^^
Apple hasn't a monopolistic share, and their OS isn't installed on almost 90% of PC's.
And AFAIK, they don't tie their browser strictly to the OS, so choosing another has no side effects.

Alby_da_Wolf said: Kasz216 said: Alby_da_Wolf said: Gnizmo said: How is consumer ignorance a fault of Microsoft on this one though? Is the message here that competition does not need to bother advertising? Should we put a Burger King sign on the door of McDonald's? Absolutely wrong analogy: you don't find McDonald's installed in your mouth and you actually have to go to it.And even if McDonald's is world leader for hamburgers, it isn't a monopolist and luckily for our arteries it's just a small minority of the wider and more important category of inexpensive food available in the world.   So.  Your problem is that you have to use internet explorer for 5 minutes to download a new browser. Not my problem, but it's also my problem having to waste time and open another browser to install MS patches. It's also my problem that the years before FF, the excessive IE share made possible to fill the net of web pages following MS modified versions of standards, so it's in my interest that this can't happen anymore. Now, if the EU makes mandatory to offer OS as optional (and providing also install discs for people not liking preinstallation) and specifying its separate price, I'll be even happier.

Really?  Cause all of my updates download without needing to open IE.

Though making it so patches can only go through their internet exploerer actually sounds like a security feature... further cementing the "vital part of the operating system." thing.

 

Also, complaing because most people wanted to use IE rather then download some shitty browser that was about equal to IE before Firefox came along isn't really a problem... so much as... well and obvious sitation?

If everyone in the world starts using cars that don't run on gas and instead decide to use cars that run on a synthetic fuel that's healthier for the enviroment... well it'll be hard for me to blame a gas station for my old car.  I'm not going to sue the makers of the new ultra popular fuel though.

Kasz216 said: Alby_da_Wolf said: Kasz216 said: Alby_da_Wolf said: Gnizmo said: How is consumer ignorance a fault of Microsoft on this one though? Is the message here that competition does not need to bother advertising? Should we put a Burger King sign on the door of McDonald's? Absolutely wrong analogy: you don't find McDonald's installed in your mouth and you actually have to go to it.And even if McDonald's is world leader for hamburgers, it isn't a monopolist and luckily for our arteries it's just a small minority of the wider and more important category of inexpensive food available in the world.   So.  Your problem is that you have to use internet explorer for 5 minutes to download a new browser. Not my problem, but it's also my problem having to waste time and open another browser to install MS patches. It's also my problem that the years before FF, the excessive IE share made possible to fill the net of web pages following MS modified versions of standards, so it's in my interest that this can't happen anymore. Now, if the EU makes mandatory to offer OS as optional (and providing also install discs for people not liking preinstallation) and specifying its separate price, I'll be even happier. Really?  Cause all of my updates download without needing to open IE. Though making it so patches can only go through their internet exploerer actually sounds like a security feature... further cementing the "vital part of the operating system." thing.   Also, complaing because most people wanted to use IE rather then download some shitty browser that was about equal to IE before Firefox came along isn't really a problem... so much as... well and obvious sitation? If everyone in the world starts using cars that don't run on gas and instead decide to use cars that run on a synthetic fuel that's healthier for the enviroment... well it'll be hard for me to blame a gas station for my old car.  I'm not going to sue the makers of the new ultra popular fuel though.

If you don't like automated patching and you want to be able to refuse some upgrades, you have to use IE. You can use another browser, but you must download the patches and apply them one at a time, without IE you lose the partially automated option.

And what you call "shitty browsers" were never as buggy as IE4, in a free market IE would have sunk with version 4 (*)

Edit: (*) as previous version basicly the old Mosaic with a few changes, but nothing special. And what computer magazines did, praising and advertising it in biased reviews when the version 4.0 they put on cover mounted CD's was unusable, it freezed the whole OS even just clicking on scrollbars, is simply shameful. Just as it's shameful how they helped Word and Office to crush its competitors, I remember those times, and Word 6, unlike Word 1 and 2, was shit, heavy, bloated shit, it deserved to be buried by Ami Pro and WordPerfect, just like Smartsuite and WordPerfect suite should have beaten, in a free market, at least some not well made versions of Office.

