WinXP SP2 delayed; anti-trust issues to arise?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Asher
Netscape died because:
1) Netscape 4.x was a wholly uncompetitive product.
2) Mark Andresen is a bonafide moron.
3) They wasted most of their time and money whining about MS instead of releasing a 5.x release.
4) The lack of a 5.x release gave MS all the marketshare it needed.

Netscape 4.x was uncompetitive because IE 4 had been released with a different document model and then was tied to Windows, forcing web developers to support the IE model more than the Netscape model. They were forced into it because of the other reason that tying killed Netscape, that being that the average computer user will be quite happy with whatever you give them; give them IE, and why download anything else? They don't know any difference unless you go back to putting little "Optimized for Netscape" badges everywhere...and doing that was a sure way to kill your career as a webmaster at the time. Releasing a 5.x version wouldn't have made the least bit of difference after IE4/Win98 was released. Yes, Netscape 4.x was trash compared to IE 5, but compared to 4, it wasn't bad at all.

Netscape died because it was incredibly poorly run, and it hasn't "died" at all -- it still lives on in Mozilla. People can still choose to run alternative browsers. When they get their brand new computer, then can use Internet Explorer to download Mozilla, Firebird, Opera, KMelon, whatever.

Netscape is quite dead. The technology in Mozilla is different enough from Netscape 4.x that it is quite a different product. Subsequent releases of "Netscape" were Mozilla releases that the Netscape brand attached itself to. If Mozilla had managed to produce a working browser in 6 mo. to 1 year, I might be willing to give Netscape some credit for it...but the Mozilla project was a unmitigated failure, really, and is only now becoming interesting again.

Think this through, buddy: How do you access a free download without a web browser?

I don't know, I somehow muddled through whenever I needed a copy of Mosiac or Netscape under 3.11...or even NT, since the version of IE included in NT became so old at one point that you couldn't even download a new version of IE without going through hoops.

And for any further discussion on this, I refer you to the EU and DOJ. This debate has been done more than enough times, here and elsewhere. I was just stating a point, you're welcome to disagree if you want.

[Asher]

Originally posted by dv8ed
Yes, Netscape 4.x was trash compared to IE 5, but compared to 4, it wasn't bad at all.

And interesting, Netscape was quite popular until IE 5.x trashed it in the marketshare ratings. Coincidence?

The technology in Mozilla is different enough from Netscape 4.x that it is quite a different product.

Um. Maybe that's because Netscape decided to completely scrap their old codebase and start a new one, which gave birth to Mozilla? Mozilla is the new Netscape, under a different development model. It's not dead, it's just evolved.

I don't know, I somehow muddled through whenever I needed a copy of Mosiac or Netscape under 3.11...or even NT

Oh, well this certainly addresses the issue.

Look: Unless you start off with a web browser, offering another webbrowser as a "free download" is not only useless, but totally retarded.

And for any further discussion on this, I refer you to the EU and DOJ.

The court ruling didn't say anything bad about IE's bundling, perhaps you should pay more attention to the cases if you're going to cite them, hmm?

The EU is upset about Windows Media Player.
The DOJ's case focused more on Microsoft's political bullying of Netscape. The bundling issue was pretty much laughed out of the court room -- no one could prove to the Judge how MS giving away a free product which allowed them to download even competitor's products harmed the consumer. In fact, I'd wager they looked quite ridiculous in trying to argue that.

Why do you think MS is still allowed to distribute Internet Explorer with Windows? Even Jackson's ruling didn't order them split.

[geeslaka]

Asher, what cause development of better products?

[Zopperoni]

Good staff and good salaries

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
And interesting, Netscape was quite popular until IE 5.x trashed it in the marketshare ratings. Coincidence?

No, you are just looking at cumulative effects that a) that most new people get on the Internet used Windows machines with IE and b) MS was "cutting off Netscape's oxygen supply" by bundling.

Originally posted by Asher
Um. Maybe that's because Netscape decided to completely scrap their old codebase and start a new one, which gave birth to Mozilla? Mozilla is the new Netscape, under a different development model. It's not dead, it's just evolved.

