Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Okay, but then it is still a free choice by the consumer if they chose to download IE instead of Firefox or Chrome or whatever.
|
No its not. You don't understand it do you.
The situation Microsoft has created with this decision doesn't change a iota as far as the consumer is regarded. It has been the same situation for the last decade, pretty much the reason Microsoft was first investigated by the EU.
The real game changer (and the reason Microsoft doesn't want to comply) is to have a screen that offers the consumer a choice as to what browser to install before the installation of the OS is complete.
Quote:
If Firefox or Chrome want their's to be downloade, they have to make them more attractive. It is not microft's moral obligation to do their work for them, it just needs to accept the obligation to give them the needed infomation so that Mozilla and Google can make their browers working in a Microsoft Windows environment. It is the other competitor's job to make their products attractive enough so that they are compatible. And if they are not attractive for a wide audience, the EU should not force them down people's throat nevertheless by demanding Microsoft to distribute the rivalling products by Mozilla and Google.
They are competing - not cooperating. The EU does not seem to know the difference here.
|
You simply don't understand the reason Microsoft was first investigated and found guilty. If Microsoft had never bundled at 0 cost IE with Windows and AT THE SAME TIME bullied OEMs to not install third party browsers there wouldn't be a problem. The most viable browser would have survived. As we all know thats not what happened and as a result we have a heavily crippled web that just in the last 2-3 years has started slowly very slowly to heal itself from Microsoft proprietary crap. This in and of itself doesn't not excuse the original actions made by Microsoft 10 years ago.