[TheSeanWilson]

Those of that don't like the default browser rush out and get Safari or Firefox in a heartbeat.

But there is a huge number of people that don't give a hoot about how fast or well-designed their browser is. These are the people that use Internet Explorer, because it gets the job done.

Long story short, IE users couldn't care less.

[dreyfus]

It is absolutely amazing how absolutely everybody here is missing the point.
MS achieved it's monopoly using illegal practises - this is documented ad nauseam. Browsers and most notably their search engine defaults are big money. Most users cannot tell the difference between any two browsers - do not consider the users of the Macworld (or other tech) forums representative - and will not even attempt to look further than the default.
MS did kill Netscape's business back then (the Netscape browser was not free) by putting enormous amounts of money into the development of IE6 and implementing several non-standard rendering, event handling etc. behavior. The sheer fact that this non-standard browser came pre-installed and free on approx. 95% of computers sold for almost a decade had a huge economic effect on the competition, as Web developers had little or no reason to code for any other browser, as none of them had any relevant market share. MS effectively killed the competition based on an existing monopoly.
The EU commission is doing it's job here. Ensuring competition and demanding fines where needed. The only valid complaint here would be, that they are quite late to the party.
The comparison with OS X / Safari is not valid. Apple / OS X has no monopoly and they have never done anything illegal to establish a monopoly.
The comparison between the issue at hand and the Bosnian "genocide" is completely absurd. The commission in charge of regulating anti-competitive behavior is not in charge of war decisions. You would not ask the SEC to close Guantanamo either I assume...

[Rhywun]

dreyfus said:

It is absolutely amazing how absolutely everybody here is missing the point.

Oh, we get the point--and we've been "getting" it for many years now. Only it doesn't make any sense.

Quote

MS achieved it's monopoly using illegal practises - this is documented ad nauseam.

So why doesn't the EU go after those practices (which practices, if they are substatiated, I believe happened long, long before the browser wars) rather than the entirely legal bundling of a browser with an operation system--as every other OS practices?

Quote

MS did kill Netscape's business back then (the Netscape browser was not free) by putting enormous amounts of money into the development of IE6

AKA "competition".

Quote

and implementing several non-standard rendering, event handling etc. behavior.

Bad behavior but again, nothing illegal.

Quote

The sheer fact that this non-standard browser came pre-installed and free on approx. 95% of computers sold for almost a decade had a huge economic effect on the competition

Yes, the fact that every OS came with a free browser meant that Opera could no longer charge money. Normally, that's a sign that you need to find something else to produce but in Opera's case it apparently means it's time to sue Microsoft again.

Web developers had little or no reason to code for any other browser

Web standards have been around for a VERY long time. Nobody put a gun to developers' heads and told them to code for Windows only.

MS effectively killed the competition based on an existing monopoly.

Dude, 90-something percent market share is NOT a monopoly, despite your (and many others) best attempts at twisting the language.

The only valid complaint here would be, that they are quite late to the party.

I remember circa 1997 I was a fan of Netscape. Then I became a fan of IE--because it was better. Then around 2002 I used Maxthon for awhile. Then Opera. Then Firefox. I have non-technical friends who took a similar journey. The idea that "people don't know what a browser is" is a complete fiction that died out long before the EU's battle even had a tiny shred of relevance.

The comparison with OS X / Safari is not valid. Apple / OS X has no monopoly

Neither does (or ever did have) Microsoft. The way to beat a monopoly--real or imagined--is to put out a better product. That's why I switched to Mac a few years ago.

[k2director]

Your whole argument can be summed up with this sentence, which appears at the end of the third graf in your post:

"MS effectively killed the competition based on an existing monopoly."

And yet, that's clearly not true. IE is currently losing market share and mind share to other browsers (Firefox, Safari, Chrome), which are only getting stronger by the day. How can bundling IE be killing the competition, when the competition has been gaining for at least a few years? Is it that you don't think having at least three credible, thriving alternatives to IE is enough? Tell me, how many credible alternatives are there to Microsoft Excel, Adobe After Effects, Final Cut Studio, ProTools or AutoCAD? Three is a pretty big number, actually. It takes pretty special circumstances for a marketplace to support more than three credible alternatives. And yet, with three alternatives in the browser market, you're still crying foul and claiming that a bundled IE is stiffling competition. Give me a break!

