By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Windows 7 will not include Internet Explorer in EU markets.

Blaze on 12 June 2009

If i was part of microsoft i would up the cost of windows 7 if they dont use IE as the default claiming a loss of revenue due to loss in ads.

this isn't a debate about microsoft and about OS and browsers, this is a debate about capitalism.  I feel that if people really had a problem with the way microsoft was going they would do something about it, such as buy something else, use something else.  It is a free market and government on all levels should stay out of it.  If a company gets to big something will happen in the open market to bring them back down (EA).  As much as people would love for companys to all be fair and a fun loving play ground its not.  These companys are out there to make money and if they stop innovating, they start releasing crap, and people still continue to buy it then it is our own fault.

To tell a company that their OS can not come with only their browser would be like telling apple that they need to ship all Ipods with zune software also because too many people use Itunes.... 

Free and open market is a good one government needs to stay out.

 



Around the Network
Infamy79 on 12 June 2009
Bokal said:
DirtyP2002 said:

Halo ODST will include a free multiplayer-beta for Halo Reach. MS needs to include a multiplayer beta for 3rd parties as well according to this. :D

This is sooo stupid. I can't believe MS is not allowed to offer something for FREE. You can transfer this to a lot of other products. So a Playstation bundle with Killzone 2 is not allowed either, because the customer won't try other games/shooters. This is more or less the same thing.

No... because you can buy a PS3 without Killzone 2.

You'd better have chosen wii sports as an example.

 

Europeans will have choice of the browser they want to have on their system... what's wrong with that?
Since it's something MS was giving for free, they won't lose anything by not including it... what's wrong with that?

Everytime you'll buy a pc with windows 7 in europe, the vendor (dell, hp, asus, sony, whatever) will install a browser on it (like they install many other software), but now it will be up to the vendor to chose which browser to include, maybe it'll be IE, maybe FF, maybe Opera, maybe something else.
(It will be IE most of the time if you want my opinion, but at least, it will be a little more fair competition)

How exactly do Europeans NOT have the choice of browser they want currently?



Never argue with idiots
They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience

WereKitten on 12 June 2009
Blaze said:

If i was part of microsoft i would up the cost of windows 7 if they dont use IE as the default claiming a loss of revenue due to loss in ads.

this isn't a debate about microsoft and about OS and browsers, this is a debate about capitalism.  I feel that if people really had a problem with the way microsoft was going they would do something about it, such as buy something else, use something else.  It is a free market and government on all levels should stay out of it.  If a company gets to big something will happen in the open market to bring them back down (EA).  As much as people would love for companys to all be fair and a fun loving play ground its not.  These companys are out there to make money and if they stop innovating, they start releasing crap, and people still continue to buy it then it is our own fault.

To tell a company that their OS can not come with only their browser would be like telling apple that they need to ship all Ipods with zune software also because too many people use Itunes.... 

Free and open market is a good one government needs to stay out.

 

That's an almost religious position, based on the dogma that the market is always capable of regulating itself in a way that is best for the community that governments represent.

In actual reality though this dogma is disproven, and governments have the responsibility to control the market in the interest of the community.

Now, on the amount and kinds of intervention, we can all discuss...



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

disolitude on 12 June 2009
Infamy79 said:
Bokal said:
DirtyP2002 said:

Halo ODST will include a free multiplayer-beta for Halo Reach. MS needs to include a multiplayer beta for 3rd parties as well according to this. :D

This is sooo stupid. I can't believe MS is not allowed to offer something for FREE. You can transfer this to a lot of other products. So a Playstation bundle with Killzone 2 is not allowed either, because the customer won't try other games/shooters. This is more or less the same thing.

No... because you can buy a PS3 without Killzone 2.

You'd better have chosen wii sports as an example.

 

Europeans will have choice of the browser they want to have on their system... what's wrong with that?
Since it's something MS was giving for free, they won't lose anything by not including it... what's wrong with that?

Everytime you'll buy a pc with windows 7 in europe, the vendor (dell, hp, asus, sony, whatever) will install a browser on it (like they install many other software), but now it will be up to the vendor to chose which browser to include, maybe it'll be IE, maybe FF, maybe Opera, maybe something else.
(It will be IE most of the time if you want my opinion, but at least, it will be a little more fair competition)

How exactly do Europeans NOT have the choice of browser they want currently?

Exactly, they can download Firefox if they want.  Besides, ps3 is a different platform...like Mac osx or Linyx.

