5 ms·

Microsoft Offers to Add Rival Browsers to Settle Case

6 points by nebula 17y ago

Locke1689 17y ago
Maybe it's just me, but I've never actually believed that Microsoft bundling a browser (that they made, of course) is monopolistic. It seems like Microsoft is pushing a value-add with their products. Of course, it serves their agenda, but everything every company does serves their agenda -- that's why they're companies. I don't see the difference between Microsoft bundling IE with Windows and Apple offering a free iPod with new Macs during "Back to School." And yet, no one ever suggests that maybe Apple should be offering a choice between a free iPod and a free Zune. Not only that, but I'm also troubled by the inclusion of other browsers. Why should Firefox get the free publicity? Because they're popular? Well that seems to be the same argument against IE. Personally, my favorite Windows browser is Opera, but how much do you want to bet that that certainly won't be on their list.
- brk 17y ago
  I sort of agree with you in some parts, this is not really something that I've considered monopolistic. Additionally, I think that Microsoft could have largely avoided all this had they just put the effort into making a standards-compliant browser that actually worked, and maybe also making it cross-platform. Much of this browser fight seems to start from web developers and programmers who are tired of developing work-arounds for IE. Had IE been the standards-compliance leader, I think that MS would have had a good pulpit to say "we feel it would endanger the security of our users to offer or suggest an alternate browser platform that does not offer the same compliance with W3C standards as our product". So, I have mixed emotions on this. It's less about IE specifically and more about listening to your users and not breaking the intarwebs.
- micks56 17y ago
  Maybe it's just me, but I've never actually believed that Microsoft bundling a browser (that they made, of course) is monopolistic. You are right. Bundling the browser did not make Microsoft monopolistic. What the court did find was that Microsoft had a monopoly on the OS market and then used that monopoly to restrain competition in other areas, such as web browsers. That is where MS got in trouble.
  - drhowarddrfine 17y ago
    You are exactly correct and very few people understand this.
    - dantheman 17y ago
      I think a lot of people understand it, but they still think that the court ruling is wrong.
joshhart 17y ago
This is getting ridiculous. Is it that hard to download a different browser if you want another? My parents are happy with IE and Microsoft products, why should they be forced to make a browser decision if there's a default one ready? Furthermore, who is to blame when Firefox/Opera/whatever crashes? Microsoft?
- drhowarddrfine 17y ago
  See micks56 brief explanation above. You're comment is made without knowing or understanding the history behind this decision, one which originated here in the US in the late 1990s and has put Microsoft under Federal oversight even today.

6 points by nebula 17y ago

Maybe it's just me, but I've never actually believed that Microsoft bundling a browser (that they made, of course) is monopolistic. It seems like Microsoft is pushing a value-add with their products. Of course, it serves their agenda, but everything every company does serves their agenda -- that's why they're companies. I don't see the difference between Microsoft bundling IE with Windows and Apple offering a free iPod with new Macs during "Back to School." And yet, no one ever suggests that maybe Apple should be offering a choice between a free iPod and a free Zune. Not only that, but I'm also troubled by the inclusion of other browsers. Why should Firefox get the free publicity? Because they're popular? Well that seems to be the same argument against IE. Personally, my favorite Windows browser is Opera, but how much do you want to bet that that certainly won't be on their list.

brk 17y ago
I sort of agree with you in some parts, this is not really something that I've considered monopolistic. Additionally, I think that Microsoft could have largely avoided all this had they just put the effort into making a standards-compliant browser that actually worked, and maybe also making it cross-platform. Much of this browser fight seems to start from web developers and programmers who are tired of developing work-arounds for IE. Had IE been the standards-compliance leader, I think that MS would have had a good pulpit to say "we feel it would endanger the security of our users to offer or suggest an alternate browser platform that does not offer the same compliance with W3C standards as our product". So, I have mixed emotions on this. It's less about IE specifically and more about listening to your users and not breaking the intarwebs.
micks56 17y ago
Maybe it's just me, but I've never actually believed that Microsoft bundling a browser (that they made, of course) is monopolistic. You are right. Bundling the browser did not make Microsoft monopolistic. What the court did find was that Microsoft had a monopoly on the OS market and then used that monopoly to restrain competition in other areas, such as web browsers. That is where MS got in trouble.
- drhowarddrfine 17y ago
  You are exactly correct and very few people understand this.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    I think a lot of people understand it, but they still think that the court ruling is wrong.

joshhart 17y ago

This is getting ridiculous. Is it that hard to download a different browser if you want another? My parents are happy with IE and Microsoft products, why should they be forced to make a browser decision if there's a default one ready? Furthermore, who is to blame when Firefox/Opera/whatever crashes? Microsoft?

drhowarddrfine 17y ago
See micks56 brief explanation above. You're comment is made without knowing or understanding the history behind this decision, one which originated here in the US in the late 1990s and has put Microsoft under Federal oversight even today.