Frankly, I don't think you have a clear grasp of how innovation works (historically). You see Microsoft gaining a big advantage by bundling IE with its operating system, and think that's a problem. But that's actually a good thing! Microsoft created a hugely successful operating system that the public wanted badly (enough to make Windows successful over many other alternatives), and then Microsoft created a valuable piece of additional software (IE) and gave it away for free. The public voted with its dollars and chose what it thought was the best option (Windows with IE), and so Netscape Navigator died. You probably think that was a big shame, but I say, "So what??" It was a win/win situation for most people--ie, the public got a free, competent browser that worked hand-in-hand with their operating system of choice, and Microsoft grew richer for making a lot of good decisions and investing (in other words, risking) money wisely. In other words, Microsoft was rewarded for giving the public what they wanted, and that reward continues to encourage Microsoft to give the public what it wants, and encourages every other aspiring start up in the universe.

So did Microsoft's victory over Netscape mean the end of innovation for browsers? Of course not. After the dust settled, Microsoft got distracted (as winners often do), and other companies were free to step into the void (hence FireFox, Safari and Chrome). What's so bad about how things worked out? What's wrong with Microsoft continuing to give people something that they may very well want (a ready-to-go browser), and allowing those that don't want IE to use something else? There's nothing wrong with that.

I remember the late 1990s, when Microsoft seemed so dominant that people thought it would crush all competition. I never believed that dominance theory for a second, but the Justice Department did, and it took Microsoft to court over its "illegal practices". After spending a bunch of public $$ and a few years time of litigation, Microsoft got what effectively amounted to a slap on the wrist. Remember that in 2001? And, of course, many pundits, government officials and plain old whiners claimed that this would have terrible consequences for the computer industry, that Microsoft would own everything, blah blah blah.

Of course, while they were all whining about the doom and gloom scenarios in 2001, a once-written-off company called Apple Computer introduced a $500 Mp3 player with some cool innovative features. That same year, a little known startup called Google began to hit its stride. So what do things look like 8 years later? We all know that Microsoft isn't looking nearly as dominant anymore, is it? Many of its businesses are under assault, and innovation and growth are coming from other companies like Apple and Google. AND GET THIS: the government had absolutely NOTHING to do with this turn of fortune. Apple, Google, Mozilla, etc. etc. etc. managed to outperform Microsoft all by themselves, by working hard, taking risks and making good decisions. And the reason they were willing to do all that is because they dreamed to become just as dominant in their own endeavors as Microsoft had been in its earlier ones.

The problem with the EU is that it's trying to take away the motivation that drives the huge commitments of capital and manpower that innovation requires. The EU is trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, and for what purpose? Does anyone really think the public--ie, the average computer user--will be better served by not having a free browser installed on their computer, forcing them to make a decision that many people don't even care about making? The only people the EU's actions serve are the small group of shareholders in Opera's development company, and the EU paper-pushers that need to justify their existence.

P.S. And my bringing up the EU's failure to stop (or do anything about) the Bosnian genocide is completely relevant. The EU exists to protect the public on many fronts. My point is that the EU--like a typical bureaucratic institution that's accountable to no one--botched its mission in one of the most critical moments imaginable (ie, the need to prevent genocide in Europe), but is now spending money and time on nonsense like whether IE should be bundled or not. If I were European, I would vote those EU leaders out of office....

Oh wait, Europeans can't vote for their EU officials, can they??

[EPonj]

yes we can.

I laughed a lot about allusions to the Bosnian gencide. Check your geography guys.

Of course I agree they're being quite silly on this MS case, as they are on many cases. I guess it's just for the hype of doing everything US does, but 5 years later. I hate this. Soonn we're gonna have kids shooting their schoolmates and all.

[Rhywun]

EPonj said:

Soonn we're gonna have kids shooting their schoolmates and all.

Yeah, European history is one long happy party where everyone gets along. rolls eyes

[Steve_S]

dreyfus said:

It is absolutely amazing how absolutely everybody here is missing the point.

