Tweet
Originally posted by dv8ed
No, seriously, tell me why releasing it to developers and just giving away the runtime dll, like vbrun, would have been bad. Developers can still put out something like MyIE in that circumstance. MyIE being a better browser than IE, that would benefit consumers.
No, seriously, tell me why releasing it to developers and just giving away the runtime dll, like vbrun, would have been bad. Developers can still put out something like MyIE in that circumstance. MyIE being a better browser than IE, that would benefit consumers.
No, seriously, tell me why it's bad for MS to provide basic webbrowsing to anyone with Windows. The whole argument boils down to "it's anticompetitive", which is total bull****: There's tons of competition out there, whose fault is it if IE is good enough and satisfies the needs of most customers? In the end, isn't it about protecting the customers?
Um. Um. Um. Want to try that the other way? And there is a difference between the short-term benefit of getting free stuff and the long term benefit of getting a better product.
None of which have any impact on the PC browser market as a whole, and therefore create no pressure to make IE better. Have you perhaps noticed IE stagnating lately?
Again, you fail to understand what the programs MS bundles are about: basic features. If you want more advanced ones, go get them, but everyone should be entitled to basic defrags, basic disk checkers, basic partioning programs, basic instant messaging, basic web browsing, and basic virus scanning.
If, perhaps, MS put the effort of writing an AV package into, I don't know, debugging Windows, it might not demand AV support quite so much.
This is certainly an exception, not a rule. Go down to Best Buy or Circuit City or something.
It doesn't matter if there are "exceptions", especially considering the "free" antivirus software most OEMs ship expire after only one year.
You're doing a damn fine job of attempting to dance around it, but what you're trying to do is force people to pay about $50/year for Norton rather than getting something necessary for the OS, with the OS.
There's a fundamental problem I've never seen any of the anti-MS folk address competently: The whole argument against MS making new products as part of the OS is that it's "anticompetitive". If it's anticompetitive, how come there's still lots of competition? If the consumers are somehow dissatisfied with the MS product, they can go replace it with whatever else they want, and no one's stopping them.
Not only has the bundling concept proven to be competitive, but it's so competitive that all of the other browsers look rather ****e in comparison. Why should they opt for a slower, buggier browser like Netscape or Mozilla? Perhaps if people looked at the crap IE is competing with, and addressed those problems, IE would have more competition.
MS is the scapegoat for a pathetic little company with an uncompetitve product and a huge ego.
I ignored your questions because I already answered them. AV software is necessary. If MS wants to release a free AV scanner for download, go right for it. The question was product tying, which is bad for the overall quality of the software in that sector.
The only thing it did was displaced the aging NS4.x browser. Netscape still makes crap products, why won't anyone admit the reason its marketshare sucks is Netscape sucks? Get real.
Comment