "picked up the slack"?

So do you seriously think forcing MS to promote other browsers is the most fair way to go about this?

Yes.

The market has proven IE's share numbers are going down dramatically.

Yeah, because of Firefox, which is evidence of how broken the market is, as I have already pointed out.

Leave it alone and let the weakest browsers die out so the mid range browsers can gain market share in a completely over saturated market.

The more browsers, the better. If there were 20 browsers with 5% market share each, all browsers would be forced to be standards compliant, and sites would be forced to use standards compliant code. Everyone wins.

[shakey]

I don't know if you've noticed it or not, but I'm ignoring Ralphie. I'd advise you to do the same. He speaks with forked tongue.

exactly, ralphie, just like maz, is on my perm ignore list. He does not think, only trolls. He has yet to answer any question, and the ones he does, he does it in a way that is so obscure it could be taken anyway, except the right way.

[d_ralphie]

He has yet to answer any question

:rolleyes:

Nice way to get away from the fact that you couldn't answer this simple question:

What law are you referring to and how is it "stupid", exactly?

[petrossa]

Well having waded through all this thread (phew), being no MS hater or lover, using 3 different browsers for different purposes i can only say:

d_ralphie is the most evenhanded, factual poster here. All i see as 'arguments' against his (granted somewhat over enthousiastic) posts is ad hominem's larded with ignorance and preconceit.

I declare him overall winner. Well done, d_ralphie but try to be less emotional :beer:

[DigitalE]

This is so childish.

Microsoft makes the operating system, they should have the choice of what to put in it.

[Shadrack]

Absolutely ridiculous. If I made a browser, I would be ashamed to have it on such a screen. If I were Mozilla, I would ask that Firefox get pulled. Any self-respecting maker of a Web Browser would not resort to such ridiculously low tactics to get their browser used by more people. Absolutely shameful.

Microsoft made the OS. Users can download and install whatever the hell they want.

[rob.derosa]

Yeah, because of Firefox, which is evidence of how broken the market is, as I have already pointed out.

I don't understand how Firefox is evidence of how the market is broken? There is no market for paid-for browsers anymore, what MS did (right or wrong) changed that for good. I am personally glad I don't have to pay extra to access the internet. The current market which they are all competing is for free browsers, and competition seems to be just fine.

[iamwhoiam]

"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:

An anti-trust complain was filed for the purchase of the company, not the search engine.

"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..."

If Microsoft had purchased DoubleClick, you'd be the one whining that they broke the law yet again. They way I see it, if any other company does anything questionable, you bend over backwards to service defend them and take on some holier-than-thou attitude. If it's Microsoft doing anything, you're ready and willing to crucify them. When you posted those replies to the above quotes, you really should have had an idea of what you were talking about. Again, the anti-trust complaint was filed against Google because the purchase of DoubleClick made Google a monopoly in the search field. Not the engine.

[iamwhoiam]

Also, regarding the logo, Mozilla had similar complaints. And all Opera did was to point out that the blue E has a huge advantage over the other ones, so that is something that should be taken into consideration.

Well the "big blue E" sure didn't stop another browser from taking the market share, now did it?

[ilovetech]

Well the "big blue E" sure didn't stop another browser from taking the market share, now did it?

Exactly!. ms made windows & ie & its their right how they wanna bundle it.

[petrossa]

Exactly!. ms made windows & ie & its their right how they wanna bundle it.

No it isn't. If it was they would never ever have given up the golden gate of IE as sole bundled browser. The sole fact that they comply means that they stand to lose more then they can gain of they persist.

QED

[resol612]

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.

re-read your post, because Apple has "sufficient control" over Macs (the "particular product or service") to "determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it"

definitions don't work here, it's just either Opera Dies or Microsoft Dies

On topic: Downloading and installing is good, but most users are just going to click "ask me later" or something at the bottom and still continue to use the bundled IE. Big difference.

[Syanide]

Well having waded through all this thread (phew), being no MS hater or lover, using 3 different browsers for different purposes i can only say:

d_ralphie is the most evenhanded, factual poster here. All i see as 'arguments' against his (granted somewhat over enthousiastic) posts is ad hominem's larded with ignorance and preconceit.

I declare him overall winner. Well done, d_ralphie but try to be less emotional :beer:

+100

[-KJ]

Well having waded through all this thread (phew), being no MS hater or lover, using 3 different browsers for different purposes i can only say:

d_ralphie is the most evenhanded, factual poster here. All i see as 'arguments' against his (granted somewhat over enthousiastic) posts is ad hominem's larded with ignorance and preconceit.

