ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

ActiveMac

Articles

Forums

Links

News

News Search

Reviews

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

DVD

ActiveHardware

Xbox

MaINTosh

News Search

ANet Chats

The Lobby

Special Events Room

Developer's Lounge

XBox Chat

FAQ's

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows "Whistler" XP

Windows CE

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

TopTechTips

Registry Tips

Windows 95/98

Windows 2000

Internet Explorer 4

Internet Explorer 5

Windows NT Tips

Program Tips

Easter Eggs

Hardware

DVD

Latest Reviews

Applications

Microsoft Windows XP Professional

Norton SystemWorks 2002

Hardware

Intel Personal Audio Player 3000

Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer

Site News/Info

About This Site

Affiliates

ANet Forums

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

Microsoft Attacks 'Open Source' Browser Demand

Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: Wall Street Journal | Posted By: Todd Richardson

Microsoft Corp.'s widely used Internet Explorer Web browser could become buggy and unpredictable under an antitrust remedy proposed by nine state attorneys general, an attorney for the company argued in federal court Monday. Microsoft attorney Michael Lacovara was questioning for the second day economist Carl Shapiro, hired by the states to explain the consumer benefits and market effects of their broad proposals to remedy Microsoft 's antitrust violations.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 26 through 50 of 346
Prev | Last | Next

The time now is 10:46:18 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#26 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 4:49:15 PM

So... as I said we would happen--instead of arguing that this is a good or bad provision, you are back to saying that Microsoft never did anything wrong. Fine. If your argument is going to be--MS can appeal till the end of time, so be it--that doesn't get me any closer to giving up what I think are appropriate and necessary remedies.

#27 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/16/2002 4:55:22 PM

"Isn't Microsoft going to argue that they need to have tight control of the desktop because consuemrs can't make the decisions for themselves?"

Sodajerk, there is a clear difference between having a known platform developers can write applications for, which the consumer can then install there choice of available applications on, versus having a fragmented platform in which developers have to do more work to either support different distro combinations (or focus on one, shutting out those users running others), and the consumer getting a hodgepodge of components whose compatibility and functionality can't be guaranteed.

Microsoft never argued for tight control of the desktop because consumers couldn't make decisions for themselves. That was the DOJ/"competitors"/state's argument. Microsoft argued that the platform needs to remain set and standard so it doesn't deteriate into something like Linux. Dealing with multiple combinations of components in the OS increases their support costs and dillutes the value of the product known as Windows. It also creates end-user confusion because they may encounter unexpected functionality caused by third-party core components that they aren't aware are installed. Windows would no longer be a standard platform where everything works as expected from one computer to the next. As stated above, this also creates hell for developers because they can't program against a known platform, and instead, must go for a lowest common denominator, possibly having to replicate functionality that otherwise would have already been available on the standard platform. Most likely, however, they would just continue to use the OS provided by Microsoft (with MS components) as they did in the past because they wouldn't have to worry about the issues with the other distributions. End-users would probably do the same because of the developers, but many would be at the mercy of whatever OEM they purchase their computer from -- using the distribution that comes with their computer but wondering why there software doesn't work with it. The market fragmentation would make Microsoft either have to refuse support for OEM OSes, or stop making Windows altogether because it would be more profitable than supporting the different combinations.

The OEMs were forced to do things only by there own greed. As has been said before, they could've easily purchased OEM versions of Windows without signing contracts, and sold their systems with whatever configurations they wanted. They were stupid if they didn't read the contracts beforehand or expected to be the only ones benefitting from the deal.

#28 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 4/16/2002 5:01:34 PM

Hey SodaJerk, I was just restating what I meant and it was one sentence out of the whole post. I was trying to get out of you what you thought would be good remedies. Instead you want to be a dick and not answer, I was trying to get an understanding since I do not sit here all day and read every post you make. I came into this whole thing a little late in the game. And AW staff you can toss this one if calling him a dick is too offending.

#29 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 5:17:31 PM

mctwin, what was so offensive? Jeez, you make me laugh. Don't worry, I don't get offended so easily. Why didn't you just ask--"What do you think are appropriate remedies then, Sodajerk?" Far easier than restating the same thing you have said many, many, many times before.

enforcer, yes, there is a difference--there is also a difference between a consistent platform and a platform which prevents 3rd parties from establishing any leverage on it, or in fact, provides the opportunity of displacing MS as the dominant app provider as well. And it doesn't necessary follow that everything goes to hell if it becomes modular or IE is open sourced--that's FUD.