Alby_da_Wolf said: ^^ Apple hasn't a monopolistic share, and their OS isn't installed on almost 90% of PC's. And AFAIK, they don't tie their browser strictly to the OS, so choosing another has no side effects.

The monopolistic nature is irrelevant long term. Saying it is ok because they are less popular is nonsense. Either this was done to protect the consumer, or it was done to screw Microsoft. If it was to protect consumers then it should affect all relevant companies regardless. The iPod also has a monopolistic share. Shouldn't that face the exact same restrictions?

Further, if it is just browser integration then why the ruling? Microsoft allowing the other to access critical system updates is enough yes? So long as there is no limit on what browsers can do, then there should be no need to include other options. Yet that is not what this was about. Instead they are forced to promote the competition. None of your complaints are at all resolved by this.

Alby_da_Wolf said: Kasz216 said: Alby_da_Wolf said: Kasz216 said: Alby_da_Wolf said: Gnizmo said: How is consumer ignorance a fault of Microsoft on this one though? Is the message here that competition does not need to bother advertising? Should we put a Burger King sign on the door of McDonald's? Absolutely wrong analogy: you don't find McDonald's installed in your mouth and you actually have to go to it.And even if McDonald's is world leader for hamburgers, it isn't a monopolist and luckily for our arteries it's just a small minority of the wider and more important category of inexpensive food available in the world.   So.  Your problem is that you have to use internet explorer for 5 minutes to download a new browser. Not my problem, but it's also my problem having to waste time and open another browser to install MS patches. It's also my problem that the years before FF, the excessive IE share made possible to fill the net of web pages following MS modified versions of standards, so it's in my interest that this can't happen anymore. Now, if the EU makes mandatory to offer OS as optional (and providing also install discs for people not liking preinstallation) and specifying its separate price, I'll be even happier. Really?  Cause all of my updates download without needing to open IE. Though making it so patches can only go through their internet exploerer actually sounds like a security feature... further cementing the "vital part of the operating system." thing.   Also, complaing because most people wanted to use IE rather then download some shitty browser that was about equal to IE before Firefox came along isn't really a problem... so much as... well and obvious sitation? If everyone in the world starts using cars that don't run on gas and instead decide to use cars that run on a synthetic fuel that's healthier for the enviroment... well it'll be hard for me to blame a gas station for my old car.  I'm not going to sue the makers of the new ultra popular fuel though. If you don't like automated patching and you want to be able to refuse some upgrades, you have to use IE. You can use another browser, but you must download the patches and apply them one at a time, without IE you lose the partially automated option. And what you call "shitty browsers" were never as buggy as IE4, in a free market IE would have sunk with version 4.

In otherwords.  You CAN update your computer without IE.

It's just not as convient because it offers something the other browsers don't.

So... your entire premise is flawed.

 

 

^^
I added some things to my previous post, not in time before you replied.
About functions, it confirms my points, MS uses its power to bend web neutrality and forcing the use of its browser.

Alby_da_Wolf said: ^^ I added some things to my previous post, not in time before you replied. About functions, it confirms my points, MS uses its power to bend web neutrality and forcing the use of its browser.

Your extra points... don't really seem to show anything.  You didn't like those other browsers... or word.  So buy differnt versions?

Also, how is putting an autoupdate feature in your browser "violating net nutrality".

You said it yourself.  You can access those updates via other browsers.

You just can't do it automatically... which isn't microsofts duty to enable for any browser that may show up.  It's the makers of the browsers duty to enable such a thing... ironically likely by paying microsoft.

That's synergy, not monopoly.

Kasz216 said: Alby_da_Wolf said: ^^ I added some things to my previous post, not in time before you replied. About functions, it confirms my points, MS uses its power to bend web neutrality and forcing the use of its browser. Your extra points... don't really seem to show anything.  You didn't like those other browsers... or word.  So buy differnt versions? Also, how is putting an autoupdate feature in your browser "violating net nutrality". You said it yourself.  You can access those updates via other browsers. You just can't do it automatically... which isn't microsofts duty to enable for any browser that may show up.  It's the makers of the browsers duty to enable such a thing... ironically likely by paying microsoft. That's synergy, not monopoly.

That's been judged abuse of dominating position, so facts and EU laws and regulation seem to agree with me. And last time I got informations, the vast majority of EU MP's of almost all parties were against SW patents and in favour of megacorporations' power regulation, so MS must live with it if it wants to sell its products here. Unless, obviously, it isn't interested in our money.

And wouldn't making browser makers pay for something that benefits Windows and its safety and stability be asking a little too much?

Alby_da_Wolf said: Kasz216 said: Alby_da_Wolf said: Kasz216 said: Alby_da_Wolf said: Absolutely wrong analogy: you don't find McDonald's installed in your mouth and you actually have to go to it.And even if McDonald's is world leader for hamburgers, it isn't a monopolist and luckily for our arteries it's just a small minority of the wider and more important category of inexpensive food available in the world. So.  Your problem is that you have to use internet explorer for 5 minutes to download a new browser. Not my problem, but it's also my problem having to waste time and open another browser to install MS patches. It's also my problem that the years before FF, the excessive IE share made possible to fill the net of web pages following MS modified versions of standards, so it's in my interest that this can't happen anymore. Now, if the EU makes mandatory to offer OS as optional (and providing also install discs for people not liking preinstallation) and specifying its separate price, I'll be even happier. Really?  Cause all of my updates download without needing to open IE. Though making it so patches can only go through their internet exploerer actually sounds like a security feature... further cementing the "vital part of the operating system." thing.   Also, complaing because most people wanted to use IE rather then download some shitty browser that was about equal to IE before Firefox came along isn't really a problem... so much as... well and obvious sitation? If everyone in the world starts using cars that don't run on gas and instead decide to use cars that run on a synthetic fuel that's healthier for the enviroment... well it'll be hard for me to blame a gas station for my old car.  I'm not going to sue the makers of the new ultra popular fuel though. If you don't like automated patching and you want to be able to refuse some upgrades, you have to use IE. You can use another browser, but you must download the patches and apply them one at a time, without IE you lose the partially automated option. And what you call "shitty browsers" were never as buggy as IE4, in a free market IE would have sunk with version 4 (*) Edit: (*) as previous version basicly the old Mosaic with a few changes, but nothing special. And what computer magazines did, praising and advertising it in biased reviews when the version 4.0 they put on cover mounted CD's was unusable, it freezed the whole OS even just clicking on scrollbars, is simply shameful. Just as it's shameful how they helped Word and Office to crush its competitors, I remember those times, and Word 6, unlike Word 1 and 2, was shit, heavy, bloated shit, it deserved to be buried by Ami Pro and WordPerfect, just like Smartsuite and WordPerfect suite should have beaten, in a free market, at least some not well made versions of Office.

Not surprisingly, that's just not true. I'll state that I use IE8 by choice- I'm not going to get into the reasons, as that's just a further detraction. But I do update Windows on a regular basis- WITHOUT using IE to do so. How automated it is? Well, how automated do you want it? You CAN make it download and install without you doing anything, which is actually fine for most people. However, I like to know what is being installed. I'll tell it to go ahead and download the update, but notify me about it, and let me choose which ones to install. Is space at a premium? You can have it just tell you there are updates availiable, and choose which to even download. All of this, without ever opening an IE window.

