JerCotter7 said: So there was a case because MS gave there IE for free? That is stupid. What about notepad? I can download a better one. What about apple and safari?

Apple Safari isn't considered a monopoly by europe because Macintoshes are unpopular and hardly anybody uses them.

Europe was upset that Microsoft gave away IE for free rather then building a program into windows that also advertised competitors browsers which you can install.

 

Which, even if you do see it as a problem isn't quite the same scale as altering search data.  Search engine nuetrality is really something that should be enforced via law.

Kasz216 said: JerCotter7 said: So there was a case because MS gave there IE for free? That is stupid. What about notepad? I can download a better one. What about apple and safari? Apple Safari isn't considered a monopoly by europe because Macintoshes are unpopular and hardly anybody uses them. Europe was upset that Microsoft gave away IE for free rather then building a program into windows that also advertised competitors browsers which you can install.   Which, even if you do see it as a problem isn't quite the same scale as altering search data.  Search engine nuetrality is really something that should be enforced via law.

I don't see how giving people the choice will change anything. People who don't like IE will continue to not use it and people that rarely use computers will continue to click IE as their browser.

I also don't see altering search data to be that bad. Same kind of thing as IE but I can see why people would get more upset by it. If you had to pay for the search engine then I can see how altering it would be bad. But when it is free to use I don't see what's so bad about it.

JerCotter7 said: Kasz216 said: JerCotter7 said: So there was a case because MS gave there IE for free? That is stupid. What about notepad? I can download a better one. What about apple and safari? Apple Safari isn't considered a monopoly by europe because Macintoshes are unpopular and hardly anybody uses them. Europe was upset that Microsoft gave away IE for free rather then building a program into windows that also advertised competitors browsers which you can install.   Which, even if you do see it as a problem isn't quite the same scale as altering search data.  Search engine nuetrality is really something that should be enforced via law. I don't see how giving people the choice will change anything. People who don't like IE will continue to not use it and people that rarely use computers will continue to click IE as their browser. I also don't see altering search data to be that bad. Same kind of thing as IE but I can see why people would get more upset by it. If you had to pay for the search engine then I can see how altering it would be bad. But when it is free to use I don't see what's so bad about it.

The general hope is that instead of just going with IE that people who rarely use computers will make a random choice based on whatever name sounds best.

So instead of having a browser of decent quality that does everything they need they may get a great browser, decent browser or shitty browser based on their preference in names.

As for the search data thing... I think the problem lies largely in four areas.

One, nobody pays for search data.

Two, while nobody pays for it... it's BIG money.

Three, abusing companies aren't always going to be caught by the average consumer, because well they can alter the data that states they are altering the data.

Four, it can become a "protection" rackett.  Want your product to be high in our lists?  Well you should pay us then.

Any OS without a working Internet Browser is stupid. These anti trust cases are just Euro fat cats extorting money from US companies.

lvader said: Any OS without a working Internet Browser is stupid. These anti trust cases are just Euro fat cats extorting money from US companies.

They'll still have webbrowsers. They're just forcing Microsoft to advertise for the competition. Of course it'd be hilarious if Microsoft decided to go with the no internet explorer route.

lvader said: Any OS without a working Internet Browser is stupid. These anti trust cases are just Euro fat cats extorting money from US companies.

Tee hee. You haven't actually read any details about the browser ballot screen, why are you posting in this thread?

 

In the EU, IE is still installed by default on all computers. The first time you run it, it asks you what program you want to use. If you choose something other than IE, that program is installed and made the default browser and the IE shortcut on the taskbar is removed (IE is not even uninstalled btw, so it's still a major security hazard).

 

So now that you now that at all times there is a working browser on all windows computers I want you to apologise to the European Union on this thread

The original requirement was to provide Windows without the browser, MS have already paid millions to the EU to get to this stage.

