22 posts • joined Tuesday 20th January 2009 10:56 GMT
I can't see Microsoft do that. Not because of any disliking of the linux community, but because it poses a real threat to them.
This would basically allow (for instance) Google to reverse engeneer Windows and put all the bits it likes into a free Chrome OS. Not bad for end users, but terrible for Microsoft itsself.
Also Microsoft currently rules the business end of computing. Giving up their patent rights would make it more viable for others to enter the market with similar code.
Not that this would not be good for everyone. More choice, cheaper software etc. Microsoft remains a business run by financial motives. There seems to be no reason that alligns with their financial motives to remove their patents (development they spent billions on).
Way around this
The EULA states: "This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."
So slap on a sticker which reads 'With Apple's OSX' and include their logo.
That what I would have done....
Don't include a browser and only place a link to the Live suite which will probably include IE now.
So not only will a lot of people download IE8, the people that didn't give a crap in the first place will now also get the entire live suite which they would otherwise probably have missed.
From a marketing point of view this is brilliant. From the UK perspective this is probably exactly what they didn't want...
Paris... cos she outsmarts them all.
You Britisch people make the best comedies.
And the next fine is for....
... adding software that automatically does stuff on your computer without your permission. Like Google chrome updates.
... not shipping all browsers.
I'd love to see em ship Netscape 4.1. Just to spite the EU.
I do appreciate the EU trying to make sure a competitive market exists. But this time the underdog (Opera) started crying whilst a direct competitor (FireFox) managed to get one damn big piece of the pie without legislation.
This ruling could harm FireFox too seeing it is seen as (almost) the only alternative to Internet Explorer. All their marketing work will go down the drain this way too... but no one really seems to see that.
Why no public bids?
Because Switserland is not a part of the EU and therefore does not fall under EU regulation.
Which basically means it, as a country, can bloody well buy whatever it wants.
I see no one complaining when you buy a car you like. Your money, your purchase, your rules.
Did you read it right?
The beta is over. This means they reckon Windows 7 is feature complete. The RC will leave room for bugs to be fixed, just no features to be added.
So why the rants about it being buggy or released as beta?
I'm all for giving Microsoft a hard time... but at least give em a proper shot to defend themselves.
Well I for one would rather see them crippling their websites than the people living there.
@Unable to remove IE
So if the problem is not being able to remove IE from the OS... why isn't that the charge then?
Paris: Cos she seems to make more sense.
Why not strip it then?
What I can see happening if Microsoft is asked to remove the browser is they'll offer a download link which downloads IE, WMP, Live mail and whatever else they have. So we're back to square one.
What I'd like to see them do is stop providing Windows to the EU. You don't want it the way we sell it? Ok we won't sell it anymore. Let's see what uproar that provides.
Or just remove IE and add the notion that with this version of windows you cannot get updates or patches seeing this is integral part of windows.
Regarding solutions so far:
- Use the command line / wget
--> how would including wget or ftp not be bundling?
--> how would you get your granny to figure this out?
- Add a list of browsers
--> why would Microsoft ever promote their competitiors. That's just retarded.
--> how could Microsoft be held responsible for providing the correct links if they are located on other people's servers OR how could Microsoft be held responsible if they did not have the latest version available.
--> would these browsers need patching by Microsoft? I gues not.
Both solutions so far are bollocks imo. Having antitrust for being anti-competitive, sure. Making Microsoft provide other people's software to harm their own business, no way!
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps
- Microsoft: Don't listen to 4chan ... especially the bit about bricking Xbox Ones
- Shivering boffins nail Earth's coldest spot
- Thought your Android phone was locked? THINK AGAIN