4 ms·

1990s was a long time ago.. why would Microsoft do something like this? They're all in on Chromium and choice. When you change your default browser, its actuall

1990s was a long time ago.. why would Microsoft do something like this? They're all in on Chromium and choice. When you change your default browser, its actually changing the default browser, not the skin with the forced widget inside.

therealmarv 4y ago
yes it is a long time ago. And there was a big debate about Microsoft (including discussions of splitting up Microsoft because of bundling the browser). And Apple is doing things way beyond that for many years and nobody blinks an eye nowadays.
- shagie 4y ago
  The issue is that Microsoft was using its market dominance to compel its OEM partners to include Internet Explorer and not include 3rd party browsers. Apple is not forcing its OEM partners to exclude 3rd party browsers. If Microsoft made its own hardware and packaged IE with its version of the OS sold on its hardware - there wouldn't be an issue. The big difference is that Apple doesn't license its software to 3rd parties. On the other hand, if Google were to compel its OEM partners to include software, then Google would likely be facing various government bodies that have issue with this process and possibly facing fines.
  - supernovae 4y ago
    Apple has NO OEM. You can only buy completely integrated products period. The new M1s are SOCs, so there isn't even a 3rd party market unless you restrict that to USB and fashion accessories. Microsoft does make its own hardware. The Surface line of products are pretty amazing. They didn't break any OEM 3rd party market nor dictate anything. In fact, they have a "signature system" policy for their first party hardware that it won't be full of bloatware like 3rd party OEMs used to do. Google has slowly been destroying its 3rd parties and 3rd parties playing in its ecosystem have been moving towards forking for a while which is why there is always the complaint of unsupported devices after a single cycle there. (and so many community roms/hacks/installers floating around to address this)
    - shagie 4y ago
      That's the point. Except with some attempts back in the mid 90s, Apple hasn't licensed their software and have instead done a vertical integration of their products and are selling a product. Tangent to this is that Safari isn't the dominant market browser in any space. * Mobile worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/worldwide * Desktop worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide * Mobile US https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america * Desktop US https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/united-states-of-america One can't say that Apple's bundling of Safari within iOS is letting them abuse their market dominant position to force other companies to install software that they don't want to.
    - vinceguidry 4y ago
      > The Surface line of products are pretty amazing. Really wish they hadn't gone and invented yet another kind of charge port.
      - supernovae 4y ago
        They are adopting USB C.. and at least the 3rd party market for replacement chargers is affordable - cheaper than usb c in many cases.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    First time I'm hearing about 3rd parties being compelled. Realistically given the target audience, why wouldn't most 3rd parties take the easy way out and keep the pre-installed IE? At some point Microsoft was forced to include a browser choice program on installation and it had marginal effects on the IE user base. Likewise, despite the heavy shilling, Edge can barely get a foot in. Realistically all that changed is we now have to boot Edge or IE to get another browser again (from average user PoV).
    - shagie 4y ago
      https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp > 18. Second, Microsoft unlawfully required PC manufacturers, as a condition of obtaining licenses for the Windows 95 operating system, to agree to license, preinstall, and distribute Internet Explorer on every Windows PC such manufacturers shipped. By virtue of the monopoly position Windows enjoys, it was a commercial necessity for OEMs to preinstall Windows 95 -- and, as a result of Microsoft's illegal tie-in, Internet Explorer -- on virtually all of the PCs they sold. Microsoft thereby unlawfully tied its Internet Explorer software to the Windows 95 version of its monopoly operating system and unlawfully leveraged its operating system monopoly to require PC manufacturers to license and distribute Internet Explorer on every PC those OEMs shipped with Windows.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      They were only forced to have the browser choice in the EU. Absolutely nothing changed with respect to IE and Windows in the US