I declare him overall winner. Well done, d_ralphie but try to be less emotional :beer:

Agreed. Instead of replying with something to back up their statements, they add him to the ignore list. Hah.

[lamminium]

I really didn't read the whole thread or the other one about Opera. I was never into Opera and I am now happy with Firefox.

I am only curious: has anyone posted in Opera and Mozilla forums?

Personally I don't think this is something worth arguing about. However, I did note a few fair points:

- Microsoft should not be responsible for maintaining updates for competing browsers, unless of course they receive some sort of financial support from the respective vendors. It's just sensible. You don't maintain a competitor's product with your own cost unless there's something to gain from it.

- The order, presentation of the browsers and their icons will forever be in dispute. For example, if I, as a novice user, see the ballot screen, the first browser in the order (be it horizontal or vertical) will be my pick. Of course I can go back to try another one if I don't like the first one. But what's the chance? I mean Firefox 3.5 totally hooked me the first time I got it. Some like Opera for its speed. I can't see a winner here. =/

- However, seeing that Mozilla is a non-profit organisation, demanding financial contribution from them just doesn't make sense, either. Therefore, I'd say the best way to go is let the vendors handle the updates like they're doing now. Any request for Microsoft to take care of the updates for non-IE products is just weird (refer to point 1).

Chill, guys. :D

[PL_ Veteran]

re-read your post, because Apple has "sufficient control" over Macs (the "particular product or service") to "determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it"

Please tell me you didn't just try and argue that Apple has a monopoly on the Mac market. Please tell me that isn't what you meant to say.

[rob.derosa]

I wonder if IE/Windows drops below 40% will they be allowed to stop bundling?

[SMELTN]

Please tell me you didn't just try and argue that Apple has a monopoly on the Mac market. Please tell me that isn't what you meant to say.

I was about to say the same thing... lmao

But on with this, I see A LOT of people posting about the OS's. You can not call Microsoft a monopoly because they own 90% of the OS market. PEOPLE made that choice, we purchased it because its a better product. That has nothing to do with a web browser.

Its like the Super bowl, more people watch that than any other sporting event, so every company out there wants a commercial on it.. But you know what, they pay out the a$$ to have that commercial shown. Microsoft should be able to do this with Windows. You want me to put your product on Windows update? You want me to have a pop up saying here are your choices for web browsing you choose which one you want? Then fine, pay for it... end of story.

[BajiRav]

Agreed. Instead of replying with something to back up their statements, they add him to the ignore list. Hah.

Yea, people including me, tried posting replies with sufficient proof to back up/ valid arguments. But he responds back with big bold text and same propaganda statements that many times don't apply in this context. It's like talking to a wall. Mr. petrossa is no better, so no wonder he agrees with him.

[ichi]

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.

Which could be a point against their practices regarding iTunes, but Macs?

Pretty much every proprietary vendor uses proprietary lockdowns as much as they can, which sucks but it's not illegal per se. Now if you hold a monopoly, that could change.

[Shokus]

Thankfully, reading through this entire thread, most sane people that I tend to respect have been quite unanimous that this ballot issue is getting pretty ridiculous, and I agree with them in this situation. Personally, I think MS should simply be made to offer an option for users to completely remove IE from their system should they wish to, and that's about it.

A ballot screen would simply open a pandora box of further complaints and MS is rather stupid to agree to it.

Firstly, who should determine the order of browsers displayed? The European Commission? Does the EC now have its fingers inside a private corporation's product?

Secondly, what about the rest of the programs that Windows come with? Calc? Wordpad? Paint (Adobe anyone?), Windows Explorer? Command Prompt? Should all Windows users now be forced to go through 200 ballot screens before they can finally install Windows? And to think that it wasn't long ago that the time taken to install Windows decreased to the 15mins currently. Some say "No! Windows is fine if it's a successful product, but it must have a ballot screen to be fair!" Inwardly, they are secretly smirking at Windows users anticipating the day they will be put through the 200 ballot screens, and then laughing maniacally, claiming their OS of choice is "superior" in terms of ease of installation.

As to this current topic, my respect for Mozilla has dipped somewhat, now that they are jumping on the bandwagon in sticking their hands into the (Microsoft and EC's) cookie jar, but as Frank Fontaine said, I'm not about to boycott any company simply for this. Firefox is still my current browser of choice, simply because I enjoy what it offers.