Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 101 posts

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#41

Post by digitalzombie »

humpt wrote: post #5

I remember seeing this on TV and not understanding why microsoft was threatened with a fine if they ship IE by default on their products. Actually I still don't. Nobody ever stopped me from downloading another browser on windows, anyone who wants to do it will do it. So people did have a choice, they just didn't know they had it, and it's their problem, not microsoft's! Could someone explain this to me?

Microsoft own 90% of the PC market in the 90s.

Netscape was the sizzle and you pay money to get a browser to surf internet.

Microsoft decided to package IE for free on Window.

Internet was wild west and mysterious. There's hardly any books on it and information wasn't traveling as fast for the masses to know much about internet.

But they do know there's this IE thingy that will give them internet.

IE destroyed netscape, very few people had a clue there was an alternative browser...

Hence this was deem as a monopoly.

Hell when I was a kid I didn't really know much other than netscape and all of a sudden IE. It didn't occur to me that there are choices but the fact that IE was a part of window and it just works out of the box. I moved to mozilla when IE was slowing down.

But the point was it was so integrated with window that it was apart of it, it felt natural as if the internet was apart of microsoft.

And in fact microsoft acted as a gate keeper of the internet for years that was their business goal. Their OS control stuff on the PC and that's how they made money. Which is why they lost to Google when they double down on their model. The way they acted and their many moves to monopolize it, one of which was IE.

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#42

Post by crdoconnor »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #7
humpt wrote: post #5

I remember seeing this on TV and not understanding why microsoft was threatened with a fine if they ship IE by default on their products. Actually I still don't. Nobody ever stopped me from downloading another browser on windows, anyone who wants to do it will do it. So people did have a choice, they just didn't know they had it, and it's their problem, not microsoft's! Could someone explain this to me?

Because Opera, and before that the company behind Real Player, are anal like that and the EU went and agreed with them for some silly reason. They never did go after Apple, or Google / Android, or whatever for doing the exact same thing (pre-installing a media player / browser). I guess you could argue that Microsoft was singled out because their browser was an inherent component of their OS, but at the same time you…

>They never did go after Apple, or Google / Android, or whatever for doing the exact same thing

Duh. Because neither one had a monopoly.

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#43

Post by laumars »

maaaats wrote: post #25

I'm almost equally scared of the Chrome dominance now as I was for IE6.

I'm less scared because at least Chrome (or rather Blink / webkit) is open source so can (and is) implemented in other browsers. However I do agree with you that it isn't healthy for any single rendering engine to monopolise the internet.

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#44

Post by laumars »

pinumbernumber wrote: post #18
paulojreis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... you know what a browser is (and you also know that there are alternatives). Most people don't. Most people don't open the browser, they "go to the Internet"; the browser is the "Internet". If a dominant player bundles their browser (as a component) in their OS, people become less and less aware of the browser as a possible and separate "product", and will of course use the dominant one as default - this is (a…

But the same is true for the calculator app, or the file manager. Granted, the web is used for a lot more than those... but I don't see why the browser is singled out as something needing special legal treatment.

Microsoft have come under fire over other software they've bundled free with Windows as well.

IIRC the latest was Windows Defender.

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#45

Post by grobinson »

mgkimsal wrote: post #36
grobinson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite see what interaction over the Internet has to do with the issue. Microsoft Office is regularly bundled with new Windows computers as a trial, or basic license. Could that not be seen as anti competitive? I could argue that the TCP/IP stack is "bundled" with the operating system, and it's something that's very difficult to change (if not impossible without recompiling the kernel). Network engineers have…

There wasn't a whole lot of evidence that MS was trying to explicitly kill for-profit TCP stack vendors.

Well that's true, my straw man doesn't quite stand up in this case. However it still doesn't explain why Internet Explorer was the target when there is so much other software that was bundled with Windows, which too had for profit competitors? Those people who exclusively used Internet Explorer as "the Internet" would too have used the bundled mail client (I can't remember what it was called back in the day) exclusively too and seen that as "the email"?

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#46

Post by mgkimsal »

grobinson wrote: post #45
mgkimsal wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There wasn't a whole lot of evidence that MS was trying to explicitly kill for-profit TCP stack vendors.

Well that's true, my straw man doesn't quite stand up in this case. However it still doesn't explain why Internet Explorer was the target when there is so much other software that was bundled with Windows, which too had for profit competitors? Those people who exclusively used Internet Explorer as "the Internet" would too have used the bundled mail client (I can't remember what it was called back in the day) exclusiv…

I don't think there was anything else bundled with Windows that explicitly targeted other for-profit competitors at that time.

Dr-DOS and the Berkley screen saver stuff are two other situations that spring to mind, both of which resulted in legal cases, but the size/scope of MS by the time the Netscape thing came around was probably the tipping point (considering their previous behavior already demonstrated a pattern which showed no signs of stopping).