And actually MS did argue for tight control because the users were stupid. They quite clearly cited claims that if 2 icons were on the desktop, users were confused--so that's why they could only allow MS icons on the desktop.

No, the OEMs weren't forced by their own greed; they were fully aware that other OEM's had the same deals--that was the problem--if they didn't do it, MS would give greater incentive to the other OEMs, killing the OEM that disagreed with them. It was a matter of just signing these contracts to get a leg up on the other OEMs; it was that the exclusivity towards MS continued to grow because the OEMs were increasingly dependent on Windows, and if they chose differently which they could do "freely", they would fail equally "freely". That's not free choice. That's bribery by a monopoly.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 17:18.

#30 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 4/16/2002 5:21:34 PM

Sorry Soda, bad day. Anyway I'll bite, what do you want MS to do today?

#31 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 5:40:46 PM

It's alright, mctwin. I may have to apologize for not replying satisfactorily but I may need to get some work done today... In my mind, there are several alternatives. One would be relative close to the unsettling states proposal with slightly modified proposals--I don't necessary have an issue with most of their goals, but some of their execution just seems poor and provides MS a defense... I certainly support open sourcing IE--I think it makes perfect sense and see no harm to MS--they just lose what they got illegally, however much cash or R&D went into it. That R&D doesn't get handed over to AOL--it goes to the public, the consuemrs. I would have advocated a breakup into three companies--an app company, an OS/corporate services company, and an internet services company--giving them an opportunity to collaborate and determine where .Net belongs, etc... but also requiring them to develop Mac and Linux products if there was an ROI... But that option has disappeared. I would also advocate something between the RPFJ and the unsettling states if they were forced to develop an "interoperability" division--which would work on a GUI multi-OS boot loader, improving portability of file formats, would actually have workers working on non-MS versions of .Net, and would actually work to make MS more modular, etc... There are a few things that could be more creative, but I've actually stayed within a "narrow" framework of what has been suggested to the courts. But I do think the situation will improve with most of what is above--without any clear inidication of irreparable harm. Anyway, I would like for my answer to be a bit more concerted, directed, and definite since you did ask--but that's all I've got for now. Maybe some other time.

#32 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 4/16/2002 5:57:47 PM

I agree with most. And yes I did agree with the fact that open sourcing IE will not be the demise of MS or hurt them in anyway. But it was the point of giving there IP out. Anyway I would not agree with splitting them up, since this would most likely just create two or more monopolies, just not owned by Bill. Thanks for the answer though. The rest I agree with.

#33 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/16/2002 6:35:03 PM

Sodajerk, MS will continue to be the dominant app provider as long as they provide the best apps. Changing Windows would do nothing to stop this. The OEMs routinely provide software that is of lower quality than that which is included in the standard Windows installation. This software often hampers system stabillity or doesn't follow standard Windows software guidelines. OEMs install it because they are paid to do so. The software gains little marketshare because many consumers either don't like it and wipe it from their system, or because the OEM installs so many different applications that the user never gets around to seeing most of it. Try looking at the Start menu of an average OEM system. Most are overwelmed by the number of apps installed. Many also run at startup, which eats memory and impacts startup time. These apps often also install icons on the desktop, notification area, primary Start menu dialog and other places I probably haven't thought of. This is against Windows software guidelines, and overwhelms the user instead of enticing them to use the software.

With XP, Microsoft wanted to keep the desktop free of all icons (even their own) except the recycle bin (and possibly Help), but the OEMs complained because they couldn't make as much money by selling desktop space. Never mind that MS intended for apps to be run from the Start menu and was trying to decrease customer confusion, the OEMs simply wanted the money. The "competitors" (like AOL) even tried to complain that the Desktop Cleanup feature in XP wiped out their icons, but not MS'. The fact is that on a set interval, by default (which can also be changed or disabled by the user), the Cleanup Wizard moves all icons (including MS') not used within a certain period (or those explicitedly selected by the user) to a folder (created on the Desktop) called "Unused Desktop Shortcuts" to prevent the usual clutter seen on users desktops, and make it easier for them to find what they are looking for.

