Mozilla execs want change to ballot screen proposal

[petrossa]

Maybe I know a thing or two about economics? ?

This topic is my bread and butter, far from a knee jerk reaction.

It's also an age old debating trick, the 'ah but you don't understand' ploy. Sucking the debate into your field of knowledge and thereby putting yourself in a position of superiority.

Economics have **** all to do with this. It's a simple 'you broke the law, you suffer the consequences' case.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Calum
Filtered out a word.

[Shokus]

And generalizing others is not emotional? In fact, that's worse, it's being close-minded on your part.

Facts are hard to debate here as we are discussing law. Laws are to be interpreted, which can be subjective. Even so, facts also have to be interpreted.

OT: One can say: It is a fact that the sun rises in the east. However, the sun only rises in the east as interpreted by YOU. A person in space would not distinguish between east and west and would disagree with you. So, is the statement "the sun rises in the east" a fact?

Back on topic: plenty of valid reasons are given above. One is that other applications would have to be thrown out of Windows or offered as a ballot if IE is subjected to a ballot screen. That would 1. drastically impede ease of installation. 2. make Windows a lot less value-for-money artificially. 3. allow a court system to poke its way into a private company's product and then make unnecessary demands (Straight bananas and curved cucumbers come to mind?) Those would be implications. Yet, this point was simply dismissed as "Yup, some of these apps would have to be thrown out". Of course, as that particular user is probably a Linux user who doesn't care one way or another.

Other reasons given is that a ballot screen creates further problems, such as the order of icons, whose icons are most recognizable, which browsers should qualify to be included etc. Another would be, is the law even fair to begin with? Plenty of valid points, and yet, you simply dismiss them all as emotional and unreasonable. What a way to simply blind yourself to other people's arguments.

[Treemonkeys]

It is illegal when you are dominant and bundling for the sole purpose of squeezing out competitors in alternate markets. What part of that don't you people understand?

So you start a company and you produce a product for it to sell. You make your product better and better improving your company's success.

...until...

You are now the best in your field, you are more successful than all of your competitors. Now of course, you must start downgrading your product and offer less with it, because it is illegal to do otherwise.

That is what you are saying, that is what the EU is saying. Of course I get that it is illegal, I don't really care, I don't let the government do my thinking for me.

Tell me how this is good for society, tell me how it is good for the economy, tell me how it is morally right, tell me why it is needed.

This is about people trying to get money and success they have not earned.

This is about punishing a company for offering too much bang for the buck with their product.

As far I'm concerned this is not about being pro or anti Microsoft, this is about a completely out of control government with absurd laws.

[ylcard]

It would be a sad day (for me at least) to see MS do what EU/Opera/Mozilla ask them.

Even if MS is a monopoly and they broke some "law", it's hardly the reason for all of this crapfest, it's eventually down to money, give them enough money and they'll let you break as many laws as you want, so far they've been doing it "for free" so they're all ****y now.

[Treemonkeys]

Economics have f*ck all to do with this. It's a simple 'you broke the law, you suffer the consequences' case.

Economics and morals have everything to do with it unless you are a fan of having laws in place with no reasoning behind them whatsoever.

If they made it illegal to eat would eating become wrong in your eyes?

[d_ralphie]

d_ralphie, do you agree that bundling a browser into the OS isn't against the law?

Bundling a browser in itself is not illegal. Using said bundling with a dominant product to gain dominance in a different market is.

Owning a gun isn't necessarily illegal either. Unless you have a conviction for robbery at gun point, in which case you won't be allowed to own one.

You don't have any moderation, you just slag off Microsoft at every opportunity.

Not at all. I only participate in a couple of threads where Microsoft shills are constantly spewing the same talking points, and I'm correcting their misinformation. This is the only discussion about Microsoft I'm participating in, and you know this, so you are clearly consciously lying about "at every opportunity".

This will be a very slippery slope for MS should they be stupid enough to continue bending backwards to ridiculous demands.

So it's ridiculous to abide by the law? Amazing. I had no idea there were so many Anarchists out there.

Maybe I know a thing or two about economics?

Evidently not, as is obvious from your question: "How did MS break the law by shipping an OS with a browser?"

Maybe you should really think about and question why laws certain laws are needed

To protect the free market. But this is just a red herring on your part. The laws exist, all over the world, and a company that wishes to do business in a country damn well better follow the law. If you don't like the law, workd to change it. Not by breaking it (you will only get your ass kicked), but by lobbying or getting into politics.

[petrossa]

Economics and morals have everything to do with it unless you are a fan of having laws in place with no reasoning behind them whatsoever.

If they made it illegal to eat would eating become wrong in your eyes?

In a democrazy we elect people to make our laws. We follow them. If not we suffer the consequences.

You don't like the law, vote differently but don't go breaking the law because it doesn't suit you.

[brentaal]

Economics and morals have everything to do with it unless you are a fan of having laws in place with no reasoning behind them whatsoever.

If they made it illegal to eat would eating become wrong in your eyes?

But he has a point. Markets are regulated for the well being of customers. His example of how it took a non-profit organization to compete in this particular market shows the lack of competitiveness and/or incentive for organizations that are profit-based to even bother with it due to the current monopoly.

That being said, I'm finally starting to understand his point of view (aside from the obvious "customers need more choices" and perhaps his opera fanboy agenda :p).

[O.G]

So you start a company and you produce a product for it to sell. You make your product better and better improving your company's success.

...until...

You are now the best in your field, you are more successful than all of your competitors. Now of course, you must start downgrading your product and offer less with it, because it is illegal to do otherwise.

Incorrect. If you build yourself up with one product in one market, introduce another product in another market then use the success of the first to capitize on the 2nd, then there is a very real possibility that you may be doing something illegal.

That is what you are saying, that is what the EU is saying. Of course I get that it is illegal, I don't really care, I don't let the government do my thinking for me.

No it is not what I, the EU, or anyone else in this thread with comprehension skills are saying, the exact reason has been stated over and over and over, and you still don't get it. So you admit now that what Microsoft has done is illegal, well thats something at least.

Tell me how this is good for society, tell me how it is good for the economy, tell me how it is morally right, tell me why it is needed.

How is it bad? Microsoft offer users a choice between 5 different browsers. The user gets a choice, are you really trying to say that is a bad thing?

This is about people trying to get money and success they have not earned.

And here I was thinking you were trying to defend Microsoft.

This is about punishing a company for offering too much bang for the buck with their product.

Again, you have managed to prove to us that you completely miss the point.

As far I'm concerned this is not about being pro or anti Microsoft, this is about a completely out of control government with absurd laws.

Well for some of us it really is not about being for or against Microsoft, it is about being in agreement that Microsoft like to make a habit of abusing competition laws, not just in the EU, but everywhere. An out of control government? That would be those governments who continue to allow Microsoft free reign by not upholding their own damn laws when Microsoft decide they do not apply to them.

[d_ralphie]

So you start a company and you produce a product for it to sell. You make your product better and better improving your company's success.

...until...

You are now the best in your field, you are more successful than all of your competitors. Now of course, you must start downgrading your product and offer less with it, because it is illegal to do otherwise.

That depends on the circumstances. If your actions prevent competition, then yes, you must take action to stop preventing competition. But all of this is a red herring on your part because the law actually exists today, and regardless of whether you support it ir not, Microsoft is not above the law.

Tell me how this is good for society, tell me how it is good for the economy, tell me how it is morally right, tell me why it is needed.

To protect the free market.

This is about people trying to get money and success they have not earned.

No, this is about protecting the free market.

This is about punishing a company for offering too much bang for the buck with their product.

No, this is about punishing a company for preventing competition by abusing its dominance.

Similarly, you may think that taking performance-enhancing drugs is perfectly fine, and that people who are caught shouldn't lose their gold medal. But the rules clearly state that such drugs are not allowed, so when a runner is caught, he will lose his medal. He didn't lose his medal because he is a good runner. He lose his medal because he didn't follow the rules he had to agree with in order to participate at all.

