Windows 7 and IE split concerns

[porchrat]

Who's choice/decision is it to release a PC with Windows on it?

Definitely not the users choice, which is not a great situation for the consumer to be in.

The browser is part of the package.

If it is just "part of the package" then that means that the browser is not a separate entity from an OS. Therefore there is no browser market or browser competition. This is clearly false because whole companies exist for the sole purpose of developing web browsers. If IE is indeed just a "part of the package" (and not a competing part of the web browser market, a separate market from the OS market) then there should be no reason why MS shouldn't include other browsers (at no real additional cost to itself) as "part of the package" to enhance the Windows experience and give the user a greater choice. In the end that is what all the lawsuits and all the fines are about, people continue to skate around that issue on this forum and instead claim that Microsoft is being unfairly persecuted.

But yes, people will always have issues because it's their worst enemy Microsoft.

I feel I once again need to point out that MS is not my worst enemy, I love XP and use it frequently. The EU isn't picking on MS because they hate MS, they're picking on it because it's behaviour is anti-competitive.

And I don't think it's using market dominance to promote it's browser.

I'm sorry, but how is MS moving it's browser with it's OS not an example of it using Windows as a means of spreading IE usage? Could you explain that a little further because IMO it is using it's OS to spread IE, which is anti-competitive.

 

[Kloofvreter]

Definitely not the users choice, which is part of the antitrust suit.

What about the agents/dealers?

If IE is indeed just a "part of the package" (and not a competing part of the web browser market, a separate market from the OS market) then there should be no reason why MS shouldn't include other browsers (at no real additional cost to itself) as "part of the package".

No, there is NO reason why M$ should include any products from any other company in their products. That would mean the other companies get free marketing and exposure, which in turn means that they actually BENEFIT from Microsoft's market dominance.

 

[Lino]

You people have a problem then don't use Windows, FFS it is as easy as that!

 

[Kloofvreter]

You people have a problem then don't use Windows, FFS it is as easy as that!

Agreed, but we are talking about *browsers* here.

 

[porchrat]

No, there is NO reason why M$ should include any products from any other company in their products. That would mean the other companies get free marketing and exposure, which in turn means that they actually BENEFIT from Microsoft's market dominance.

I agree that MS doesn't have to include any other companies product in their OS. But the point is that no entity in the browser market should benefit from Windows dominance, not even Microsoft. That is the law and it is that law that Microsoft is breaking. What the EU is saying is that Microsoft bundling IE with Windows is unfairly enhancing IE's ability to compete. No other browser can come pre-loaded as the default browser for Windows, even if they offer their browser to Microsoft for free, thus IE has an unfair advantage. Is it really that difficult to understand?

 

[Kloofvreter]

I agree that MS doesn't have to include any other companies product in their OS. But the point is that no entity in the browser market should benefit from Windows dominance, not even Microsoft. That is the law and it is that law that Microsoft is breaking. What the EU is saying is that Microsoft bundling IE with Windows is unfairly enhancing IE's ability to compete. No other browser can come pre-loaded as the default browser for Windows, even if they offer their browser to Microsoft for free, thus IE has an unfair advantage. Is it really that difficult to understand?

How did Microsoft become the market leader? I mean, Unix was there for ages, and only now they are starting to get somewhere, even though it's a FREE product. Next thing you hear a company releases a calculator tool and demands Microsoft should remove it from Windows because of an unfair advantage? BS.

 

[porchrat]

How did Microsoft become the market leader? I mean, Unix was there for ages, and only now they are starting to get somewhere, even though it's a FREE product. Next thing you hear a company releases a calculator tool and demands Microsoft should remove it from Windows because of an unfair advantage? BS.

Well if there is a market created for calculators then perhaps they should. However there has never been a market for calculators as OSes have pretty much always come with some sort of calculator function, whereas there has always been a browser market. From the beginning browsers were created by companies separate from OSes and Microsoft tried to destroy that by bundling IE with Windows (maybe intentionally, maybe not, but that is a topic for another thread). That is where this whole mess springs from.

I never said it makes sense, I just said that what Microsoft is doing breaks the law, no one ever said the law makes sense. These laws are there to stop one company from owning the whole world though so I think they have to be there and they have to be enforced, think of the boost a move that removes IE or forces MS to give users a choice between browsers will give to companies like Mozilla! In fact just the fact that a move like this WILL give a boost to companies like Mozilla shows that IE is artificially advantaged by being included in Windows and, as I've said before, that is the problem that the EU has with Microsoft, and is the reason for all the lawsuits.

AFAIK UNIX and it's derivatives are still leaders in the server market. But UNIX, Linux and the rest are all still IMO too difficult for the average computer user ot use properly. Ubuntu is not too bad, but you still run into problems ever now and then that would leave the average user banging his/her head against the desk in frustration.