The only incentive for the OEMs was money. Hundreds of other OEMs, one of which frequents www.betanews.com, purchase OEM versions of Windows without being under contract. They configure their systems to order or have set configurations of whatever they want to offer. The guy on betanews even tried getting an OEM deal from Be when Be was still in business, but be said they weren't interested, leaving Be as the only OEM for computers with it's OS preinstalled. In refusing the support of smaller OEMs, Be made the same mistake it did when it refused to sell to Apple. They cut themselves out as a player just as the other "competitors" have. The OEMs, like Gateway, apparently suffer from lack of a quality product (according to others' past posts), and overloading the desktop with stuff people don't want.

#34 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 7:14:55 PM

Enforcer, shift your argument when I point out that MS does argue for tight control, huh? Fine. Now you are getting to the point of MS can't have it both ways--are they providing a platform, or are they providing a complete end-to-end verticle solution? If they feel that any additional non-MS software can compromise the entire intrgrity of their system; they should end the OEM program entirely. Hell, they shouldn't even allow 3rd party developers. If it's not so bad, then an OEM can bundle whatever they want. It is NOT just a matter of OEMs trying to make money. HP wanted to include other apps because their customers didn't want Outlook or IE to be the browser and mail apps (back in '97); they also wanted to include their own programs to improve performace. My Dell box has bundled software but it's all from Dell. Where's the money from AOL? I'm looking at my Dell box and I have 5 Dell apps (or files) in two folders... I have 12 bundled MS apps, two specifically MS folders that contain completely useless craps, and then there are accessory folders too. I don't think MS can argue clutter and functionality without looking like hypocrites. If MS doesn't like the way apps can install icons to various locations they shouldn't have built that functionality.... which they built for their own apps to invade the system like fleas. Remember, is it a platform or not?

Microsoft didn't want a clean desktop because of usability; they wanted to do so because they needed a reason to rationalize further control. If that was truly the case, MS apps wouldn't install desktop icons (even if they do get sweeped away, they still install them in the first place.)

So now it's all the OEMs fault? Are you advocating Apple's, Sun's, and sgi's model now? That's fine with me--but Microsoft still got themselves into the problem. You cannot create this freedom and arbitrarily revoke it to serve your own products advancement.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 19:18.

#35 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/17/2002 3:02:09 AM

Sodajerk, I didn't shift my argument. I was simply saying that MS wants to keep control of the platform, not the "desktop" (meaning the apps installed). Windows is a platform for software, but Microsoft has to maintain control of the default platform in order to ensure a level of uniformity accross computers. Third-parties and OEMS can install the software they want, but MS also needs to assure a level of functionality for developers to make software development easier. If core components are replaced, and not just added as an addition, MS can't guarentee the featureset, functionality, compatibility, or stability of the platform. Anytime something bad happens, MS gets the blame and support costs even if the fault is with the application, drivers, or hardware. This would increase exponentially if the platform were allowed to be stripped and substituted.

The desktop cleanup was about nothing more than usability. Studies showed how many users desktops are so cluttered they can't find anything when they want it. This sought to remedy that. Most newer MS apps ask if you want a Desktop icon installed. One of XP's major goals was to increase usability and efficiency by giving the user more intuitive options, set places for performing tasks, and indicators that help the user, such as the Start button being green, the close button being red, and the whole task-based approach to doing things.

Dell is one of the less problematic OEMs in terms of app installs. I have, however, seen some that were borderline. Try HP or Gateway to see what I mean. They should be consumer models because they may not bloat their business models as much. The whole functionality/quality assurance thing is why MS has the Windows logo programs for apps, hardware, and OEMs. Windows is like those drinks, candybars, or other products that are labeled, "Not to Be Sold as a Single Item" (or similar). It is and was a packaged product that was never intended to be broken into pieces. Add all the functionality you want, just don't compromise the original product. If your app follows the dev guidelines, you should have no problems. Most of the companies complaining, however, don't even use the guidelines or functionality that is provided for their benefit and to decrease their development time/costs. AOL/Netscape's software, for example, are cases of what not to do when creating software for the platform.

#36 By 4240821 (45.149.82.86) at 10/25/2023 8:06:10 PM