You got it backwards. The Mozilla team originally wanted to work with the Netscape code, but found it much better to start off from scratch. Bad for the short term, good for the long term.

Originally posted by Asher
Oh, well this certainly addresses the issue.

Where's the issue? Before IE, people installed Netscape all the same.

Originally posted by Asher
Look: Unless you start off with a web browser, offering another webbrowser as a "free download" is not only useless, but totally retarded.

You are retarded. HTTP is not the only protocol.

Originally posted by Asher
The court ruling didn't say anything bad about IE's bundling, perhaps you should pay more attention to the cases if you're going to cite them, hmm?

Yes it does. The whole case was based on MS leveraging a monopoly in one market (OS) to extend into another one (browsers). See Exhibit A.

Originally posted by Asher
The DOJ's case focused more on Microsoft's political bullying of Netscape. The bundling issue was pretty much laughed out of the court room -- no one could prove to the Judge how MS giving away a free product which allowed them to download even competitor's products harmed the consumer. In fact, I'd wager they looked quite ridiculous in trying to argue that.

You cannot be further from the truth. In fact, the bundling was the starting point of the whole case, even though it was expanded later.

Specifically, Judge Jackson found that Microsoft is a monopoly; that it did try to carve-up the browser market with Netscape; that it harmed consumers by tying together the operating system and the browser; and that it bullied and threatened numerous companies, and cut special deals with others in order to stifle rival products, Netscape being them most obvious of these. In the view of the judge, "Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market."

Originally posted by Asher
Why do you think MS is still allowed to distribute Internet Explorer with Windows? Even Jackson's ruling didn't order them split.

Jackson's ruling was to split the company, thus, the products would automatically split.

Is that so difficult?

[geeslaka]

Is that so difficult?

It is for Asher, his brain has been compressed by life without viewports.

[thesilentone]

When microsoft starts bundling their office suite with windows, then i'll be happy to say they are being purely altruistic. But the fact they only offer free/bundled versions of software that you would otherwise download from someone else then it does smack of anti-competitive behaviour.

[Verto]

Offering your own version of a product at a price similar to your competitors, is 'anti-competitive behaviour'?

Microsoft puts basic and essential programs, such as Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Microsoft Works and soon a virus scanning program, into their Windows OS. What is so wrong with that? Whenever they attempt to make their product better, people complain. Why? Because these other companies think I should have to pay 50 dollars for their own Anti-Virus program, or 30 dollars to play and copy CDs? Microsoft is making it simple and easy for consumers. Buy the computer, plug it in, and you are ready to go.

Of course, some people find the bundled Microsoft programs do not have all the features they want. So, they can go buy their 50 dollar, third party software.

Or, they can avoid Windows altogether and use an alternative Operating System.

[mrmitchell]

Verto, the problem with including things right with the operating system means that the majority of people won't buy or download another product because, let's face it, the majority of computer users aren't computer literate enough to buy a superior product from a competitor if something right here is already installed. Thus, the other competitor can't compete any more, and as competition stifles, development stifles. For a reference of this, look at the browser wars. Since Netscape lost its 'threat' status, IE has basically stagnated (AFAIK).

In addition, the browser wars has given a turn for the worse: I'd bet far more people knew back then what a "browser" was than do now, because that's not a browser, that's Internet Explorer. You don't use a browser to read web pages, you use Internet Explorer. I applaud Microsoft for all their help in making an already stupid population even dumber.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Verto
Offering your own version of a product at a price similar to your competitors, is 'anti-competitive behaviour'?

It wouldn't be 'similar' to their competitors at all. MS would be giving away their product, quite likely tying it into their OS, which has been ruled a monopoly for PC desktops. Other AV firms, such as Symantec, McAfee, F-Secure, AVG, etc, sell their products (I think AVG is the only one of that group that offers a free Windows-based virus scanner for personal use). How are those other AV firms supposed to make any money off their products if MS starts giving away a 'good enough' virus scanner with their monopoly product? It could kill the marketplace. That's as blatant a violation of anti-trust law as you can get.