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#47

Post by [deleted] »

mgkimsal wrote: post #46
grobinson wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's true, my straw man doesn't quite stand up in this case. However it still doesn't explain why Internet Explorer was the target when there is so much other software that was bundled with Windows, which too had for profit competitors? Those people who exclusively used Internet Explorer as "the Internet" would too have used the bundled mail client (I can't remember what it was called back in the day) exclusiv…

I don't think there was anything else bundled with Windows that explicitly targeted other for-profit competitors at that time. Dr-DOS and the Berkley screen saver stuff are two other situations that spring to mind, both of which resulted in legal cases, but the size/scope of MS by the time the Netscape thing came around was probably the tipping point (considering their previous behavior already demonstrated a pattern…

[deleted]

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#48

Post by rskar »

humpt wrote: post #5

I remember seeing this on TV and not understanding why microsoft was threatened with a fine if they ship IE by default on their products. Actually I still don't. Nobody ever stopped me from downloading another browser on windows, anyone who wants to do it will do it. So people did have a choice, they just didn't know they had it, and it's their problem, not microsoft's! Could someone explain this to me?

The simplest explanation: Implementation costs, as in what it takes to design internet based systems in order to connect with and make sales to consumers and businesses.

The grand dream has long been to have a set of standards which web browser designers and network infrastructure designers must design to. In reality, standards development and compliance has a lag time to it that brings frustration to those who need web sites for their business models. So, in all practicality, they will design and test for perhaps one, two, or three platforms - as popularity may guide - and make use of non-standard methods where standards-based methods are lacking.

Add to this what others have observed, that the typical user knows little to nothing about what a web browser is, or even cares to know.

Companies that manage to achieve popularity for their internet technologies - such as a web browser, among other things - tend to have stronger voices and more powerful influences on standards committees. That gives them a competitive edge in that they can push for a standard where their products are already or nearly compliant with, thereby forcing others to expend energy (cash + time) into whatever reverse engineering projects needed to comply. Alternatively, the stronger voices can also induce more heel-dragging.

In the meantime, companies that have the popular technologies - such as Microsoft, especially in the 1990's - can more easily make sales to the businesses requiring web sites, for either internet or intranet needs. And consumers find their internet surfing experience generally satisfying with the home computer as they got it (again, especially in the 1990's, that was MS Windows + Internet Explorer).

Microsoft was uniquely positioned for dominance. They made the most popular desktop OS, and equipped it with a ubiquitous web browser (for both Windows and Mac OS back then). They then also had the server technology, software development tools, and a "portal" to funnel consumers to advertisers and shopping sites. Basically, they were leveraging their software technology and market position to get into the same business that Netscape had just started. They succeeded tremendously, and basically squeezed out much of the competition, including Netscape.

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#49

Post by drzaiusapelord »

humpt wrote: post #5

I remember seeing this on TV and not understanding why microsoft was threatened with a fine if they ship IE by default on their products. Actually I still don't. Nobody ever stopped me from downloading another browser on windows, anyone who wants to do it will do it. So people did have a choice, they just didn't know they had it, and it's their problem, not microsoft's! Could someone explain this to me?

The EU just followed what the US courts said during Clinton. Clinton turned MS into a whipping boy.

In retrospect, the courts were wrong. Netscape's profit model made no sense. People didn't want to pay for commodity software like a web browser. MS had every right to release a free one bundled with their platform. The web isn't some optional thing. A browser is part of every OS now.

On top of it, the deal MS signed didn't let it control OEMs so that laptop that's full of shitware that slows Windows down and gives it a huge attack surface is not something MS could fight until recently with Win8. The government empowered OEMs.

The Netscape/MS fight wasn't worth it. The government should never have stepped in. In the end the best product wins. I, and everyone I know, got Chrome via downloading it. Not via some fancy choice menu.

I think the truth here is that Netscape had a lot of friends in the government and Clinton's DOJ wanted to make some career defining kills. Bill Gates was an obvious target. It was wrong for Clinton to attack MS. It didn't stop IE6's dominance, it didn't revive Netscape, and it didn't fix anything. If anything, it made everything worse.

Tech is generally a meritocracy. People can just migrate to whatever software they life. MS wasn't stopping Firefox or Netscape from being installed. Lets give our companies room to compete. Lets not applaud heavy handed legislation from either the US or the EU. I mean, google fucking maps can't even be seen in Spain due to corruption. Governments are just as corrupt as business. Except government is an unstoppable monopoly with guns.

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#50

Post by Eric_WVGG »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #49
humpt wrote: post #5

I remember seeing this on TV and not understanding why microsoft was threatened with a fine if they ship IE by default on their products. Actually I still don't. Nobody ever stopped me from downloading another browser on windows, anyone who wants to do it will do it. So people did have a choice, they just didn't know they had it, and it's their problem, not microsoft's! Could someone explain this to me?

The EU just followed what the US courts said during Clinton. Clinton turned MS into a whipping boy. In retrospect, the courts were wrong. Netscape's profit model made no sense. People didn't want to pay for commodity software like a web browser. MS had every right to release a free one bundled with their platform. The web isn't some optional thing. A browser is part of every OS now. On top of it, the deal MS signed d…

Agree that in hindsight web browsers was a dumb thing to take down MS over. It was difficult at the time to make the claim that a browser-less computer would someday be effectively useless, but that point came.

The lawsuit should have been over their Office suite. (And no, in the end, the best product did not win.)

Post reply on HN