Secure Boot, No Thanks
Posted Jan 3, 2013 9:38 UTC (Thu) by farnz
In reply to: Secure Boot, No Thanks
Parent article: The H Year: 2012's Wins, Fails and Mehs
Because it was OK for Microsoft to give their customers and end-users an OS with an integrated web browser, right up to the point where Microsoft attempted to tell their customers that they couldn't install another browser as the system default browser if they intended to sell the machine to an end-user. Android doesn't currently have this problem - if HTC choose to make the system default browser Firefox Mobile, Google aren't going to stop them using Android.
If you go back to the mid-90s, when all this went down, other browser developers were in the business of paying OEMs to preinstall their product as the system default browser; Microsoft used its leverage as provider of the OS to insist that OEMs that did this had to pay much more for the OS (more than the other browser vendors were prepared to pay, so an OEM that shipped Windows and IE only paid less than an OEM that shipped Windows and IE and Netscape, even with Netscape paying the OEM to ship Netscape).
Had Microsoft simply bundled IE as a freebie with Windows, and not tried to use that as leverage to block OEMs deals with Netscape, they'd not have got into trouble. It was the attempt to use their ownership of a monopoly operating system to influence the browser market that caused them pain, and a lot of observers noted at the time that IE4 was a better product than the equivalent Netscape browsers. Indeed, it's plausible that if Microsoft had behaved better, they'd probably have still crushed the competition in the web browser market as thoroughly as they did, and would not have faced the anti-trust issues that their monopoly abuse caused.
to post comments)