Then we have your edit. You make an accuasation of bias based on antecodal evidence. I've been using IE since IE3, and I never had that problem with 4. Example defeats example, thus neither of us really has a point. (Though mine was admittingly, to disprove yours.) As for office, well, that's never really been bundled. You've always had to choose to purchase it seperately. If Microsoft Works had caught on (as that was heavily bundled), then an argument could be made. But Works never really took off. I guess that means that force-bundling things with Windows... really isn't as effective as people think...

dunno001 said: Alby_da_Wolf said: Kasz216 said: Alby_da_Wolf said: Kasz216 said: Alby_da_Wolf said: Absolutely wrong analogy: you don't find McDonald's installed in your mouth and you actually have to go to it.And even if McDonald's is world leader for hamburgers, it isn't a monopolist and luckily for our arteries it's just a small minority of the wider and more important category of inexpensive food available in the world. So.  Your problem is that you have to use internet explorer for 5 minutes to download a new browser. Not my problem, but it's also my problem having to waste time and open another browser to install MS patches. It's also my problem that the years before FF, the excessive IE share made possible to fill the net of web pages following MS modified versions of standards, so it's in my interest that this can't happen anymore. Now, if the EU makes mandatory to offer OS as optional (and providing also install discs for people not liking preinstallation) and specifying its separate price, I'll be even happier. Really?  Cause all of my updates download without needing to open IE. Though making it so patches can only go through their internet exploerer actually sounds like a security feature... further cementing the "vital part of the operating system." thing.   Also, complaing because most people wanted to use IE rather then download some shitty browser that was about equal to IE before Firefox came along isn't really a problem... so much as... well and obvious sitation? If everyone in the world starts using cars that don't run on gas and instead decide to use cars that run on a synthetic fuel that's healthier for the enviroment... well it'll be hard for me to blame a gas station for my old car.  I'm not going to sue the makers of the new ultra popular fuel though. If you don't like automated patching and you want to be able to refuse some upgrades, you have to use IE. You can use another browser, but you must download the patches and apply them one at a time, without IE you lose the partially automated option. And what you call "shitty browsers" were never as buggy as IE4, in a free market IE would have sunk with version 4 (*) Edit: (*) as previous version basicly the old Mosaic with a few changes, but nothing special. And what computer magazines did, praising and advertising it in biased reviews when the version 4.0 they put on cover mounted CD's was unusable, it freezed the whole OS even just clicking on scrollbars, is simply shameful. Just as it's shameful how they helped Word and Office to crush its competitors, I remember those times, and Word 6, unlike Word 1 and 2, was shit, heavy, bloated shit, it deserved to be buried by Ami Pro and WordPerfect, just like Smartsuite and WordPerfect suite should have beaten, in a free market, at least some not well made versions of Office. 1. Not surprisingly, that's just not true. I'll state that I use IE8 by choice- I'm not going to get into the reasons, as that's just a further detraction. But I do update Windows on a regular basis- WITHOUT using IE to do so. How automated it is? Well, how automated do you want it? You CAN make it download and install without you doing anything, which is actually fine for most people. However, I like to know what is being installed. I'll tell it to go ahead and download the update, but notify me about it, and let me choose which ones to install. Is space at a premium? You can have it just tell you there are updates availiable, and choose which to even download. All of this, without ever opening an IE window. 2. Then we have your edit. You make an accuasation of bias based on antecodal evidence. I've been using IE since IE3, and I never had that problem with 4. Example defeats example, thus neither of us really has a point. (Though mine was admittingly, to disprove yours.) As for office, well, that's never really been bundled. You've always had to choose to purchase it seperately. If Microsoft Works had caught on (as that was heavily bundled), then an argument could be made. But Works never really took off. I guess that means that force-bundling things with Windows... really isn't as effective as people think...

1. To avoid using IE you have to set another service running, using a browser you start SW only when needed.

2. Word 6 was universally recognized as slow, heavy and bloated and worse than Word 2, its most notable additions were frivolous effects. IE 4.0 was unusable on a lot of PC's, maybe you don't remember but with Win 9x architecture, SW and driver conflicts were more common, and the choice of integrating IE with the OS made its crash and freezes crash or freeze the OS too. Perhaps you were lucky, perhaps you just used successive subversions, 4.01 was barely acceptable, but below the competition anyway. But PC magazines flooded people with version 4.0 at launch time, and flooded them with lies too.