Xbox 360 can be considered a platform (like Vista) and MS can include a bundled copy of Halo with the 360 platform. You dont have to play it if you don't want..but its there.

This is so retarded...



Blaze on 12 June 2009
WereKitten said:
Blaze said:

If i was part of microsoft i would up the cost of windows 7 if they dont use IE as the default claiming a loss of revenue due to loss in ads.

this isn't a debate about microsoft and about OS and browsers, this is a debate about capitalism.  I feel that if people really had a problem with the way microsoft was going they would do something about it, such as buy something else, use something else.  It is a free market and government on all levels should stay out of it.  If a company gets to big something will happen in the open market to bring them back down (EA).  As much as people would love for companys to all be fair and a fun loving play ground its not.  These companys are out there to make money and if they stop innovating, they start releasing crap, and people still continue to buy it then it is our own fault.

To tell a company that their OS can not come with only their browser would be like telling apple that they need to ship all Ipods with zune software also because too many people use Itunes.... 

Free and open market is a good one government needs to stay out.

 

That's an almost religious position, based on the dogma that the market is always capable of regulating itself in a way that is best for the community that governments represent.

In actual reality though this dogma is disproven, and governments have the responsibility to control the market in the interest of the community.

Now, on the amount and kinds of intervention, we can all discuss...

The only intervention from the governement in the terms of business is none...  everything that has to do with government and business the government fails at... (this is from a US government view).

What do you mean by the community tho? Are we talking about the common folk or the rich or the poor or the businesses themselves?



Around the Network
Soleron on 12 June 2009

It's NOT a free market. Due to Microsoft's market power the competition find it impossible to create a product good enough to compete. Even if it's the best new OS ever, people still won't buy it because of lack of compatibility. And any attempts to make it compatible attract patent lawsuits.

Many governments (US, EU, South Korea) have ruled that MS holds a monopoly position in the market and have abused it to cut out competition. Pathetic fines haven't changed that; only radical (but brief, I'm a free-market supporter) intervention will work. Such as breakup.

Dear anti-EU people: its existence has kept Europe competitive with the US. We'd be a lot worse off without its economic union. On the political side it just needs to be more transparent and democratic.



WereKitten on 12 June 2009
Blaze said:

The only intervention from the governement in the terms of business is none...  everything that has to do with government and business the government fails at... (this is from a US government view).

What do you mean by the community tho? Are we talking about the common folk or the rich or the poor or the businesses themselves?

It doesn't really seem to me that the US government has been abstaining from direct intervention in the market due to ideological stances, lately (GM, anyone?). And even the US have such thing as anti-trust legislation.

As for the community i talked of, I said that it's the one the governments are meant to represent and defend the interests of. In the case of the US I assume it's made of all the citizens as equal.



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

NJ5 on 12 June 2009

@Soleron: Well said. A lot of people don't really understand what a free market is.

Without rules, there can't be a free market, because companies are greedy and abusive. Well, theoretically, maybe in the long run (i.e. approaching infinity), things would balance out, but reality is not a mathematical model running on a high-speed computer (or maybe it is, but that's beyond the scope of this thread).

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

dib8rman on 12 June 2009

You have to buy a mac first.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

Blaze on 12 June 2009
WereKitten said:
Blaze said:

The only intervention from the governement in the terms of business is none...  everything that has to do with government and business the government fails at... (this is from a US government view).

What do you mean by the community tho? Are we talking about the common folk or the rich or the poor or the businesses themselves?

It doesn't really seem to me that the US government has been abstaining from direct intervention in the market due to ideological stances, lately (GM, anyone?). And even the US have such thing as anti-trust legislation.

As for the community i talked of, I said that it's the one the governments are meant to represent and defend the interests of. In the case of the US I assume it's made of all the citizens as equal.

sort  of but the "community" is way to big and made of way to many views for the government to represent them all.

yeah US messed up big with GM... i mean i now own part of GM so i guess i should get a free car... or with AIG i should get free insurance since i already pay them...

So if one company has a majority then it is no longer a free market?  Is that the definition of free market?  The best part about companys being greedy and abusive is that even when a company has a strangle hold there are other companys greedy as hell trying to take it away.

How do you know people will not buy a new OS that is better then all the rest?   That to me sounds like "well we can not beat them so we might as well break them down till we can beat them."

 I guess i believe more in the power of the people then in the power of the government.. if people really (other then us tech nerds) had a problem with what microsoft did and is doing then they would have done something about it.  You can't punish people for finding success and reward people for failing... (/beginsarcasm unless your the US government /endsarcasm)