Sure, but shouldn't the same rules apply to every company that ships an OS bundled with a web browser?
Agreed, it has to start somewhere though. Enough complaints about it will kick off further changes if they are merited.
I'm assuming you're referring to the OP -- if so I don't see any reference to the slippery slope this could create to other software that's bundled. Which is what quaker3 was pointing out in his post. I mean I need a calculator to add large numbers, I use the one on my Windows PC all the time -- how come other calculator makers don't have a fair shot as to having their calculators bundled. Afaic Microsoft is abusing it's monopoly on the PC market to maintain it's monopoly on PC calculators. Plus there are hundreds of browsers out there, why isn't Microsoft listing all of them? I just compiled my own chromium build, how come my browser isn't on there? And yes I realize how ridiculous my statements sound but my point still stands, this is barely an issue for the user. Well its' been 9 years since the WMP one, you'd think they would start taking action on other companies by now.
you seem to miss the point pal. Now by your logic(since you defend ms by being guilty of not offering browser choice - lol) someone should sue them for not offering alternative calculators and how about alternative notepads.
Calculators dont generate market share for internet access products and dont generate revenue. This isnt a perfect world. But when a problem is found, its good that steps are taken to address it. This is a step toward fairness and preventing a monopoly as has already been shown to exist. I'm not responsible for what they have or havent done, I'm presenting a fair view of what is happening.
It just smells of a cash grab to me. As others have said - MS shouldn't have to offer the competitions products on their own OS. Users have a choice if they want to swap by doing it themselves (and if they don't know how then they don't really need to). Can you imagine if this logic was applied to everything and not just on operating systems? - "Steam fined for not letting people run Steam purchased games on Origin" - "EA fined for not letting users transfer Origin games to Steam" etc. It all sounds, well - really stupid to be frank and it's something that should never have even been considered for court.
There may be some truth there. But then again, MS knew this would cost a fortune if they didnt comply, yet they still didnt comply. How much of a fine is necessary to make them take it seriously? Perhaps this level of fine is the only way.
Why not just fine all operating systems for not notifying people that there are alternative operating systems?
Ah, so thats why a few days back i did a format and was asked which browser i wanted. For a second i though it was a virus of some sort because windows never gave me a choice, i had to use explorer to download other browser i wanted. I support this change. Just wish they gave more information on each browser for the noobs to know better.
Those requirements were imposed upon Microsoft when it had 90% of market share for Browsers and a lot of people were running old versions and thus exposed themselves and others to security risks. MS should continue to be required to notify a choice of browser because of the market share of Windows and the general ineptitude of the common user. Chrome and Firefox are automatically updated, IE is reliant on Windows Update though 10 seems to have changed that. Besides, the competition helped improve the quality of their browser. Apple and Linux based OS' have a relatively tiny market share so they're a non-factor.
the only thing ms should be sued is for monopoly with directx.. life would be much more simpliet if directx would be on any os available. We might even see more evolved gaming on pc if directx would be on linux maybe?
Couldn't that be said of Windows Media Player as well? I think it'd be courteous to offer alternative software, but I don't see how they should be brought up on charges for not.
Well, any program that has online functions is, somewhat, exposed, IMO. They (MS) doesn't block Mozilla or Google Chrome webpages, etc. And you will not see any "You can't install this program on this O.S." (i.e. Windows). They include their stuff in their O.S. Wanna other program? Download it and install it, make it your default software et voila, you're free to do that. O.S. is a collection of software that manages computer hardware resources and provides common services for computer programs (from wiki). So they provided their Windows O.S. with their basic web navigation program. That "Browser choice" stuff they included is more than enough and even better (IMO) than include installers. Imagine they include buggiest version of Firefox. Mozilla, after correcting that bug, probably would like to replace that included installer. With links you will always download latest version. To sum up: as many here already said, that fine/law is quite dumb and just an easy cash grab. Just my .02.
It may not be as attacked as much as IE, but WMP never had good record. One of many examples: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/critical-windows-media-flaws-put-millions-at-risk/10017 Even if it had a perfect record, they aren't exactly notifying users of alternative media players, or any other pre installed software. And nowadays the IE market share is around 50% anyway, and from a security stand point, is just as secure/insecure as other browsers, especially when we start getting into plugin useage. I don't see any justification for them to say Microsoft should be notifying people of alternative anything.
IE is not the worst browser when it comes to security risk anyway anyway, last i heard only Chrome was more secure than IE, with Firefox being the least secure. As mentioned the whole thing reeks of a cash grab, like they all had a meeting and realised funds were low so decided to go after MS who are an easy target when it comes to this. I don't even think it's a good idea to give people a choice, those who want to use another browser will go and download that, while those who don't wan't to use anything other than IE won't go near a browser they haven't heard of. It's pointless, and if anything just creates more confusion for new users.
Why it's anti-competitive? Windows never restricts other browsers from being installed? And that money, where does it go?