 

[Kloofvreter]

I never said it makes sense, I just said that what Microsoft is doing breaks the law, no one ever said the law makes sense. These laws are there to stop one company from owning the whole world though so I think they have to be there and they have to be enforced, think of the boost a move that removes IE or forces MS to give users a choice between browsers will give to companies like Mozilla! In fact just the fact that a move like this WILL give a boost to companies like Mozilla shows that IE is artificially advantaged by being included in Windows and, as I've said before, that is the problem that the EU has with Microsoft, and is the reason for all the lawsuits.

It is unfair that Microsoft should be responsible for this boost such a move will give 'rivals'. If Ubuntu or any other flavour in Linux eventually becomes the desktop standard, FF will have this unfair advantage.

 

[porchrat]

...If Ubuntu or any other flavour in Linux eventually becomes the desktop standard, FF will have this unfair advantage.

I agree 100%, and at that point Canonical will face the same problem that Microsoft faces now. Or at least they should in an ideal world. Then again I don't think Canonical will have nearly the same problem with offering either all of the browsers or none of them because even if none comes pre-loaded you can always get a browser through the repository. Although it may become a problem when one considers whether or not the thing is open-source and how that affects licensing agreements as it has always been Canonical's policy to ship Ubuntu without any proprietary stuff on it, but again that could be solved by letting the user know up front with a dialog box that says there is no browser installed due to legal reasons and that they are free to select a browser from the repository to install at their leisure.

It is unfair that Microsoft should be responsible for this boost such a move will give 'rivals'. ...

If you agree that there is in fact a web browser market (and I belive you do because you use words like "rivals"), then surely all entities within that market must compete on a even footing. If IE is bundled with Windows then that is clearly not the case, therefore the EU needed to step in.

It isn't that Microsoft is responsible for the boost, just that Windows cannot be used as a means to give a competitive advantage to any player in the web browser market, products should be allowed to compete fairly on a number of fronts for example price and quality, but they shouldn't be boosted because they happen to be developed by a company that makes the worlds dominant OS.

 

[Kloofvreter]

If you agree that there is in fact a web browser market (and I belive you do because you use words like "rivals"), then surely all entities within that market must compete on a even footing. If IE is bundled with Windows then that is clearly not the case, therefore the EU needed to step in.

It isn't that Microsoft is responsible for the boost, just that Windows cannot be used as a means to give a competitive advantage to any player in the web browser market, products should be allowed to compete fairly on a number of fronts for example price and quality, but they shouldn't be boosted because they happen to be developed by a company that makes the worlds dominant OS.

This is hardly a 'market'. What do they stand to gain from their browsers? AFAIK they are all for free. Soon all program writers are going to start arguing that his program is better, but less exposed and blame someone for it.

 

[porchrat]

This is hardly a 'market'. What do they stand to gain from their browsers? AFAIK they are all for free. Soon all program writers are going to start arguing that his program is better, but less exposed and blame someone for it.

It is most definitely a market. I don't think people realise how much money is being made by institutions like the Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation itself may be a non-profit oragnisation, but the people that work there get paid salaries just like anyone else.

They aren't selling the browser to users they are selling it's usage to search engines. For example if you look at Mozilla's financial statements in 2006 the Mozilla Foundation received $66.8 million in revenues (that number grows each year) and of that a total of $61.5 million is "search royalties". Ever wondered why the default homepage of Mozilla Firefox is a Google page?

Well turns out that when you do a Google search the Mozilla foundations gets royalties from Google, this contract with Google expires in 2011, but until then the Mozilla Foundation is chugging along pretty nicely. Not bad for a company that exists to supply something to people in something that is hardly a market.

Also keep in mind that because the Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organisation all that money is tax-free.

The part that gets taxed is the Mozilla Corporation and its net income in 2006 was $47,064,657, I wouldn't mind a piece of that.

 

[Kloofvreter]

Well turns out that when you do a Google search the Mozilla foundations gets royalties from Google, this contract with Google expires in 2011, but until then the Mozilla Foundation is chugging along pretty nicely. Not bad for a company that exists to supply something to people in something that is hardly a market.
Also keep in mind that because the Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organisation all that money is tax-free.

So that means they are just getting greedy No, I see your point, but it is still my opinion that Microsoft is not in the wrong here. They released a successful OS, and with it a free browser. It became the market dominating OS because of it being distributed with PCs. But I'm sure an agent/dealer can decide he wants to sell PCs with Linux or something else on it?

 

[porchrat]

So that means they are just getting greedy No, I see your point, but it is still my opinion that Microsoft is not in the wrong here. They released a successful OS, and with it a free browser. It became the market dominating OS because of it being distributed with PCs. But I'm sure an agent/dealer can decide he wants to sell PCs with Linux or something else on it?

They can choose whether or not to sell a machine with Windows on it, but the OEMs pay Microsoft for Window's licenses on a per-CPU basis, so regardless of whether or not they ship that machine with Linux or something else they still pay for a Windows license for that CPU (although it actually ends up cheaper for the OEM, and hence the consumer, to do it that way because they sell so few machines without Windows that it would be more expensive to audit how many copies of Windows they had shipped each month than to just pay for a copy of Windows for each machine).

I really wish there were an easy way to solve this, removing IE is not the best solution. Hopefully some sort of agreement will be reached, I would really like to see some sort of repository setup where a user could get the browser they choose in a fair and even way. I really believe that even if users were given a straight choice between all the browsers available up front when they first booted Windows and were asked which one they would like to use, a fair portion of users would still pick IE. I really don't know what Microsoft is so afraid of. There will always be users that will use IE because it is Microsoft's product and they trust Microsoft products to be stable and easy to use (which for everyday use they are, more so than other OSes etc. IMO).

All the profits from the Mozilla Corporation go straight back into the company to further development of Thunderbird and Firefox. The Mozilla Foundation owns all the intellectual property etc. and it has no stock options etc. meaning that Mozilla will always remain independant and won't be bought out by other private companies. Having said that I do think that the Mozilla Foundation portrays an image that they are the underdogs and are struggling, when really they aren't so in a way it is like a con game going on there .

 

[Kloofvreter]

They can choose whether or not to sell a machine with Windows on it, but the OEMs pay Microsoft for Window's licenses on a per-CPU basis, so regardless of whether or not they ship that machine with Linux or something else they still pay for a Windows license (although it actually ends up cheaper for the OEM, and hence the consumer, to do it that way because they sell so few machines without Windows that it would be more expensive to audit how many copies of Windows they had shipped each month than to just pay for a copy of Windows for each machine).

So it's the OEMs' fault that Microsoft is the market leader in OSs'?

 

[apogeeza]

Who's choice/decision is it to release a PC with Windows on it? And I don't think it's using market dominance to promote it's browser. The browser is part of the package. But yes, people will always have issues because it's their worst enemy Microsoft.

I certainly was not given a choice: Oh, you want a Dell do you, well this hardware REQUIRES a Vista installation (pay up dude, I don't care that you want Linux, pay me first)... oh, and if you rollback to XP or any other OS you void your hardware warranty ... have a nice freeking day.

 

[apogeeza]

How did Microsoft become the market leader? I mean, Unix was there for ages, and only now they are starting to get somewhere, even though it's a FREE product. Next thing you hear a company releases a calculator tool and demands Microsoft should remove it from Windows because of an unfair advantage? BS.

calculators, spellcheckers, ... you're missing the importance of what a browser is...

A browser is middleware, and THAT's why MS are so sch!tt scared of Google and rate Google as their biggest competitor (long before Google even had an OS or a browser on the market.) Infact MS hate all other browsers because of this.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=2873815#post2873815

 

[apogeeza]

So it's the OEMs' fault that Microsoft is the market leader in OSs'?

No, it's the OEM's fault for buckling to MS pressure and denying end-user choice.

So running dellideastorm.com was a total waste of time and money and all contributions were raped and/or discarded... just a PR slap in the face to end consumers.

 

[apogeeza]

Unix was there for ages, and only now they are starting to get somewhere, even though it's a FREE product.

Unix has never been free.

Gnu/Linux on the other hand ...

 

[Kloofvreter]

I certainly was not given a choice: Oh, you want a Dell do you, well this hardware REQUIRES a Vista installation (pay up dude, I don't care that you want Linux, pay me first)... oh, and if you rollback to XP or any other OS you void your hardware warranty ... have a nice freeking day.

Then you can blame the OEM manufacturers for Microsoft's 'popularity'?

Find every way to put the blame back to Microsoft.

 

[porchrat]

Then you can blame the OEM manufacturers for Microsoft's 'popularity'?

Find every way to put the blame back to Microsoft.

Realistically I think that the OEMs are just victims of circumstance. Although lets be honest, if you are going to sell an OS on a new machine it may as well be Windows because it is easy to use for the average computer user and there is a support infrastructure that can eb relied upon for the average user (or at least I'm lead to believe this, I have never used the Microsoft support system so I wouldn't really know how helpful they are). However I really want to return to the days where OSes did not ship on machines and you had to go and buy them in the store. This way the OEM could still ensure the consumer that the OS runs on the hardware (because it would've been tested on a machine running the same setup) and there will never again be a situation where the consumer has to pay for an OS that they don't want.

Then again if you do that then when Granny Smith goes to Incredible Connection to buy her copy of Windows7 Home Edition she will be conned by the salesman into believing she needs Windows7 Ultimate 64bit with the chrome spinners. Not that that can't happen with OSes shipped on OEM machines mind you, because we don't really have a choice of versions of the OS either. *shrugs*