Secure Boot, No Thanks
Posted Jan 1, 2013 12:41 UTC (Tue) by khim
In reply to: Secure Boot, No Thanks
Parent article: The H Year: 2012's Wins, Fails and Mehs
There are plenty of legitimate reason for demonizing Microsoft's behavior, but including the media player and Internet Explorer as a bundle with OS itself? Come on!
The problem was never a bundled browser. The problem were with incentives to have it as the only browser on preinstalled system. You may not like plethora of crapware on newly sold systems but it's important way to give Joe Average a chance to test your product. Microsoft specifically forbidden OEMs to do that (it only promised some marketing $$ if guys will not install Netscape... and OEMs naturally have chosen $$ promised by Microsoft and not smaller amount promised by Netscape).
Everybody does that nowadays. So, turns out, it's not an anti-competitive behavior but rather an innovation, an example to follow (and do Linux distributions follow it!)
That's quite a statement. Yes, everyone does this but even Android often comes these days with two (or sometimes more) browsers.
I don't believe for a moment that Microsoft won the browser wars because of some monopoly.
Abuse of monopoly was most certainly a factor if it was deciding factor or not... we'll never know.
So yes, I don't think Netscape's whining about monopoly was in any way justified. If they could only build a competitive web browser in time...
It's kinda hard to do without money and Microsoft made sure Netscape will not have these money. Of course Netscape mostly did that to themselves (Complete rewrite of million lines long program? Who's crazy idea is that?) but Microsoft used a lot of illegal tricks too.
You are basically saying that it's Ok to jab someone couple of times with knife in the back if said someone is on a bridge with a stone tied to the neck. No, it's not Ok to do that even in this case.
to post comments)