It's absolutely amazing that you think everyone else is missing the point. Maybe, just maybe, it's you who doesn't get it.

Quote

MS achieved it's monopoly using illegal practises - this is documented ad nauseam. Browsers and most notably their search engine defaults are big money. Most users cannot tell the difference between any two browsers - do not consider the users of the Macworld (or other tech) forums representative - and will not even attempt to look further than the default.

Look, I'm not a fan of either Microsoft of Explorer. I even agree that most users don't which browser they are using, nor do they care. I also agree that Microsoft has been guilty of illegal business practices. But, this isn't one of them. For the most part, browsers are free. Why shouldn't Microsoft have the right to include a browser with their OS by default? Should Apple not be allowed to ship Safari with OS X? What about Linux? Are you aware of an OS that doesn't bundle a browser? No? Then, what's your point?

Quote

MS did kill Netscape's business back then (the Netscape browser was not free) by putting enormous amounts of money into the development of IE6 and implementing several non-standard rendering, event handling etc. behavior.

Back then, browser development was very much the wild west. Netscape also incorporated Netscape specific tags in their HTML support. I agree that trying to tie IE with ActiveX controls was wrong. Microsoft should have been disciplined for that. But, in a sense they were due to the boatload of security issues that were associated with that combination.

>The sheer fact that this non-standard browser came pre-installed and free on approx. 95% of computers sold for almost a decade had a huge economic effect on the competition, as Web developers had little or no reason to code for any other browser, as none of them had any relevant market share. MS effectively killed the competition based on an existing monopoly.

Look, it happened because most end users are essentially computer illiterate. It didn't happen just because of the bundling practice. Again, are you prepared to agree that Apple can't supply Safari with OS X and that Linux can't supply Firefox, etc. with their distributions? Also to blame are the web sites that cater to IE flaws and sites that implement proprietary Microsoft technology. If web sites didn't render properly with IE (and many shouldn't), then users would be more inclined to try Safari or Firefox.

Quote

The EU commission is doing it's job here. Ensuring competition and demanding fines where needed. The only valid complaint here would be, that they are quite late to the party.

The EU is simply acting as the bully here and going after the big money. If they had a real issue based on principle, they would be going after Apple and Linux as well.

Quote

The comparison with OS X / Safari is not valid. Apple / OS X has no monopoly and they have never done anything illegal to establish a monopoly.

So, Apple's practices are just fine until they reach a certain market share. At which point, Apple should also be fined and forced to change it's practices? Should rules apply to everyone? I'm aware of legitimate unfair business practices that Microsoft has used over the years and should have been fined for. I've worked for a very large company who was given free Office licenses if they agreed to switch to the MS Exchange mail server, etc. Clearly, they've leveraged their market position unfairly in order to cut out competition. However, when you're dealing with free products like web browsers, it's how do you say giving something away for free is unfair?

The comparison between the issue at hand and the Bosnian "genocide" is completely absurd. The commission in charge of regulating anti-competitive behavior is not in charge of war decisions. You would not ask the SEC to close Guantanamo either I assume...

I agree with you here. However, I would think the comparison was made out of sarcasm more than anything else.

[Wondercow]

dreyfus said:

It is absolutely amazing how absolutely everybody here is missing the point.

I --think-- know you're the one missing the point.

Quote

MS achieved it's monopoly using illegal practises - this is documented ad nauseam. . . . MS did kill Netscape's business back then . . . MS effectively killed the competition based on an existing monopoly

What you are missing is that MS was already tried and convicted for those acts. Sure they're drawing it out to the last appeal, but they've already been punished with heavy fines. Do you thinks it's right to skirt the law and fine them for this as an additional punishment to what you wrote of above?

[dreyfus]

Rhywun said:

AKA "competition".

Well, not true. Offering a product for less than its cost with the intention to damage competitors or to monopolize is far more than competition. It is an illegal business practice. Netscape's main income was the browser, while MS did subsidize IE6 with income from the OS (and office products) to damage the competition, which obviously had no chance to exist while matching the price point. Ad support or other means of income were not feasible at this time.