To participate in a market, you have to agree to the rules. That you don't agree with them is not a reason to ignore them. It will be your loss when your balls are busted for breaking the law.

As far I'm concerned this is not about being pro or anti Microsoft, this is about a completely out of control government with absurd laws.

Laws that are nearly universally accepted. Are you an Anarchist?

[Shokus]

Did you read the word "ridiculous" in the statement above?

Obviously, I disagree with the law, if it is interpreted as such (in this situation). I would still think that MS should abide by the final decision of the court (when it comes), but that does not mean we would agree with the decision made by the court, or the interpretation of the law made by the court, or even the law itself. I simply meant MS should stand up for itself in court, and should not have volunteered the ballot screen option. By doing so, they have done a foolish thing.

Again, branding people as "Anarchist" is simply assumption and closemindedness on your part. How is what I posted supporting anarchy?

How is it bad? Microsoft offer users a choice between 5 different browsers. The user gets a choice, are you really trying to say that is a bad thing?

And where does this end? Should notepad be offered in a ballot too? What about calc? What about paint? What about wordpad? What about everything else? Would having 200 options for users when they install Windows be a good thing? I guess for choice, yes huh? Simply put, this will not end with web browsers only, as the principle on which the law is interpreted, I believe, is flawed, and would be very much applicable to virtually everything that Windows come with. And thus, a flood of complaints would just be waiting to happen if this concludes in Opera's (and gang) favour.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Shokus

[d_ralphie]

It would be a sad day (for me at least) to see MS do what EU/Opera/Mozilla ask them.

It would be a sad day to see a company breaking the law having to face the consequences of breaking the law?

Even if MS is a monopoly and they broke some "law", it's hardly the reason for all of this crapfest

Yes it is. They broke the law. They illegally destroyed the competition. Breaking the law has consequences.

One is that other applications would have to be thrown out of Windows or offered as a ballot if IE is subjected to a ballot screen.

Not unless it can be shown that they are breaking the law. This is just a red herring on your part. And has already been discussed in this thread. Please pay attention, and read the thread before posting.

Other reasons given is that a ballot screen creates further problems, such as the order of icons, whose icons are most recognizable, which browsers should qualify to be included etc.

Then one tries to solve those problems.

Another would be, is the law even fair to begin with?

Yes it is, but it's too late to discuss that now. Microsoft broke the law. Even if the law is repelled in 10 years, Microsoft still broke it while it still existed. Regardless of your opinion of the law (which is universally accepted, by the way), it's there right now, and Microsoft is not above the law.

[splur]

GUH! Why do you people still question if bundling a browser into an OS is against the law?? It's the context that matters! Do I need to BOLD **** for you to read it? Let's skip the threads that explain the situation and continue to jump around the issue. Oh Mac bundles their browser with their OS, BOO HOO THEM. Microsoft makes a good product, so they should have a monopoly.

There's a reason these anti-competition laws are in place, because if there is a monopoly, you get ****ed up the ass. It's a fundamental of market economy and capitalist ideals. They didn't make anti-competition laws just because they wanted to **** with people. You might as well have a directed economy under Stalin himself if you don't believe in anti-competition laws. Unless you're a fan of unregulated lower quality items at higher prices.

Let me ask you this, how do you know if there is a better item on the market if there's only one item on the market?

[petrossa]

Amen. Thats all folks....

[d_ralphie]

Microsoft's monopoly is harmful.

It costs everyone craploads of money. Think about all the security holes. If there were 10 different OSes with the same market share, a single security hole wouldn't be nearly as bad as today, and people would save a lot of money and frustration because of fewer security breaches.

Same with browsers. Just one browser with, say, 80-90% market share or even just 60-70 is HARMFUL TO THE MARKET because it's a great target for malware authors. The investment is low, and you can infect most people on the internet.

So there's another reason why monopolies are actually inherently bad in many cases.

