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

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#91

Post by icantthinkofone »

scarmig wrote: post #69
icantthinkofone wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be no fear. IE6 held the web back. Chrome pushed it forward.

You're looking at things from the perspective of IE6 in 2014, not IE6 in 2001. Of course it seems shitty today, but that's because browsers from then are shitty compared to browsers today. It's only a victim of its success and the fact that rolling updates weren't a plausible model then. If the contemporaneous Netscape 6 had been anywhere near as successful as IE6, you'd be cursing it now. Almost certainly more than…

I said nothing about IE6 being shitty. Only you did. Netscape failed due to the illegal activities of Microsoft as outlined in the anti-trust complaint against them back then.

But IE6 held the web back by not keeping with the standards or making improvements and only letting it work on Windows. It took Mozilla and Firefox to get things moving and they took away 30% of their market share all by themselves. Then, when Chrome came along, that signaled the huge drop off. All by moving the web forward.

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#92

Post by kalleboo »

chrisan wrote: post #56
kalleboo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the original reason wasn't that Microsoft was shipping IE with Windows per say, but that they were telling OEMs that they weren't allowed to pre-install Netscape if they wanted to keep their sweet Windows OEM license deals. Am I thinking of the wrong case?

That would make more sense if this was the root of the problem. Otherwise Apple and Google would be in the same boat offering users a choice to install a browser other than the default for OSX, iOS, and Android

It still wouldn't be the same case as neither Apple nor Google have anything near antitrust levels of monopoly

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#93

Post by icantthinkofone »

Igglyboo wrote: post #74
icantthinkofone wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a developer of the site problem, not a Chrome or Firefox problem. No self respecting web developer would ever make any site work only in one browser.

It has nothing to do with "self respect". If Chrome dominates why would you waste time/money testing on other browsers?

I should have said, no knowledgeable web developer would do such a thing. There are other browsers out there, including mobile, and no web developer worth his salt ever targets one browser alone.

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#94

Post by icebraining »

icantthinkofone wrote: post #89
icebraining wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I meant what I said. Specifically, I was referring to this[1], where the EP says regulators should consider splitting up search engines from other commercial services. That doesn't mean I believe they well split them up - nor does the resolution say that, it's just a recommendation - but it does mean they're increasing the pressure on Google, and so potentially on Android as well. [1] http://www.europarl.europa.e…

That link says nothing about anything you just said and doesn't mention Google directly either other than the general reference of "search engines".

Unbundling the search engine from all other commercial services essentially means splitting the company in two, even if they can still be called both "Google". Maybe I'm reading to much into it, but everyone else (Reuters. Telegraph, FT and a lot of others) seem to agree. In any case, all I'm saying I'd that it represents increased pressure, nothing more.

As for not mentioning Google directly, that's not really a great puzzle. Google is the only search engine with any relevance in a regulatory sense, and MEPs have mentioned it before. Of course, they must remain impartial, but it's not DDG they're worried about :)

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#95

Post by laumars »

icantthinkofone wrote: post #90
laumars wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest you're just arguing semantics as Blink is a fork of the same webkit components that Chrome was using previously. So little has changed from a rendering perspective. Given the amount of redundant code in webkit due to Google and Apple pushing the library in slightly different directions, it does make some sense to fork it. And it's really no different to Apple forking webkit themselves (webkit2). However…

"Blink is a fork of the same webkit components that Chrome was using previously. So little has changed from a rendering perspective." Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Citation needed]

But seriously, simply stating someone is wrong is less constructive than not replying at all. I'm open to correction :)

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#96

Post by [deleted] »

finid wrote: post #61
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

@drzaiusapelord, I honestly don't know where to start with you, but I'll try. > Clinton turned MS into a whipping boy. No, he didn't. Bill Gates and Co got away with what amounted to a misdemeanor, when they could easily have been nailed with multiple felonies. Bill Gates once bragged openly that MS got away with a slap on the wrist. He knew what he was talking about. > the deal MS signed didn't let it control OEMs W…

[deleted]

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#97

Post by drzaiusapelord »

finid wrote: post #61
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

@drzaiusapelord, I honestly don't know where to start with you, but I'll try. > Clinton turned MS into a whipping boy. No, he didn't. Bill Gates and Co got away with what amounted to a misdemeanor, when they could easily have been nailed with multiple felonies. Bill Gates once bragged openly that MS got away with a slap on the wrist. He knew what he was talking about. > the deal MS signed didn't let it control OEMs W…

>that you're a paid shrill.

Please try to act like a mature adult. I'm an HN commentator like you with a long history here. Your shrill attacks aren't helping your argument.

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#98

Post by eveningcoffee »

maaaats wrote: post #25

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

I noticed that google street view has stopped to work reliably in Firefox in Ubuntu (not tested elsewhere) but still works fine with Chrome. This thing really looks intentional.

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#99

Post by walkon »

laumars wrote: post #82
walkon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was there in the 90s. Only having access to Windows when the Internet became common, guess how I went about learning there were other browsers out there and downloading Netscape? How much more difficult would that have been if IE wasn't included by default with Windows?

Not that much harder since software demo disks often came bundled with consumer magazines. In fact back in the 90s, my Linux box would only receive updates via magazine cover disks.

Are you saying Microsoft should have intentionally excluded a means to browse http content and instead directed customers to be on the lookout for consumer magazines with a demo disk containing a browser? Where and how do they draw the line to being a useful distribution and alienating their users? For example, certain ICMP utilities were included by default with Windows.

Re: Deal forcing Microsoft to offer browser choices ends

#100

Post by nightski »

dragonwriter wrote: post #84
nightski wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is amusing however how it is a practice now that all major technology companies partake in. For example Google & Apple constantly take ideas from a 3rd party apps and integrate them for free into Android/iOS.

The legal issue wasn't "taking ideas from 3rd party apps and integrating them for free into" Windows. It was taking anticompetitive steps to defend an existing monopoly, and to leverage an existing monopoly to monopolize another market. Its like complaining that one person gets arrested for shooting a gun when another doesn't, not noting that what the first person was actually arrested for was murder by way of a gun,…

Except would you not agree that once they are integrated for free into the platform the 3rd party apps generally die?
Post reply on HN