  - mcguire 4y ago
    "Apple is not forcing its OEM partners to exclude 3rd party browsers." Apple has OEM partners? :-) Seriously, the lawsuit against Microsoft involved anti-competitive behavior, not anti-consumer behavior. In this case, other businesses have better legal protections than customers.
    - shagie 4y ago
      I believe that is because it is easier to show damages against a company where they can put a numeric value on it (and it is one company) rather than trying to wrangle a class action where the damages are more nebulous (if at all). As noted in the complaint, there were several parts to it relevant to a browser ( https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp ). The first three: ------ 16. First, Microsoft invested hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, test, and promote Internet Explorer, a product which it distributes without separate charge. As Paul Maritz, Microsoft's Group Vice President in charge of the Platforms Group, was quoted in the New York Times as telling industry executives: "We are going to cut off their air supply. Everything they're selling, we're going to give away for free." As reported in the Financial Times, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates likewise warned Netscape (and other potential Microsoft challengers) in June 1996: "Our business model works even if all Internet software is free. . . . We are still selling operating systems. What does Netscape's business model look like? Not very good." 17. But Mr. Gates did not stop at free distribution. Rather, Microsoft purposefully set out to do whatever it took to make sure significant market participants distributed and used Internet Explorer instead of Netscape's browser -- including paying some customers to take IE and using its unique control over Windows to induce others to do so. For example, in seeking the support of Intuit, a significant application software developer, Mr. Gates was blunt, as he reported in a July 1996 internal e-mail: I was quite frank with him [Scott Cook, CEO of Intuit] that if he had a favor we could do for him that would cost us something like $1M to do that in return for switching browsers in the next few months I would be open to doing that. (MS6 6007642). 18. Second, Microsoft unlawfully required PC manufacturers, as a condition of obtaining licenses for the Windows 95 operating system, to agree to license, preinstall, and distribute Internet Explorer on every Windows PC such manufacturers shipped. By virtue of the monopoly position Windows enjoys, it was a commercial necessity for OEMs to preinstall Windows 95 -- and, as a result of Microsoft's illegal tie-in, Internet Explorer -- on virtually all of the PCs they sold. Microsoft thereby unlawfully tied its Internet Explorer software to the Windows 95 version of its monopoly operating system and unlawfully leveraged its operating system monopoly to require PC manufacturers to license and distribute Internet Explorer on every PC those OEMs shipped with Windows. 19. Third, Microsoft intends now unlawfully to tie its Internet browser software to its new Windows 98 operating system, the successor to Windows 95. Microsoft has made clear that, unless restrained, it will continue to misuse its operating system monopoly to artificially exclude browser competition and deprive customers of a free choice between browsers. ------ You can go through these complaints (and the other three - down to paragraph 32) and ask "is Apple doing these things?" Is apple going out and trying to squash Chrome on windows machines (remember, Microsoft released IE for OS 6 or was it 7?). Is Apple trying to call up Amazon and have them replace Chrome with Safari on their Kindle devices? The things that Microsoft got in trouble with for its anti-competitive practices with IE are completely separate and distinct from the things that people accuse Apple with for being anti-consumer. Apple has gotten their wrist slapped for being anti-competitive with books in the past.