[BajiRav]

No, you miss the point. Like so many other people in this thread. Linux only exists because on the whole, people do the work for nothing. It could not survive as a commercial, for profit entity even if it wanted to. That is why the market is broken.

@Kyang

It is illegal when you are dominant and bundling for the sole purpose of squeezing out competitors in alternate markets. What part of that don't you people understand?

No, I am not missing the point. You need to educate yourself on the FSF principles on which most OSS projects work. Linux doesn't exist today because "market is broken" and only "work done for free" can compete.

Opera has been in the market (1996 going by Wikipedia) even before IE was bundled for free and still has failed to gain any major marketshare. It only shows their failure and nothing else. Firefox on the otherhand competed in even "worse market", offered features users needed, gained market share solely on merit and if I may say so is winning. It is one of the browser I like to use(IE, Firefox and Iron/Chrome).

That is as dumb as it gets and is surprisingly coming from a Mozilla rep.

Microsoft's monopoly is harmful.

It costs everyone craploads of money. Think about all the security holes. If there were 10 different OSes with the same market share, a single security hole wouldn't be nearly as bad as today, and people would save a lot of money and frustration because of fewer security breaches.

Same with browsers. Just one browser with, say, 80-90% market share or even just 60-70 is HARMFUL TO THE MARKET because it's a great target for malware authors. The investment is low, and you can infect most people on the internet.

So there's another reason why monopolies are actually inherently bad in many cases.

Bull crap. Why is EU not preventing them from selling Windows then? EU should actively work to reduce amount of licenses MS can sell there if they really cared.

[splur]

Bull crap. Why is EU not preventing them from selling Windows then? EU should actively work to reduce amount of licenses MS can sell there if they really cared.

Lol, EU doesn't care. But the small companies do.

[Kyang]

Bundling a browser in itself is not illegal. Using said bundling with a dominant product to gain dominance in a different market is.

Owning a gun isn't necessarily illegal either. Unless you have a conviction for robbery at gun point, in which case you won't be allowed to own one.

Alright. So by bundling IE with Windows, that's fine, however, MS has tried to use its dominance in the OS market to try and dominate the browser market.

Is it even possible to put IE into Windows without implicitly crowding out competitors? I understand that there needs to be choice, that MS itself presented the ballot idea, and that MS has run into trouble with the law, but advertising for competitors still strikes me as silly. Is there another way?

@Kyang

It is illegal when you are dominant and bundling for the sole purpose of squeezing out competitors in alternate markets. What part of that don't you people understand?

I was clarifying d_ralphie's position for myself. That's all. :) .

[AltecXP]

:blink: I thought even the slowest had understood that as long as Apple doesn't hold majority of desktop marketshare and abuse that position, it can bundle even iCrapper toilet seat with OS X.

That doesn't make it right. I don't CARE about majority, I just want every company to be F'd over evenly. If one company cant do it, then NO company should be allowed to do it.

Microsoft does it and then take a majority share then the force Microsoft to cripple it, but have no problem with Apple using the same practices? That is what I can unfair.

It's like forcing Babe Ruth to hit one handed because he is hitting to many home runs, it's not fair to the other players.

[Growled Member]

So if I understand correctly, Microsoft is a harmful monopoly and any new features they add that is competing with other products may be potentially harmful as well? It seems to me they might as well stop right now.

[toadeater]

So if I understand correctly, Microsoft is a harmful monopoly and any new features they add that is competing with other products may be potentially harmful as well? It seems to me they might as well stop right now.

Products that affect other markets, global security and trade, oh yes, it can be potentially harmful. Say Adobe was swallowed up by the Earth in a freak catastrophe (or was it Bill Gates' new secret weapon? (joking)) Microsoft got its way with Silverlight and 99% of internet sites ran on it, and then MS refused to port it to other platforms, what would happen then? That's precisely what briefly occurred around ~2000 when MS had a near monopoly on streaming video amongst the most popular internet sites. Remember when sites like Yahoo, CNN, ESPN, and MTV required Windows and IE? Did MS offer to support other platforms? Did those sites voluntarily offer to support other platforms? No, they tried to extort users, and they tried to silence the complaints until they had to succumb to the pressure--thanks in part to the DoJ finally busting MS for its IE scam. The BBC tried to pull the same thing again last year with its Windows-only player. Why lock out mobile users and other platforms? I suspect MS lobbying was once again behind the deal.