Quote

Yes, the fact that every OS came with a free browser meant that Opera could no longer charge money. Normally, that's a sign that you need to find something else to produce but in Opera's case it apparently means it's time to sue Microsoft again.

Well, they did not sue MS, they pointed out the fact that neither IE7 nor IE6 are standards compliant, and that subsequently less Web pages are developed with full support for other browsers, as IE is used by a majority. This damages fair competition, the development of the Internet and increases cost for companies and public offices that aim to support all browsers. All these statements are true.

Quote

Web standards have been around for a VERY long time. Nobody put a gun to developers' heads and told them to code for Windows only.

Sure... try to go to a company and say: I am a Web designer, but I will only develop for Safari, Firefox and Opera. Hire me. Good luck.

Quote

Dude, 90-something percent market share is NOT a monopoly, despite your (and many others) best attempts at twisting the language.

to monopolyse: "the process by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition"

a monopoly "exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it"

an "abusive monopoly" ... U.S. Department of Justice on Microsoft

I am not twisting anything here.

Quote

I remember circa 1997 I was a fan of Netscape. Then I became a fan of IE--because it was better. Then around 2002 I used Maxthon for awhile. Then Opera. Then Firefox. I have non-technical friends who took a similar journey. The idea that "people don't know what a browser is" is a complete fiction that died out long before the EU's battle even had a tiny shred of relevance.

I do not disagree that IE was better at that time ? they invested severe amounts of money, and obviously they could come up with a respectable product. The vast majority of people I know use IE on Windows and Safari on OS X, and they would never even have the idea of trying a different browser. MS knows that and they have several times in court and other hearings stated that IE can not be untied from the OS for technical reasons, while others have proven that it can be done. They would stand the chance to lie in court, because the bundling is not important for them? I do not see that.

Neither does (or ever did have) Microsoft. The way to beat a monopoly--real or imagined--is to put out a better product. That's why I switched to Mac a few years ago.

Well, without the courts putting pressure on MS, they would not have invested in Apple, and there would not be any competition today. So much about simply putting out a better product, you need fair conditions to even get there and so far it was always and only courts that showed MS the way, not consumers.

[Rhywun]

dreyfus said:

Netscape's main income was the browser, while MS did subsidize IE6 with income from the OS (and office products) to damage the competition, which obviously had no chance to exist while matching the price point.

So what? Netscape didn't have a "right" to make a profit on Navigator. You claim that Microsoft is essentially able to put anyone out of business by dumping a free product on the masses. Well, that's just not true. There are numerous pay email clients for example, even today. The fact that Netscape couldn't compete with IE is Netscape's fault, not Microsoft's. By your logic, no OS would be allowed to add a feature that duplicates functionality that someone, somewhere is charging for.

Quote

Sure... try to go to a company and say: I am a Web designer, but I will only develop for Safari, Firefox and Opera. Hire me. Good luck.

No, if you have any integrity you say "I develop standards-compliant web sites, and I don't use browser-specific features."

Quote

Well, without the courts putting pressure on MS, they would not have invested in Apple, and there would not be any competition today.

Oh please. The theory that Microsoft "rescued" Apple has been disproved here and elsewhere numerous times.

Quote

So much about simply putting out a better product, you need fair conditions to even get there and so far it was always and only courts that showed MS the way, not consumers.

Switching OS's is not like switching brands of shampoos or cars, and the courts should stop pretending that it is. People stay with Windows not because it's a "monopoly" but because it runs the software they already paid for and because it's a tremendous hassle to switch.

[dreyfus]

k2director said:

And yet, that's clearly not true. IE is currently losing market share and mind share to other browsers (Firefox, Safari, Chrome), which are only getting stronger by the day. How can bundling IE be killing the competition, when the competition has been gaining for at least a few years? Is it that you don't think having at least three credible, thriving alternatives to IE is enough? Tell me, how many credible alternatives are there to Microsoft Excel, Adobe After Effects, Final Cut Studio, ProTools or AutoCAD? Three is a pretty big number, actually. It takes pretty special circumstances for a marketplace to support more than three credible alternatives. And yet, with three alternatives in the browser market, you're still crying foul and claiming that a bundled IE is stiffling competition. Give me a break!

