Pay Up, (Microsoft)

[Wiglaf]

So what?

When 80% of people have the safer, better browser, they are better off than having the slower, more vulnerable one.

[aneeshm]

I'm a bit torn on this, emotionally.

I dislike MS, for their unethical policies, their complete lack of good engineering sense, their "appeal to the lowest common denominator" mentality, their "if it compiles, it's ready to ship" attitude to first version of pretty much every mass-market thing they produce, and for their general behaviour over the past and in the present.

I'm also a supporter of the FSF, of Samba, and of open standards.

But I still disagree with this judgement. For two reasons:

a) Ideological reasons: Basically, this judgement flies in the face of freedom in the market. MS has a right to keep their standards closed if they want to. I say this knowing full well that such standards make it very difficult for everyone else to inter-operate. I know that such closed standards cause me personal grief when trying to make my *nix machine work with 'doze boxes.

But think one stage ahead. Today, the customers who bought MS are locked in. However, whenever someone today wants to decide what to go for, he will learn from the mistakes of the ones who chose MS, and will go for an open architecture instead. That is, over the long run, it will effectively erode MS' userbase, with the added benefit (from my POV) that once someone has gone over to our side, he will never be joining MS again. The monopoly will come to a final and irreversible end.

This ruling, however, actually helps MS, because now, everyone who has a MS-based shop will not think twice about inter-operability, as he knows that the courts ensure that Free Software developers will always be on top of things. It means that people, instead of making a rational and informed choice between closed and locked MS, and open and Free Software, will choose to always go for MS as the "safe" option, as they know that they can migrate later (the infamous "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM syndrome").

Basically, when I am a person looking for complete victory, and the utter annihilation of MS and its monopoly, and as a supporter of the free market, I see this decision as prolonging the dark ages instead of letting us reach the tipping point faster, after which the monopoly collapses in one big stroke.

Interference in the market is not something I approve of, and in this case, I actively see it as helping the enemy.




b) Pragmatic reasons: I think this ruling is unnecessary. That is, Microsoft's effective monopoly is already gone.

The essence of the monopoly was not marketshare, but mindshare. Earlier, MS was the one that dominated the thoughts of everyone in the industry. It no longer does that. And that means that the monopoly is effectively over. MS is just another player now, though a big one. It no longer commands the fear or awe it could in its glory days.









So not only does this make MS a martyr, and go against the principles of the free market, and also actually helps Microsoft, it is also utterly pointless.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

No, it isn't an important qualifier. People are and have been for a year been forced to upgrade when buying a new computer to this OS, with all its hardware compatibility issues and security vulnerabilities (IE being chief among them)

Vista is more secure than XP, so this comment is obtuse.

It's also misinformed, since XP is not only supported, it's still available to be purchased. No one is being forced to upgrade by MS' doing.

MS would have to be forced to doing it, obviously. I'd define a major browser as one with 5%+ of marketshare, since that is what Firefox attained quickly on its own.

So the only two major browsers are Firefox and Internet Explorer?

[Wiglaf]

Vista is more secure than XP, so this comment is obtuse.

More annoying I think is a better way to put it. Are you sure you want to move that folder?

It's also misinformed, since XP is not only supported, it's still available to be purchased. No one is being forced to upgrade by MS' doing.

Dell didn't offer XP for a while, then it did, then only on some models. Most vendors don't.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
So what?

When 80% of people have the safer, better browser, they are better off than having the slower, more vulnerable one.

Clearly that would be better, but that's not going to happen by bundling IE and Firefox and Opera and Safari with Vista. That will simply confuse people.

And unilaterally getting rid of IE completely amounts to trashing the concept of the free market. Companies are allowed to sell bad products. Using IE does not cause brain cancer or anything.

[Wiglaf]

The problem is the bundling. Windows is the best OS available, so getting IE is a forgone conclusion. And as you've said, once you have one browser, getting another is a headache and confuses most people. So getting Firefox is out the window.

Which amounts to trashing innovation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

Think about it this way: if MS didn't bundle Internet Explorer, how would you download Firefox?

Id use whatever browser the hardware manufacturer included, which wouldnt have to be bundled with the OS.

I remember when hardware OEMs routinely packaged Netscape. It wasnt bundled with the OS, but it was usable to DL other browsers.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

Dell didn't offer XP for a while, then it did, then only on some models. Most vendors don't.

This issue has absolutely nothing to do with MS. MS still offers XP and Vista for sale. It is forcing no one to upgrade.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Id use whatever browser the hardware manufacturer included, which wouldnt have to be bundled with the OS.

I remember when hardware OEMs routinely packaged Netscape. It wasnt bundled with the OS, but it was usable to DL other browsers.

No one is stopping hardware vendors from bundling any applications they want now. Dell does it liberally, to the great annoyance of their customers.

Again, this does not address thie issue. It also assumes everyone buys their computer from a "hardware manufacturer".

[Wiglaf]

Most people buy from vendors.

[Asher]

Most is not all, nor is that relevant either.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

No one is stopping hardware vendors from bundling any applications they want now. Dell does it liberally, to the great annoyance of their customers.

Im only annoyed when the vendor includes lots of 30 day trial packs.

[Wiglaf]

It is relevant to the comment "It also assumes everyone buys their computer from a "hardware manufacturer". I think the overwhelming majority does, to the point where the few who don't are in the negligible minority.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

Again, this does not address thie issue. It also assumes everyone buys their computer from a "hardware manufacturer".

So the browser firms could just distribute free disks at the shops that sell computer parts. Kinda like all those AOL disks.

There are of course some folks who order their parts online, but one assumes they HAVE access to the internet, AND a browser, no?

[Wiglaf]

The original argument is stupid. Saying we need IE so that people can access firefox and other better products misses the whole point. People don't have firefox because IE is passable and they don't know what they are doing. How is this a better outcome than everyone having firefox?