The only thing idiotic here is the Ken Hess article
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Nov 06, 2012 3:58 PM EDT |
Ken Hess is all bent out of shape that the European Commission insisted that Microsoft include a browser choice. Anyone remember the DOJ suit in the U.S. against Microsoft? That was about browser bundling, too. In each case Microsoft signed an agreement. In each case they broke that agreement. The European Commission, whose legitimacy Mr. Writer-of-drivel questions without explanation, doesn't like an anticompetitive monopoly or, indeed, anyone else, ignoring their rulings. Imagine that! So, Mr. Hess wants MS to tell the EC to "kiss off". He calls the EC "box of rocks" dumb. Well... if you ask me the only thing that is idiotic or dumb is this article. The EU,. much like the U.S., has laws to basically prevent a de facto monopoly and to preserve competition and a free market. Hate to say it, Mr. Hess, but such laws are there for a reason and there is plenty of history to show why they are necessary. Ever hear of Standard Oil, Mr. Hess? Look that one up. |
| jdixon Nov 06, 2012 4:29 PM EDT |
> ... but such laws are there for a reason and there is plenty of history to show up why they are necessary. I suspect history is not Ken Hess' cup of tea. |
| dinotrac Nov 06, 2012 5:44 PM EDT |
There is a certain silliness to it, however. Microsoft long ago ceased to control the browser space. IE once accounted for 90% of browsers, now it's not even the world's most popular browser. The folks over at Wikipedia, a sight that is not specific to any OS and is a major player the world over, lists chrome as the top browser used by visitors with IE and Firefox a fairly distant second and third. |
| caitlyn Nov 06, 2012 6:39 PM EDT |
Silly, perhaps, but you don't tell the legal authority that regulates business for an entire continent to "kiss off". That is idiotic and dumb by any measure. You apply to the regulators for a change of policy based on evidence that the ruling should no longer apply. You certainly don't blithely ignore an agreement you reached with regulators and the courts. |
| dinotrac Nov 06, 2012 6:46 PM EDT |
In a manner of speaking, you can. Of course the kind of kiss-off I'm thinking of is expensive, involves attorneys, political wrangling, etc, that probably isn't worth Microsoft's time. Face it -- what, exactly, are they protecting? IE is no longer the lock-in cow that it used to be. EVERYBODY makes sure their pages are compatible with Firefox at the very least. Those who don't are viewed as behind the times, and that's a dangerous place to be. |
| Ridcully Nov 06, 2012 6:50 PM EDT |
I read the article and noted this little gem from our Kenneth:Quoting:If Windows users want Firefox, great. If they want to use Internet Explorer, awesome. If they want to use Chrome, that's cool too. The superlative is "awesome".....we wouldn't want to show bias would we, Mr Hess ? But hey, on a site that is more or less a Microsoft advert, what else would you expect ? The other thing though is that I have immense respect for the European Commission and all their actions so far suggest that they are fiercely independent and do not bow down automatically to the wishes of Redmond - they actually do seem to have the interests of consumers and open markets in mind. Frankly, an article from Ken like this is more an "attention-getter" than anything else and degrades Ken's credibility rather than enhancing it. |
| dinotrac Nov 06, 2012 7:01 PM EDT |
Hess likes Microsoft. Who knew? |
| BernardSwiss Nov 06, 2012 7:54 PM EDT |
Oddly enough, the data shows that the alternative browsers included in that ballot screen (except for IE, of course) all showed strong gains in market share when the ballot screen was implemented. Mr. Hess can hardly be ignorant of this fact; draw your own conclusions. |
| dinotrac Nov 06, 2012 8:16 PM EDT |
He's not ignorant of the fact.