The number of competitors is not really relevant - the relevant facts are that the existing market share of IE has been achieved using unfair practices and that MS is still using this market power to distribute a non standards-compliant product, which ultimately allows them to maintain this lead (as there are still a lot of sites developed mainly or exclusively for IE compliance - this includes banks, public offices etc.). Competitors can create the best browser in the world (and both FF and Safari are clearly closer to that mark than IE will ever be), they still have zero chance to achieve the same market share.

Quote

So did Microsoft's victory over Netscape mean the end of innovation for browsers? Of course not. After the dust settled, Microsoft got distracted (as winners often do), and other companies were free to step into the void (hence FireFox, Safari and Chrome). What's so bad about how things worked out? What's wrong with Microsoft continuing to give people something that they may very well want (a ready-to-go browser), and allowing those that don't want IE to use something else? There's nothing wrong with that.

Well, the outome is, that you still can not use several Internet sites with fully standards-compliant browsers, because they have been "optimized" for IE. That is no big deal for Windows users, but it is a massive problem for OS X and Linux users. It did not kill innovation at all, but it has also cemented the need for Windows and IE in quite a few areas. If I or you perform any illegal activity, we would not be allowed to capitalize on it. MS was allowed to steal the car and keep it.

Quote

I remember the late 1990s, when Microsoft seemed so dominant that people thought it would crush all competition. I never believed that dominance theory for a second, but the Justice Department did, and it took Microsoft to court over its "illegal practices". After spending a bunch of public $$ and a few years time of litigation, Microsoft got what effectively amounted to a slap on the wrist. Remember that in 2001? And, of course, many pundits, government officials and plain old whiners claimed that this would have terrible consequences for the computer industry, that Microsoft would own everything, blah blah blah.

Well, that is true - just, it was the result of MS's own mismanagement and lack of innovation and low product quality that finally enabled the competition to gain some ground and it was this very DoJ verdict that caused MS to invest in Apple stock, so they could survive. The assumption that this verdict was not needed is, IMHO, wrong. It made a big difference, as it made some people think about MS and the risks of a lock-in (leading to a lot of companies and government agencies investing in mixed infrastructures), allowed OEMs to escape from "exclusive" contracts with MS (no company selling computers with Windows would e.g. have been allowed to sell netbooks with Linux at that time)... a lot of what we see happening today would not have been possible without the DoJ and the EU stepping on MS's feet.

Quote

The problem with the EU is that it's trying to take away the motivation that drives the huge commitments of capital and manpower that innovation requires. The EU is trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, and for what purpose? Does anyone really think the public--ie, the average computer user--will be better served by not having a free browser installed on their computer, forcing them to make a decision that many people don't even care about making? The only people the EU's actions serve are the small group of shareholders in Opera's development company, and the EU paper-pushers that need to justify their existence.

Nope. They e.g. serve my grandmother who would like to buy a Mac, but could not access her bank account from OS X. They serve every single company in the Union that needs to cut Web development cost and would greatly benefit from browsers that follow standards being in the majority.

Quote

P.S. And my bringing up the EU's failure to stop (or do anything about) the Bosnian genocide is completely relevant. The EU exists to protect the public on many fronts. My point is that the EU--like a typical bureaucratic institution that's accountable to no one--botched its mission in one of the most critical moments imaginable (ie, the need to prevent genocide in Europe), but is now spending money and time on nonsense like whether IE should be bundled or not. If I were European, I would vote those EU leaders out of office....

As if anything would ever be that easy... a) The EU is not existing as a replacement of the governments of the member countries and they - so far - only cover a fairly limited amount of subjects (mainly economy, ecology). There is no common constitution, no common treatment of crimes, no common bill of rights... nothing like that ? you blame them for something that is not even within their powers. They actually spend months discussing what shape, color and weight makes a banana a banana... to even imagine, that they would ever come up with a common opinion on anything as severe as participating in a military mission, is far-fetched. Agreeing on the definition of "genocide" would take them years (and they would likely conclude that it is not a banana). b) The situation at that time was nowhere as clear as it seems today. There have been terrible crimes committed by both parties involved and Serbia was in an extremely isolated position after the break-up of Yugoslavia and the loss of economical support from the Soviet Union. Several European countries were very reluctant to prematurely support any action against the Serbs, which had already been victimized and slaughtered several times in that century (WW I, collaboration between Nazi Germany and the Croatian Ustasha during WW II). There were several EU member states that were more than a bit miffed about Germanies early support for Croatia's independence, as it was historically tasteless and quite a few saw the freshly re-united Germany as too aggressive in supporting "old allies"... All this did delay a common resolution. Putting the inability to deal with such complex issues on the same level as regulating fair trade is simply something I cannot agree with.

