Pick Your Browser: Microsoft Shows Off Ballot

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]No, I think we all understand the differance between having the programs installation files included in the Windows disk and a link that downloads the program directly from the internet. But in a high-speed-always-on-internet connected world, where the thing that is being downloaded is the internet browser, there is no real differance to the end user.[/citation]
For the end user installation might be transparent, but for MS and OEMs it's not the same thing. Under this arrangement nobody but the user and the browser maker are responsible for the quality of software they get, whereas if MS had to ship other browsers with their OS they might have to be held accountable if it turned out that one of the browsers consistently borked the system on installation or something. This way MS doesn't have to offer any additional support for their shipping product, the Windows install disk.

Isn't the point that MS wouldn't mind so much if the companies paid MS for the free advertising?

That's not any point I've ever heard brought up in regards to this case.

Despite anyone's personal feelings towards MS, the other companies are essentially getting EU mandated free advertising and the second they click the "select and install" link it is also free distribution.[/citation]
It's not "Free distribution," because the other companies are all providing the distribution service with their own hosting. As to the idea that this is free advertising, that would be a relatively light punishment for violating the EU's anti-competitive practices laws which harmed the competing companies' marketshare, don't you think? Now the other browsers get at least a small bit of the same artificial distribution and adoption advantage IE had by virtue of shipping pre-installed on over 90% of PCs.
In fact, this whole ballot idea was MS's to begin with as part of a settlement with the commission. I be there are several other companies facing anti-competition cases who wish they could get off so lightly. Sure, MS might wish they could turn this punitive measure around and make assloads of money off it that would otherwise have slipped by them, but would that really be a more fair outcome? Do you really think that the appropriate answer to an investigation about whether IE abused its monopoly is to set up a situation where MS makes money from the competitors whose prospects for market adoption it unfairly quashed for years?

The thing is that you don't seem to be considering this as a case of one company abusing its monopoly position and are apparently thinking of this as a normal company in a normal market situation. If this were just a decision against Joe Bob's Laundromat Chain in a city full of other laundromat chains with healthy competition, you'd have a very good argument that this is totally unfair to Joe Bob's. Even if this were a suit against McDonald's or Starbucks, you could say these measures make no sense in the world of a free market economy. But MS is unique in enjoying so much control over the market associated with PCs that not even those ubiquitous franchises are good comparisons. No one fast food joint or coffee shop controls 90% of their market and uses that as leverage to edge out competing kids' playgrounds (included at many McDonald's) or sandwich shops (Starbucks also sells food). I just don't think you're getting the fact that MS is not a normal company with a normal market here, it has to be considered in the context of unfair monopolistic practices crossing over market boundaries (from OS to browser).

 

[back_by_demand]

Wheels, I think we just need to agree to disagree. You obviously have a hard on for the anti-corporate vote and want to see the big man suffer just so companies who produce a piece of freeware that is propped up by advertising get a free ride on the back of someone elses pay-for software.

I'm all for seeing these companies succeed, but only if they go through the same process as everyone else and pay for their advertising. and no I dont see it as MS abusing their monopoly, because otherwise why dont you fervantly support the right of the following bits of software to be equally treated
http://download.cnet.com/Taskbar-Calculator/3000-2072_4-10063339.html
http://download.cnet.com/Scientific-Calculator/3000-12565_4-10701046.html
http://download.cnet.com/Mini-Calculator/3000-2072_4-10649386.html
http://download.cnet.com/Simple-Calculator/3000-12565_4-10754110.html
Every single one of those is freeware that is unable to generate large revenue from sponsorship or advertising because the one that is integrated (or bundled) with Windows is an "abuse" of its monopoly. So why don't you shout up for the poor calculator app people?

The answer is simple, they don't expect to get preferential treatment as their product was created after the one in Windows. Well here's news for you, every single one of those rival net browsers was created after the invention of IE. The only one that wasn't was Netscape which if it had followed the sponsorship model of Firefox instead of charging actual cash to the end user may well be the dominant player today. It isn't so it's gone. The other artificially created a market after IE so have no sovereign right to exist in any other capacity other than as a freeware download and advertised to the public from their own money at the developers expense.

Agree to disagree. See you at the next G8 meeting, i'll be the one looking out an office window, you'll be the one throwing a shopping cart through it.

 

[Guest]

A hundred years from now if humans still continue to exist it will probably be a big joke about how some 3rd party software companies made the Microsoft monster advertise for them. I don't advocate this at all but on the other hand hey they got away with it so why not....LMAO
Come to think of it if TV/Radio stations get paid for advertisements shouldn't the big M get some too?