So what? IE as Master of the Universe is toast and has been for a while. |
| djohnston Nov 06, 2012 9:31 PM EDT |
Quoting: Well... if you ask me the only thing that is idiotic or dumb is this article. Well, you're one up on me. I didn't read the article. I won't read anything with Ken's name attached. I agree with Ridcully. Only, I'll go one further. I believe nearly all of Hess's articles are nothing more than clickbait. YMMV |
| khess Nov 07, 2012 9:15 AM EDT |
No, the point is that Europeans can buy whatever they want and download whatever they want. The EC doesn't need to mandate a stupid ruling. And, it's just as stupid for MS to sign off on it. I wouldn't have. I would have told the EC to buy something else and that we're just not going to play that game. If you'd read the article, you shouldn't have to fist bump the competition in your product. Microsoft had a monopoly because there was nothing else to buy. So, if you believe it's fair to do that then Apple needs to do the same thing and so does Linux, because right now, the only browser available on Linux by default is Firefox. |
| jacog Nov 07, 2012 9:19 AM EDT |
khess. You can't say "the only browser available on Linux by default is Firefox" because you can't say something quite that general. |
| DiBosco Nov 07, 2012 9:45 AM EDT |
Mageia comes with three browsers installed by default. |
| jdixon Nov 07, 2012 10:45 AM EDT |
> ...because right now, the only browser available on Linux by default is Firefox. Slackware comes with Firefox, Seamonkey, and Lynx. |
| caitlyn Nov 07, 2012 10:51 AM EDT |
Ken, what you fail to realize is that ruling was issued when IE was the dominant browser. If Microsoft wanted it rescinded they could have appealed to the EC to have it rescinded. They have a case to do so since conditions have changed. Microsoft never did that. Microsoft wasn't "stupid" to sign it. The EC made clear they would block Windows from being sold in Europe if they didn't. If you remember the DOJ lawsuit Microsoft was facing the possiblility of being broken up by the courts in the U.S. Once again, Microsoft signed the consent decree here because their anti-competitive practices violated U.S. law. The situation was similar in Europe. All your comment proves is that you are ignorant of the history here. SalixOS comes with Firefox and Midori by default. Vector Linux Light comes with Midori by default. Vector Linux (standard) comes with Seamonkey by default. Damn Small Linux comes with Dillo by default. Android comes with Chrome by default Should I continue? What were you staying about the default browser in Linux? Also, does Microsoft make other browsers available easily in their new app store the way Linux does in a package manager? Nope, they actually prevent Firefox and other alternatives from being listed. Since Microsoft is still a de facto monopoly on the traditional desktop their bundling and exclusion of alternatives in Windows 8 is a clear violation of their agreement with the U.S. DOJ. |
| JaseP Nov 07, 2012 11:48 AM EDT |
Microsoft's DoJ consent decree has expired. It was for a limited duration. For about the last year or slightly more, they've been "free" to go back to all their old tricks,... in the US, at least,... and until they get busted for it again ... |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 07, 2012 12:56 PM EDT |
John D. Rockefeller, savior of the whales! I love watching all the bru-ha-ha over monopoly this, prosecution that, extortion the other thing. Never had to use Windows, never had to use I.E. I did have difficulties when trying to do download Chrome using Lynx on my last Linux install, maybe I should complain that Google is a monopoly. Hahahahahaha. Can we get past this yet? Please? |
| caitlyn Nov 07, 2012 2:21 PM EDT |
No, Bob, we can;'t. It is way, way,, way past time the DOJ goes after Microsoft under the Sherman Antitrust Act for real. This isn't funny. It isn't a laughing matter. |
| dinotrac Nov 07, 2012 10:27 PM EDT |
@JaseP -- No, they are not free to go back to their old tricks. What let them get away with it before (well, other than being too stupid to make a deal with the DOJ) was their monopoly. Now... Heck. It's not enough that Apple is selling a whole lot more Macs these days. It's not even that IE is no longer the dominant browser -- or even a majority browser. Heck, it's not even that PCs themselves have lost out to mobile devices for enough applications to notice. The real kicker is that Microsoft just plain isn't cool any more. And that's in context of the company that gave us the Zune. |
| cement_head Nov 08, 2012 7:56 AM EDT |
Microsoft is still in business? |
| jacog Nov 08, 2012 7:57 AM EDT |
They're hanging in there. |
| CFWhitman Nov 08, 2012 6:20 PM EDT |
I can add that Lubuntu sports Chromium as the default browser. If I recall correctly, Bodhi defaults to Midori. Of course Debian uses Iceweasel, but that is pretty much an alternately branded version of Firefox. Crunchbang offers an install for Chrome and Opera when you go to the Internet menu. The whole Linux world doesn't really stick to one particular browser. |
| slacker_mike Nov 08, 2012 10:35 PM EDT |
I actually think it is silly that Microsoft has to offer alternative browsers as if that somehow makes them less of a monopoly. If the EC really wanted to level the playing field or somehow lessen the monopoly that MS has then they would have gone after the OEM's that only offer MS as on OS for consumers to purchase with their PCs. I believe that MS has every right to ship IE without offering the consumer choice of browser, just as I have every right to download Firefox, use Linux, or use Apple. To me it would be the same if the EC went to Red Hat and told them they have a monopoly on the server market and they have to offer the choice of Yast or Webmin when someone installs RHEL. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 09, 2012 10:44 AM EDT |