Microsoft puts basic and essential programs, such as Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Microsoft Works and soon a virus scanning program, into their Windows OS. What is so wrong with that? Whenever they attempt to make their product better, people complain. Why?

They have a functioning monopoly on PC desktop operating systems. They can not legally leverage that monopoly to extend themselves into other markets and attempt to stifle competition in those markets. This could be IE/Netscape all over again, and the points that have been made in this thread about the stagnation of html & browser developments since Netscape died off are noteworthy. It's only now that alternatives like Opera & Mozilla are maturing (and IE has effectively stagnated since 5.0) that we may start to see some progress in that field again.

Of course, some people find the bundled Microsoft programs do not have all the features they want. So, they can go buy their 50 dollar, third party software.

If enough people think that the bundled programs are good enough for them, not enough people will buy those third-party programs any more and out of business they go. Then where's your choice?

Not to mention the stupidity of the fox guarding the henhouse. We have Microsoft to thank for all the flaws that viruses/trojans/worms exploit in Windows, IE, Outlook, Word & Excel, etc, and now we expect Microsoft are going to protect us from all those flaws with yet another MS application? When pigs fly. The RPC vulnerability that the Blaster worm exploited existed for seven years and Microsoft never discovered it.

Or, they can avoid Windows altogether and use an alternative Operating System.

Not an option for many people, if applications they need to use are only available on Windows. Since Windows is effectively a monopoly, this is true for a high number of applications.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
No, you are just looking at cumulative effects that a) that most new people get on the Internet used Windows machines with IE and b) MS was "cutting off Netscape's oxygen supply" by bundling.

Not just bundling, remember; MS was actively telling OEMs that they could only install Windows on their computers if they also installed IE, that removing IE from those computers was not allowed, and even that promoting alternate browsers (read: Netscape) was not allowed:

From Judge Jackson's findings of fact (http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html):

203. If OEMs removed the most visible means of invoking Internet Explorer, and pre- installed Navigator with facile methods of access, Microsoft's purpose in forcing OEMs to take Internet Explorer -- capturing browser usage share from Netscape -- would be subverted. The same would be true if OEMs simply configured their machines to promote Navigator before Windows had a chance to promote Internet Explorer, Decision-makers at Microsoft believed that as Internet Explorer caught up with Navigator in quality, OEMs would ultimately conclude that the costs of pre-installing and promoting Navigator, and removing easy access to Internet Explorer, outweighed the benefits. Still, those decision-makers did not believe that Microsoft could afford to wait for the several large OEMs that represented virtually all Windows PCs shipped to come to this desired conclusion on their own. Therefore, in order to bring the behavior of OEMs into line with its strategic goals quickly, Microsoft threatened to terminate the Windows license of any OEM that removed Microsoft's chosen icons and program entries from the Windows desktop or the "Start" menu. It threatened similar punishment for OEMs who added programs that promoted third-party software to the Windows "boot" sequence. These inhibitions soured Microsoft's relations with OEMs and stymied innovation that might have made Windows PC systems more satisfying to users. Microsoft would not have paid this price had it not been convinced that its actions were necessary to ostracize Navigator from the vital OEM distribution channel.

It goes on to describe specific actions MS took against Compaq, Gateway, HP, and IBM. Anyone who doesn't think MS couldn't go down this same route with an anti-virus scanner is just being dense.

[Dinner]

Ahh, screw it all. I say we let MS exploit us like a pornographer exploits a teen with his handy cam.


(Joke)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Where's the issue? Before IE, people installed Netscape all the same.

By buying it in a store or getting it bundled with their ISP, which in turn had to pay for it.

You are retarded. HTTP is not the only protocol.

Oh, right -- I suppose this makes complete sense! You could give instructions to users on how to use the free built in Windows command-line FTP client (which, btw, we should also protest because this bundling is clearly affecting GlobalSCAPE, etc).

It's no surprise that you're such a Linux advocate when you clearly don't understand the first thing about home users and computers.

Yes it does. The whole case was based on MS leveraging a monopoly in one market (OS) to extend into another one (browsers). See Exhibit A.

That's what the original complaint was, it's not what MS got in trouble for. MS got into trouble for: