Solandri
Illustrious
- Jan 4, 2012
- 4,919
- 98
- 39,240
[citation][nom]wannabepro[/nom]Google. I am dissapoint.[/citation]
Whether or not to be disappointed with Google depends on context which is not present in the report.
If Google and Opera found a problem, gleefully rubbed their hands while cackling evilly, and went to the EU to tattle, then yes I'm disappointed.
If Google and Opera reported the problem to Microsoft, waited for a fix, asked a couple months later when a fix might be coming, Microsoft blew them off, and then they reported it to the EU, then I don't see any problem with it.
[citation][nom]rahulkadukar[/nom]This is plain stupid. Every single operating system needs a browser as one of its basic applications. Microsoft decided to bundle IE with it.[/citation]
You have to judge it based on the timeframe during which this happened, not present circumstances. At the time it wasn't at all clear that every operating system needed a browser.
At the time, the web was new and exploding in popularity. The first Super Bowl ads with a URL were in Jan 1995. Netscape (company which employed many of the researchers at UIUC who wrote NCSA Mosaic - the first fully featured browser) was in position to become a huge success, and coincidentally poised to potentially wrest control of the PC desktop away from Microsoft (back then, nobody was sure if desktop apps or web-based cloud apps would win).
Gates had bet wrongly on the future direction of networked communications. He thought subscription services with walled gardens like AOL, CompuServe, and GEnie would dominate. So he and NBC teamed up to found MSNBC (yes originally it was a subscription service). He thought the Internet was a passing fad, and refused to put a TCP/IP stack in Windows 3.x.
By 1994 it was clear he was wrong and the Internet was going to supplant the walled gardens. Microsoft finally added a TCP/IP stack to Windows in Win95. MSNBC was gutted and turned into a free web site. Netscape (who originally sold their browser for something like $29, free for non-commercial use) was going to make a fortune.
Microsoft was late to the game and struggled with IE (originally a downloadable add-on to Win95). The first few versions sucked, and Netscape dominated the browser market, holding about 70% of the market by 1997. In 1998 Microsoft took the gloves off, bundling IE with Win98. IE market share skyrocketed, and Netscape began a long, steady decline.
Everything up to this point I didn't really have a problem with Microsoft doing. Was it dirty? Yes. Was it illegal? No. But what happened next changed everything IMHO. By late 2000, IE controlled 80% of the browser market, and Netscape's share had fallen below 10%. With Netscape effectively vanquished, Microsoft ceased development of IE. For about a 13 month period, the only updates released for IE were security updates. No new features were added.
IMHO this is the point where it ceased being Microsoft giving away a browser in the customer's best interest, and became Microsoft giving away a browser to stifle competition. If the competition had still been around, there's no way Microsoft would've stood still on IE development for a year. If Microsoft had had the customer's best interests in mind, they would've continued IE development. But because they were primarily interested in eliminating competition to reduce their expenses, they effectively ceased browser development once they passed about 80% market share. They didn't ramp up work on new features for IE until Firefox betas started making their way around the net in 2001, and people were like OMG tabbed browsing, why hasn't anyone done this before.
Basically, the current state of the art of web browsers is a year behind where it should be because of Microsoft's market manipulation, and it always will be a year behind, forever. That's what this fine is all about - to make sure Microsoft does not benefit from those shenanigans which hurt the browser market, past, present, and future, even if you're too young to remember it.
Whether or not to be disappointed with Google depends on context which is not present in the report.
If Google and Opera found a problem, gleefully rubbed their hands while cackling evilly, and went to the EU to tattle, then yes I'm disappointed.
If Google and Opera reported the problem to Microsoft, waited for a fix, asked a couple months later when a fix might be coming, Microsoft blew them off, and then they reported it to the EU, then I don't see any problem with it.
[citation][nom]rahulkadukar[/nom]This is plain stupid. Every single operating system needs a browser as one of its basic applications. Microsoft decided to bundle IE with it.[/citation]
You have to judge it based on the timeframe during which this happened, not present circumstances. At the time it wasn't at all clear that every operating system needed a browser.
At the time, the web was new and exploding in popularity. The first Super Bowl ads with a URL were in Jan 1995. Netscape (company which employed many of the researchers at UIUC who wrote NCSA Mosaic - the first fully featured browser) was in position to become a huge success, and coincidentally poised to potentially wrest control of the PC desktop away from Microsoft (back then, nobody was sure if desktop apps or web-based cloud apps would win).
Gates had bet wrongly on the future direction of networked communications. He thought subscription services with walled gardens like AOL, CompuServe, and GEnie would dominate. So he and NBC teamed up to found MSNBC (yes originally it was a subscription service). He thought the Internet was a passing fad, and refused to put a TCP/IP stack in Windows 3.x.
By 1994 it was clear he was wrong and the Internet was going to supplant the walled gardens. Microsoft finally added a TCP/IP stack to Windows in Win95. MSNBC was gutted and turned into a free web site. Netscape (who originally sold their browser for something like $29, free for non-commercial use) was going to make a fortune.
Microsoft was late to the game and struggled with IE (originally a downloadable add-on to Win95). The first few versions sucked, and Netscape dominated the browser market, holding about 70% of the market by 1997. In 1998 Microsoft took the gloves off, bundling IE with Win98. IE market share skyrocketed, and Netscape began a long, steady decline.
Everything up to this point I didn't really have a problem with Microsoft doing. Was it dirty? Yes. Was it illegal? No. But what happened next changed everything IMHO. By late 2000, IE controlled 80% of the browser market, and Netscape's share had fallen below 10%. With Netscape effectively vanquished, Microsoft ceased development of IE. For about a 13 month period, the only updates released for IE were security updates. No new features were added.
IMHO this is the point where it ceased being Microsoft giving away a browser in the customer's best interest, and became Microsoft giving away a browser to stifle competition. If the competition had still been around, there's no way Microsoft would've stood still on IE development for a year. If Microsoft had had the customer's best interests in mind, they would've continued IE development. But because they were primarily interested in eliminating competition to reduce their expenses, they effectively ceased browser development once they passed about 80% market share. They didn't ramp up work on new features for IE until Firefox betas started making their way around the net in 2001, and people were like OMG tabbed browsing, why hasn't anyone done this before.
Basically, the current state of the art of web browsers is a year behind where it should be because of Microsoft's market manipulation, and it always will be a year behind, forever. That's what this fine is all about - to make sure Microsoft does not benefit from those shenanigans which hurt the browser market, past, present, and future, even if you're too young to remember it.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram