Back when this first became an issue, web browsers were still considered an add-on to basic computing for the most part. These days web-based applications are often misssion-critical for a lot of companies and users, and the idea of booting up a new computing without a browser can be troublesome. I'd like to see something where during the initial system preparation wizards, the user is presented with the option of using the MS browser or loading an optional 3rd party browser, be it Firefox, Opera, Safari, or whatever. They do something similar with the default search provider now.
A few years ago, the idea of "integrating" the web browser with the hosting operating system was a lot bigger than it is now. These days, we think of the web browser as an operating system in and of itself, and as long as the thing works, and is reasonably secure, most people don't care which one they're running. We run applications over a web browser the same way we would be running them locally, and for the most part I believe that it's for the best. I think MS in general doesn't really care which browser people use either, since it's no longer directly tied to profits. To go back to the Ford analogy -- I think if Ford could reasonably make cars without engines, and find a way to still maintain the same profit margins on the cars, they'd seriously consider it. The only drawback would be making sure that the consumer had a choice of a quality engine to put in the car. There would have to be some levels of quality control so that a consumer putting a bad engine in a car wouldn't turn around and blame Ford. Cars and computers make good analogies because they're so complicated, and 99% of the world never fully understands how they work. A lot of time and effort has to go in to making sure that either nothing will go wrong, or when something does go wrong, the right party gets the support call. The way Apple sees it, they don't trust anyone but themselves to have their hands in the guts. They don't want to open their platform to anyone else mainly because they don't want their name tarnished by bad experiences with lesser-quality components. That's why they shut down the clone market, and that's why they won't let their OS (legally) run on commodity hardware. If you limit the options available, you limit the variables where something can go wrong. They've been successful in some aspects, and a failure in other because of this. It's a complete opposite of an Open Source "tinkerer's" market, even thought they've adopted *some* open source software to build it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karthik Poobal" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:24:18 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [brlug-general] ms to remove IE, or will add other browsers? I agree that when you put out a product you should be free to do what you want with it but unfortunately when companies have more than 90% of share in a market, they tend to strong arm their competition. Assuming Ford is the only major manufacturer of automobile engines in EU and there are other engine manufacturers, that analogy would be okay. I don't necessarily agree with the EU solution. Its weak and half ass but its more than what we did. What happened to the anti- trust suit against MS? Besides, how can MS remove IE? Personally, I think the hardware manufacturers should be able to offer PCs without an OS or at least have more options. This is where, I think, MS is being more anticompetitive. Now, should we force them? I don't know. Few years ago when I was looking into getting a laptop, I could not get a preloaded linux one from any "major" manufacturer. The situation is a little bit better now. BTW the same issue applies to Apple. -- Karthik Poobalasubramanian Louisiana Board of Regents [email protected] [email protected] 225-910-6126 skype: poobal On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:00 AM, Brad Bendily wrote: > I'm sure everyone has read the headlines on this. > http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-oblige-microsoft-offer-competitors-browsers/article-179602 > > It's not that I like MS or anything, but i don't understand why this > is the right thing to do. > This seems similar to the EU telling Ford they should offer other > openly available engines in their vehicles, instead of > their own model. > I guess they do things differently at the EU. > One of the other arguments I've read about this before is that you > don't see any programmers who make calculators, > upset that MS includes a calculator for free in Windows. > > If I have a business that makes a product, why should I let anyone > (including the government) tell me what I should > do with or put in my product (other than illegal materials). > > thoughts? > bb > -- > Have Mercy & Say Yeah > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