If the governments really thought Microsoft was a monopoly deserving of prosecution, they would stop using Microsoft's products. |
| caitlyn Nov 09, 2012 11:43 AM EDT |
Bob, that's nonsense. By definition a monopoly is the only game in town. For many in government the lack of knowledge of alternatives is frightening. Also, I've seen government agencies sign contracts that lock them in. I often wonder if those contracts represent incompetence or if someone was paid off. |
| jdixon Nov 09, 2012 11:48 AM EDT |
> I often wonder if those contracts represent incompetence or if someone was paid off. That's not an either or question, caitlyn. |
| JaseP Nov 09, 2012 12:33 PM EDT |
@Dino; Useful link; http://semiaccurate.com/2012/06/21/consent-decree-over-micro... They ARE back to their old tricks, ... just a little sneakier this time,... and on another platform ... |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 09, 2012 12:35 PM EDT |
> Bob, that's nonsense. By definition a monopoly is the only game in town. For many in government the lack of knowledge of alternatives is frightening. Caitlyn, I'm sorry to say you have me completely confused. If their lack of knowledge of alternatives is "frightening", how can they possibly be trusted to prosecute the lawsuit? Not knowing there is an alternative on the part of the prosecution does not constitute a "monopoly". I don't like Microsoft's business practices, and I'm very happy with the business they have driven away with their shenanigans. All the prosecution of them has done is line the pockets of lobbyists and politicians. I am fully aware that my reading of the anti-monopoly laws is completely different from yours, but that's another point in of itself: If the laws are so abstract that their application is one of -opinion-, how can they be enforced with anything like fairness? For example, four felons sitting around a table, get to talking about what they were imprisoned for. The first one says, "I charged lower prices than my competition, and was convicted of predatory pricing." Next, "I charged higher prices than my competition, and was convicted of price gouging." Third, "I charged the same as my competition, and was convicted of price fixing." And last, "My name is Martha Stewart, and I was convicted of insider trading because I listened to my stock broker." |
| dinotrac Nov 09, 2012 12:46 PM EDT |
@JaseP - Let's see how successful they are. |
| caitlyn Nov 09, 2012 12:54 PM EDT |
Bob, the person doing the prosecuting and the person doing IT purchasing are unlikely to be one and the same. The rest of your post is pur politics. Leave it to say were are on opposite ends of the spectrum and I, for one, am not venturing deeper into TOS land other than to say that I'd like to see the law as it exists today enforced. @jdixon: I never said the two were mutually exclusive and I do believe it's often a case of both. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 09, 2012 2:12 PM EDT |
So now we can't discuss points of law that directly effect I.T. and commercial software? Usually you don't claim it's politics until I advocate repealing the law, not clarifying it. You're advocating prosecuting Microsoft. Isn't that politics? But then, if legal ramifications cannot be discussed, a large portion of the articles posted to this site need to be erased. Ready for that? |
| CFWhitman Nov 09, 2012 2:23 PM EDT |
Monopoly laws are not really about whether or not you technically have a monopoly. They are all about whether or not you have enough market power to extort distributors and/or customers into agreeing to things that they would not normally agree to. It's not even being a monopoly that's illegal, it's extorting the dealers and customers that's illegal. Isn't predatory pricing when you use profits from one location or aspect of your business to sell at a loss in another location or aspect of your business in order to drive the competition out of business? I can see where that might be considered unfair to competition and dangerous to the consumer. Price gouging is when you sell at high prices in response to temporary period of extremely high demand for a product and have no competition (at least locally, which is all that matters in the situation). So it's not charging higher prices than the competition. It's considered a form of extortion, and taking advantage of people who have been unfortunate. Of course price fixing is an agreement for companies not to compete so they can all charge a higher price. It is rather against the principles of a free market. Martha Stewart wasn't convicted of insider trading. She was only convicted of obstruction of justice for lying to investigators about what turned out not to be a crime in the first place. It does seem rather a stretch to claim that hiding a non-criminal act is obstruction of justice. It reminds me of the case in the beginning of A Few Good Men where they were pressing charges against a guy for having a bag of oregano that he thought was marijuana. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 09, 2012 2:52 PM EDT |
The original Martha Stewart investigation was insider trading, which she was not done because the "questionable" trade was on the advice of her stock broker. If I remember correctly, the "lying" charge was because she made the mistake of talking to the investigators without her lawyer present. |
| JaseP Nov 09, 2012 7:12 PM EDT |
Quoting: Let's see how successful they are. I didn't say they'd be successful, ... I said they're back at it... |
| dinotrac Nov 09, 2012 7:19 PM EDT |
@JaseP -- Which is fine. It doesn't matter if they shoot their own feet. |
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!