[d_ralphie]

Is it even possible to put IE into Windows without implicitly crowding out competitors?

Probably. If IE was standards compliant, Microsoft actively promoted open standards, and didn't use proprietary techonlogies in a conscious attempt to make sites incompatible with other browsers, they might have a case. On the other hand, being bundled with the dominant OS will always be a huge advantage, and it would probably be very difficult to do it right.

I understand that there needs to be choice, that MS itself presented the ballot idea, and that MS has run into trouble with the law, but advertising for competitors still strikes me as silly. Is there another way?

This has been analyzed since late 2007 by now. If you have any better ideas, let the EU know. I certainly don't know of any better solutions that would restore the free market.

Opera has been in the market (1996 going by Wikipedia) even before IE was bundled for free and still has failed to gain any major marketshare. It only shows their failure and nothing else.

You had to pay for Opera until about 3-4 years ago, so your history lesson here isn't quite accurate. In those 3-4 years, Opera has reached a market share of about 3% globally, and closing in on 10% in Europe. Not to shabby for a tiny and independent browser vendor which has to make its own money and can't rely on handouts, sugar-daddies, or some of the most powerful companies in the world pushing it aggressively.

Firefox on the otherhand competed in even "worse market", offered features users needed, gained market share solely on merit and if I may say so is winning. It is one of the browser I like to use(IE, Firefox and Iron/Chrome).

That is as dumb as it gets and is surprisingly coming from a Mozilla rep.

This is not surprising at all. Mozilla has clearly explained how Firefox is evidence that Microsoft destroyed the market:

"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."

Bull crap. Why is EU not preventing them from selling Windows then? EU should actively work to reduce amount of licenses MS can sell there if they really cared.

If the EU prevented them from selling Windows, you would be complaining too. You will complain regardless.

Anyway, why would they prevent Microsoft from selling Windows when there's a much more clever way to restore the free market?

[Treemonkeys]

Evidently not, as is obvious from your question: "How did MS break the law by shipping an OS with a browser?"

To protect the free market. But this is just a red herring on your part. The laws exist, all over the world, and a company that wishes to do business in a country damn well better follow the law. If you don't like the law, workd to change it. Not by breaking it (you will only get your ass kicked), but by lobbying or getting into politics.

Law has little to do with economics, and I am not familiar with EU laws.

So you are saying, to protect a free market, you must punish those who are the most successful to keep things fair. That sounds like a very controlled market to me, not at all a free one.

[d_ralphie]

So you are saying, to protect a free market, you must punish those who are the most successful to keep things fair.

No, you can be successful without breaking the law. Please stop it with this silly straw man.

That doesn't make it right. I don't CARE about majority, I just want every company to be F'd over evenly. If one company cant do it, then NO company should be allowed to do it.

They are being f'ed over evenly. The same rules apply to Microsoft that apply to all monopolies.

Microsoft does it and then take a majority share then the force Microsoft to cripple it, but have no problem with Apple using the same practices? That is what I can unfair.

Apple does not have a "majority share", therefore your comment is pointless.

It's like forcing Babe Ruth to hit one handed because he is hitting to many home runs, it's not fair to the other players.

No, this is nothing like that. This is more like Babe Ruth hitting many home runs because of illegal performance-enhancing medication. That is most certainly not fair, and would lead to an immediate expulsion.

[splur]

Law has little to do with economics, and I am not familiar with EU laws.

So you are saying, to protect a free market, you must punish those who are the most successful to keep things fair. That sounds like a very controlled market to me, not at all a free one.

You've never taken economics have you.