Oh wait, Europeans can't vote for their EU officials, can they??

Sure we can. The European parliament is established by public vote, actually the next one is later this year.

[dreyfus]

Rhywun said:

So what? Netscape didn't have a "right" to make a profit on Navigator. You claim that Microsoft is essentially able to put anyone out of business by dumping a free product on the masses. Well, that's just not true. There are numerous pay email clients for example, even today. The fact that Netscape couldn't compete with IE is Netscape's fault, not Microsoft's. By your logic, no OS would be allowed to add a feature that duplicates functionality that someone, somewhere is charging for.

No, but they had a right to operate under fair conditions. If a company whose OS comes pre-installed on literally every single computer at that time does perform price dumping on your only product, this is not fair trade (irrespective of product quality or features). Of course an OS can add features, but there are limits to what a clear market leader is allowed to do - Windows still accounts for far over 90% of desktop and laptops computers sold in the EU and the vast majority of devices cannot be even purchased without it. This market power demands different rules than those applying to everybody else.

Quote

No, if you have any integrity you say "I develop standards-compliant web sites, and I don't use browser-specific features."

It does not work like that. If you develop an extensive fully standards compliant e-commerce site and then 60-70% of visitors call in with complaints, you are out of business.

Quote

Oh please. The theory that Microsoft "rescued" Apple has been disproved here and elsewhere numerous times.

I have never seen it disproved even once. Without MS's money and their commitment to continue the development of MS Office for Mac and IE5.5 there would be no Apple today. An OS without an office suite and without a Web browser...?

Quote

Switching OS's is not like switching brands of shampoos or cars, and the courts should stop pretending that it is. People stay with Windows not because it's a "monopoly" but because it runs the software they already paid for and because it's a tremendous hassle to switch.

Well, people re-purchase/upgrade software all the time and switching from Win XP to Vista is not less of a hassle than switching to OS X or Ubuntu (actually several netbook buyers now running Linux have experienced just that). As a matter of fact, switching from Office 2003/Win to Office 2007/Win is not less of a hassle than switching from Office 2003 to OpenOffice or NeoOffice.

[Wondercow]

dreyfus said:

No, but they had a right to operate under fair conditions. If a company whose OS comes pre-installed on literally every single computer at that time does perform price dumping on your only product, this is not fair trade (irrespective of product quality or features).

Methinks you may be one of the many people who confuse literally with figuratively. Macs did not come with Windows installed.

Quote

It does not work like that. If you develop an extensive fully standards compliant e-commerce site and then 60-70% of visitors call in with complaints, you are out of business.

Too true. I did an internship with a local college in their computer education department. Part of my responsibilities was to develop websites for the various courses offered through the college. I had to use FrontPage and I had to code for I.E.-specific features. When I voiced that it would be better to develop the pages for all-around compliance I was told very sternly that the college had no interest in testing the sites in other browsers, nor had they any interest in standards other than those supported by I.E. I almost lost the job because I manually deleted some of the I.E.-specific garbage that FrontPage puts in the code. Removing it made the pages load faster for all browsers and didn't affect Explorer's rendering of the page.

[Steve_S]

[quote name='dreyfus']
>

Rhywun said:

> AKA "competition".

Well, not true. Offering a product for less than its cost with the intention to damage competitors or to monopolize is far more than competition. It is an illegal business practice. Netscape's main income was the browser, while MS did subsidize IE6 with income from the OS (and office products) to damage the competition, which obviously had no chance to exist while matching the price point. Ad support or other means of income were not feasible at this time.

