link or install ?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| nikkels Jun 01, 2009 11:54 PM EDT |
regarding the last sentence in the article.
I think they should give a link only for browsers, also for Internet explorer.
They should do the same for email clients.
This could have far reaching consequences What's your take |
| gus3 Jun 02, 2009 12:07 AM EDT |
Well, a link presumes some sort of web browser... which would be M$IE the most likely pre-install candidate. The most equal solution would be a dedicated installer program that first asks the user which of IE, Seamonkey, Firefox, Opera, or Chrome the user wished to install. But then again, what about the smaller players? Flock? Dillo? Skipstone? |
| tuxchick Jun 02, 2009 12:13 AM EDT |
What I wonder is who cares about bundled software? The more the better, it's a good deal for the customer. It's the same dumb tangent the US DOJ got trapped in. The real monopoly-abuse issue is collusion with hardware vendors, and MS' control of them and the retail chain. When MS dictates netbook specs, when you're charged for a Windows license and have to fight like an obsessed badger to get your rightful refund, when you can't buy bare PCs, when DRM is forced into everything, when MS requires "We recommend Windows!" to be plastered all over the place, when even Tier 1 vendors are scared to sell anything but Windows, well duh is all I have to say about it. |
| gus3 Jun 02, 2009 12:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:What I wonder is who cares about bundled software? The more the better, it's a good deal for the customer.Sure, let's bundle lots of spyware, malware, and crapware for the customer. The more security holes, the better deal for Norton's and McAfee's subscription revenues. |
| tuxchick Jun 02, 2009 12:34 AM EDT |
Well gus, if the EU were addressing that issue that would be cool. :) But they're not, they're hung up on Web browsers. |
| gus3 Jun 02, 2009 12:54 AM EDT |
The same applies. Internet Exploder? Sure! Firefox with all the .NET holes pre-applied? You got it! Opera with the ActiveX mess that Linux deftly avoids? No problem! It's just the same general lunacy, narrowed to the browser niche. And it highlights the nonsensical nature of "the browser as an application platform". |
| bigg Jun 02, 2009 7:55 AM EDT |
> What I wonder is who cares about bundled software? The more the better, it's a good deal for the customer. The idea behind bundling IE with Windows is that anyone putting together a website can focus on just IE, knowing that everyone will already have it installed. That creates a problem for anyone trying to move to another OS because not all websites are accessible. What was really a concern for Microsoft was not only the popularity of Netscape, but the fact that developers were beginning to write to the Netscape API rather than the Windows API, and thus those applications would run on any OS with Netscape. More bundled software is good, unless the bundler happens to be a monopolist with an incentive to distort the market by bundling only its own software. Not that the OEM thing is unimportant, but I view the browser as fairly important to the DOJ's case, and perhaps even today. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 02, 2009 9:06 AM EDT |
> More bundled software is good, If I could rephrase that, I would say that more available software is good. The _less_ that gets installed by default, the more that is available by choice, the better. My old WinXP install disk, which I use to recover the wife's machine from her Internet Explorer-facilitated self destruction, Internet Explorer is a OPTION. It may be turned on by default, but it's still possible to unselect it. It still gets installed, because putting a web site into Explorer works, but at least it doesn't install the icons on the desktop. :^) |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 02, 2009 9:08 AM EDT |
Quoting:What I wonder is who cares about bundled software? The more the better, it's a good deal for the customer. Microsoft isn't bundling for the benefit of the consumer but for their own benefit. It's using one monopoly to leverage their products in a different market. And that's illegal under European law (and under US law too for that matter). If IE was just a browser and it didn't matter whether you used IE or something else (from Microsoft's perspective) then it would be no problem. It would be bundled but it would not leverage Microsoft. Unfortunately that is not true. IE is a vehicle for a whole lot of other Microsoft stuff like ActiveX, .Net, Search//MSN/Live/Bing, etcetera. Same thing for media player. It's not just a media player. It's a vehicle for their DRM system. So, Microsoft should either stop bundling (giving consumers choice) or stop using their bundled software as leverage in other markets. |
| hkwint Jun 02, 2009 11:48 AM EDT |
Quoting:The real monopoly-abuse issue is collusion with hardware vendors Nobody (meaning: No company) is going to protest this however, because Microsoft is the only one selling OS'es for general PC's to end-consumers; and the same consumers never even notice Microsoft sells them something. I'm still considering filing some complaint here because nobody else does. But based on what legal foundation? What proof? I started reading the 2004 conviction (the one with bundled WMP), but I'm only one, it's 1000 pages and refers to other documents, IANAL etc, and I need lots of info to 'fill out' a Form C. And a lot of stamps I suggest; I'm lucky to live near the Belgian border so I could file the whole thing at national rate if e-mail doesn't work. |
| tuxchick Jun 02, 2009 12:58 PM EDT |
When Microsoft PCs, netbooks, and laptops are all that are available what difference does it make what browser comes on them? |
| hkwint Jun 02, 2009 1:32 PM EDT |
It does only matter for Opera and Google. Those are the ones filing and supporting complaints. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!