Kasz216 said: patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: Soleron said: famousringo said: I'm glad that they're keeping an eye on Google. I think it's really important that the antitrust hounds keep an eye on Google. This. I don't think this is intentional wrongdoing (unlike the cases of Intel and Microsoft) but it's good to see they will follow up complaints even about large corporations. Hah, i'd think google did more wrong then Microsoft did by adding a web browser to windows. There recent apple spat sure shows they're not above it. Google did more wrong the Microsoft! No just no. You need a couple of links to back up your claims. If you do not have them then your talking out of you butt and it smells. Microsoft gave away it's internet browser free with windows. Googe intentionally downranked competitors... One of these helps the customer and is reasonable... the other hurts the customer and serves no benefit. What are links needed for? This is the basis of the two claims. One bitches that internet explorer comes with windows... which is a better alternative then say, having to pick a disc and install the browser, which may or may not still be your browser when you can just use IE to download whatever browser you wan... vs intentionally downranking your competitors so they can't beat you. What about that "smells'. IE bundled into windows has benefit to the consumer. What google is doing has none.

That's not a benefit. It eliminates a person's right to choose. It also eliminates the competition and gives Microsoft the control of the browser market and control of the technology. They intentionally gimped Java because they wanted to develop an alternative. Microsoft has committed a number of other  infractions that have hurt the public and their competitors.

 

patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: patjuan32 said: Kasz216 said: Soleron said: famousringo said: I'm glad that they're keeping an eye on Google. I think it's really important that the antitrust hounds keep an eye on Google. This. I don't think this is intentional wrongdoing (unlike the cases of Intel and Microsoft) but it's good to see they will follow up complaints even about large corporations. Hah, i'd think google did more wrong then Microsoft did by adding a web browser to windows. There recent apple spat sure shows they're not above it. Google did more wrong the Microsoft! No just no. You need a couple of links to back up your claims. If you do not have them then your talking out of you butt and it smells. Microsoft gave away it's internet browser free with windows. Googe intentionally downranked competitors... One of these helps the customer and is reasonable... the other hurts the customer and serves no benefit. What are links needed for? This is the basis of the two claims. One bitches that internet explorer comes with windows... which is a better alternative then say, having to pick a disc and install the browser, which may or may not still be your browser when you can just use IE to download whatever browser you wan... vs intentionally downranking your competitors so they can't beat you. What about that "smells'. IE bundled into windows has benefit to the consumer. What google is doing has none. That's not a benefit. It eliminates a person's right to choose. It also eliminates the competition and gives Microsoft the control of the browser market and control of the technology. They intentionally gimped Java because they wanted to develop an alternative. Microsoft has committed a number of other  infractions that have hurt the public and their competitors.

It eliminates peoples right to choose? How do you figure? People can download ANY internet exploerer they want to. Infact they can do so BECAUSE microsoft put IE on the computers. People before the lawsuit could use any browser they wanted... and microsoft in no way made it harder for other internet browsers to be recognized, only made it easier for people to get their internet browser. Unlike google who is hindering other people.

JerCotter7 said: Kasz216 said: JerCotter7 said: So there was a case because MS gave there IE for free? That is stupid. What about notepad? I can download a better one. What about apple and safari? Apple Safari isn't considered a monopoly by europe because Macintoshes are unpopular and hardly anybody uses them. Europe was upset that Microsoft gave away IE for free rather then building a program into windows that also advertised competitors browsers which you can install.   Which, even if you do see it as a problem isn't quite the same scale as altering search data.  Search engine nuetrality is really something that should be enforced via law. I don't see how giving people the choice will change anything. People who don't like IE will continue to not use it and people that rarely use computers will continue to click IE as their browser. I also don't see altering search data to be that bad. Same kind of thing as IE but I can see why people would get more upset by it. If you had to pay for the search engine then I can see how altering it would be bad. But when it is free to use I don't see what's so bad about it.

You are forgetting that the Internet was the new thing at the time and most consumers were not as Internet savy as they are now. Giving them a free web browser was enough. They would not bother to purchasing/downloading another one. This is why Netscape as a company went under.