therealmarv 4y ago

yes it is a long time ago. And there was a big debate about Microsoft (including discussions of splitting up Microsoft because of bundling the browser). And Apple is doing things way beyond that for many years and nobody blinks an eye nowadays.

shagie 4y ago
The issue is that Microsoft was using its market dominance to compel its OEM partners to include Internet Explorer and not include 3rd party browsers. Apple is not forcing its OEM partners to exclude 3rd party browsers. If Microsoft made its own hardware and packaged IE with its version of the OS sold on its hardware - there wouldn't be an issue. The big difference is that Apple doesn't license its software to 3rd parties. On the other hand, if Google were to compel its OEM partners to include software, then Google would likely be facing various government bodies that have issue with this process and possibly facing fines.
- supernovae 4y ago
  Apple has NO OEM. You can only buy completely integrated products period. The new M1s are SOCs, so there isn't even a 3rd party market unless you restrict that to USB and fashion accessories. Microsoft does make its own hardware. The Surface line of products are pretty amazing. They didn't break any OEM 3rd party market nor dictate anything. In fact, they have a "signature system" policy for their first party hardware that it won't be full of bloatware like 3rd party OEMs used to do. Google has slowly been destroying its 3rd parties and 3rd parties playing in its ecosystem have been moving towards forking for a while which is why there is always the complaint of unsupported devices after a single cycle there. (and so many community roms/hacks/installers floating around to address this)
  - shagie 4y ago
    That's the point. Except with some attempts back in the mid 90s, Apple hasn't licensed their software and have instead done a vertical integration of their products and are selling a product. Tangent to this is that Safari isn't the dominant market browser in any space. * Mobile worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/worldwide * Desktop worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide * Mobile US https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america * Desktop US https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/united-states-of-america One can't say that Apple's bundling of Safari within iOS is letting them abuse their market dominant position to force other companies to install software that they don't want to.
  - vinceguidry 4y ago
    > The Surface line of products are pretty amazing. Really wish they hadn't gone and invented yet another kind of charge port.
    - supernovae 4y ago
      They are adopting USB C.. and at least the 3rd party market for replacement chargers is affordable - cheaper than usb c in many cases.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  First time I'm hearing about 3rd parties being compelled. Realistically given the target audience, why wouldn't most 3rd parties take the easy way out and keep the pre-installed IE? At some point Microsoft was forced to include a browser choice program on installation and it had marginal effects on the IE user base. Likewise, despite the heavy shilling, Edge can barely get a foot in. Realistically all that changed is we now have to boot Edge or IE to get another browser again (from average user PoV).
  - shagie 4y ago
    https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp > 18. Second, Microsoft unlawfully required PC manufacturers, as a condition of obtaining licenses for the Windows 95 operating system, to agree to license, preinstall, and distribute Internet Explorer on every Windows PC such manufacturers shipped. By virtue of the monopoly position Windows enjoys, it was a commercial necessity for OEMs to preinstall Windows 95 -- and, as a result of Microsoft's illegal tie-in, Internet Explorer -- on virtually all of the PCs they sold. Microsoft thereby unlawfully tied its Internet Explorer software to the Windows 95 version of its monopoly operating system and unlawfully leveraged its operating system monopoly to require PC manufacturers to license and distribute Internet Explorer on every PC those OEMs shipped with Windows.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    They were only forced to have the browser choice in the EU. Absolutely nothing changed with respect to IE and Windows in the US
- mcguire 4y ago
  "Apple is not forcing its OEM partners to exclude 3rd party browsers." Apple has OEM partners? :-) Seriously, the lawsuit against Microsoft involved anti-competitive behavior, not anti-consumer behavior. In this case, other businesses have better legal protections than customers.
  - shagie 4y ago
    I believe that is because it is easier to show damages against a company where they can put a numeric value on it (and it is one company) rather than trying to wrangle a class action where the damages are more nebulous (if at all). As noted in the complaint, there were several parts to it relevant to a browser ( https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp ). The first three: ------ 16. First, Microsoft invested hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, test, and promote Internet Explorer, a product which it distributes without separate charge. As Paul Maritz, Microsoft's Group Vice President in charge of the Platforms Group, was quoted in the New York Times as telling industry executives: "We are going to cut off their air supply. Everything they're selling, we're going to give away for free." As reported in the Financial Times, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates likewise warned Netscape (and other potential Microsoft challengers) in June 1996: "Our business model works even if all Internet software is free. . . . We are still selling operating systems. What does Netscape's business model look like? Not very good." 17. But Mr. Gates did not stop at free distribution. Rather, Microsoft purposefully set out to do whatever it took to make sure significant market participants distributed and used Internet Explorer instead of Netscape's browser -- including paying some customers to take IE and using its unique control over Windows to induce others to do so. For example, in seeking the support of Intuit, a significant application software developer, Mr. Gates was blunt, as he reported in a July 1996 internal e-mail: I was quite frank with him [Scott Cook, CEO of Intuit] that if he had a favor we could do for him that would cost us something like $1M to do that in return for switching browsers in the next few months I would be open to doing that. (MS6 6007642). 18. Second, Microsoft unlawfully required PC manufacturers, as a condition of obtaining licenses for the Windows 95 operating system, to agree to license, preinstall, and distribute Internet Explorer on every Windows PC such manufacturers shipped. By virtue of the monopoly position Windows enjoys, it was a commercial necessity for OEMs to preinstall Windows 95 -- and, as a result of Microsoft's illegal tie-in, Internet Explorer -- on virtually all of the PCs they sold. Microsoft thereby unlawfully tied its Internet Explorer software to the Windows 95 version of its monopoly operating system and unlawfully leveraged its operating system monopoly to require PC manufacturers to license and distribute Internet Explorer on every PC those OEMs shipped with Windows. 19. Third, Microsoft intends now unlawfully to tie its Internet browser software to its new Windows 98 operating system, the successor to Windows 95. Microsoft has made clear that, unless restrained, it will continue to misuse its operating system monopoly to artificially exclude browser competition and deprive customers of a free choice between browsers. ------ You can go through these complaints (and the other three - down to paragraph 32) and ask "is Apple doing these things?" Is apple going out and trying to squash Chrome on windows machines (remember, Microsoft released IE for OS 6 or was it 7?). Is Apple trying to call up Amazon and have them replace Chrome with Safari on their Kindle devices? The things that Microsoft got in trouble with for its anti-competitive practices with IE are completely separate and distinct from the things that people accuse Apple with for being anti-consumer. Apple has gotten their wrist slapped for being anti-competitive with books in the past.