Unfortunately, your claim is simply not true. Netscape's main income was NEVER based on the browser. It was always based on the web server product. Like many companies started in the dot com era, they simply never had a good business model. They were funded by investors who knew the internet was a big deal, but they didn't understand that Netscape's business model was poor. While Netscape did offer boxed versions of their browser in stores for a while, it was always available for download for free. Microsoft put pressure on them by creating their IIS server. If you want to go after Microsoft for unfair business practices, try to find instances where they gave away their IIS server software to clients. I have no doubt that happened. If that's the case, that should be the focus of your attack.

Quote

Well, they did not sue MS, they pointed out the fact that neither IE7 nor IE6 are standards compliant, and that subsequently less Web pages are developed with full support for other browsers, as IE is used by a majority. This damages fair competition, the development of the Internet and increases cost for companies and public offices that aim to support all browsers. All these statements are true.

Again, I think it stinks that IE is so terrible at supporting web standards. Should they be fined for that? Should every browser be forced to say, pass the Acid test in order to compete in the market? Really? I don't like the way Microsoft behaves, but you're not being practical in terms of whether they deserve to be punished or not.

Quote

Sure... try to go to a company and say: I am a Web designer, but I will only develop for Safari, Firefox and Opera. Hire me. Good luck.

The last company I worked for made it very clear (from top management) that they were an IE shop. I in turn made it very clear to web developers reporting to me that their work had better be tested against other browsers for compatibility. In the end, web developers need to be onboard with the desire to write for open standards. I could only enforce the proper behavior on that which I was responsible for. Each web developer needs to push for developing with technologies which are based on open standards. Often times, this means extra work, but in the end, it's worth it. BTW, all those companies that developed around IE's flaws will be burned with IE 8. Microsoft is doing the right thing and making their standards mode the default rather than compatibility mode. This decision was long overdue, but Microsoft is now doing the right thing.

Quote

Well, without the courts putting pressure on MS, they would not have invested in Apple, and there would not be any competition today. So much about simply putting out a better product, you need fair conditions to even get there and so far it was always and only courts that showed MS the way, not consumers.

This is a bit of revisionist history here. Microsoft made a deal to continue making Office for Apple and investing $150 million (which was peanuts for Microsoft) in exchange for Apple agreeing to make IE the default browser on the Mac. You might say that's an unfair business practice. Maybe it was. But, at the time, IE was the best browser on both Windows and the Mac. At the time, Microsoft was still trying to establish it's market dominance and this symbolic shift helped push momentum in Microsoft's favor, even on the Mac side. Netscape was done because their product was sub par. The courts certainly didn't push Microsoft into that deal. If anything, you should be arguing how unfair it was for MS and Apple to make such a deal.

>Competitors can create the best browser in the world (and both FF and Safari are clearly closer to that mark than IE will ever be), they still have zero chance to achieve the same market share.

Agreed. But, should Microsoft be sued for that? It would make more sense to sue the IE user base for being stupid. ;) The point is, Apple is doing the same thing with Safari. Also, it seems natural for a modern OS to have a built in rendering engine. These engines can and are being used by various other third party programs. I don't see why you aren't going after Apple for not allowing third party browsers on the iPhone for example. That seems like an unfair business practice to me.

>Well, the outome is, that you still can not use several Internet sites with fully standards-compliant browsers, because they have been "optimized" for IE.

I agree that stinks, but you can't sue a company because their product isn't fully standards compliant. I'd rather see individual web sites get fined for not making provisions for standards compliance, especially commercial web sites where compatibility is most important.

>It does not work like that. If you develop an extensive fully standards compliant e-commerce site and then 60-70% of visitors call in with complaints, you are out of business.

Right, so, like everyone else, they need to develop a site that accommodates both. The problem is, these web sites are not putting pressure on Microsoft to conform to standards, they are putting pressure on standards based web browsers to conform to Microsoft. The guilty party here are the web sites themselves, more-so than anyone else. The should make a standards based site first and foremost. Then, if necessary make a scaled down, minimum functionality site for Microsoft based browsers. That's the only way to put pressure on Microsoft to make their product look good on commercial sites. If you cater to IE specific flaws, you're limiting your own sites abilities and you're going to be burned with IE 8.