Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8415902.stm

I really don't see the problem with IE being included with Windows.

They could make a super simple version of IE (Like how notepad and wordpad are to microsoft office) to go with windows, but whatever

You know this has to be the biggest waste of money ever - how much in fines? How much money wasted in legal fees?

All because they don't want MS to give away stuff for free bundled with software that pretty much 99% of all computer users have.

Good god.

And I don't care how many small companies can't get their foot in the market because of this - so there.

I use firefox - my choice. But I needed to access the internet in order to get it, what did I use to find it? IE of course.

_________________
The stats below lie. I'm actually much much worse.

LAWYERED! fair point jedi

_________________
-"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
-"No, not really. This is a different thing, it's spontaneous and it's called wit."

It's an issue because MS refuses to comply for years to web standards. Because of their insane powerfull position they basically controlled the internet on how websites need to be implemented.

Browser choise makes users relise that browsers which do keep standard have much less problems working with websites etc. This way MS will be forced to adapt to standards as they should, and as they do now. Hence its good MS got fined and pushed into this direction.

You know the that point about have consistent standards is fine - but I still think that the standards need to be defined partially by who has the biggest market share.

However the main point of the article from what I read, and main point of the ongoing legal case, is the whole bundling affair. On that I'm afraid that 1.6 in fines seems mad.

MS - Hey you lot want this for free?
Joe Public - Sure thats makes my life easier and I can't be arsed to find other browers and media players.
EU Polition - I don't think so - you can make things easier for people - thats going to cost you 1.6 billion - so there. Plus all of us polititions will claim additional millions in expenses in order to sort this whole sorded affair out - and we will blaim MS for that as well.
Joe Public - Cheers for that.

_________________
The stats below lie. I'm actually much much worse.

Thats not really how things work in IT. When you want industry standards, you design them, then submit them to the IEEE and people can make suggestions, debate etc etc. Only then a standard is formed.

This procedure is more important then you prolly relise. Without IEEE standards there would be no such thing as differant brand PC's being able to communicate with one and other!

Oh and btw, because of the browser offer option the fine was canceld.

Tbh, because Microsoft bundled IE with their dominating Operating system, they were also dominating the browser share due to the fact that every Windows that was sold they could count it. This meant that a) all websites have to be designed around a shoddy, yes shoddy, browser and b) that other better and more effective browsers were effectively hidden from people.

Is it right that because you have monopoly in one area you should have monopoly in another?

In my opinion, no, people should have the right to choice over web browsers and the better should be chosen. If people got the choice out of all the web browsers available now straight up, most would easily pick chrome or firefox due to it being better. This would then as Saint says, make microsoft up its game and actually release something that isn't shoddy. But because IE is bundled, who is gonna bother looking up for another browser if they don't know any better.

My view of the whole thing.

You still aren't making an argument for me the end user - just developers of other browsers. Of course people have the right to choose - they always have and always will. Just because MS bundle software doesn't mean that right is removed.

Look I use Tescos to do my shopping, there are probably better and cheaper places else where but I don't because I don't need to and the benefits aren't big enough to make me want to look. Should Tescos change the way they do business - probably yes as they screw there suppliers. However that does not me I the end user actually care or would want Tesco's to change.

Can't really speak about if web site designers think they are forced to design for IE - surely its as much down to skill of the developer to right good websites? It been around long enough now - why can't it be the standard?

Anyway wasted too much time - I use Firefox. When I re-install windows I NEED IE in order to access the internet. Unless MS start to bundle Firefox or something else with Windows Disk then that won't change.

Oh and one last thing before we get all high and mighty about MS are evil. How many of us actually pay for our software any.............. now who should fined?

Posted in good humour but enjoying the dedate

_________________
The stats below lie. I'm actually much much worse.

I see your point, however with the tescos analogy, if they started to pack Tescos homebrand only and no other, wouldn't you feel as though they are depriving the end user from products that may well be, and in many cases are, better. Sure they use tescos brand stuff along side it, and Im not against MS bundling it persay - its more that they only bundle it and don't offer or even educate you on other available "brands".

Main reason I think this is a good thing.

Now of course I think that fining a company for just spreading its own software through its own software is daft, but because MS own such a large share of OS should they give equal opportunities within it? - and obviously shoehorning in IE isn't giving other browsers a chance to the "normal joe".

I guess its a question of the business against the industry.

Should one profit so the other falters? or should one try and maintain an equilibrium to encourage "healthy" competition in which browsers arguably get better through it? Do browsers arguably get better through competition, or is it the fact that they have to prove themselves so much more that's made FF/Chrome/Opera raise their games? Does this mean we will see an improvement in IE? Just some questions if you have any thoughts!

And of course posted in good humour, and I love the debate!

You don't want broken and outdated standards. And IE "html" code and displaying was seriously broken and outdated.
Making websites show somehow correct in IE<7 was more like pure pain in the ass and had nothing to do with skill. I cannot think of a good analogy... it's hard to understand if you haven't done it on your own.

_________________
SaintK: I'm completely lost

I concede the standards point - if it doesn't work then a new standard needs to be put in. However who is responsible for creating this standard? There must be a 'HTML' body that sets the standards - surely? Afterall I'm pretty sure MS doesn't own the web, or do they?

What I cannot grasp (and the main point of the article) is how MS could be fined for giving something away free. The other issue of choosing another browser makes it even stranger as all the other browsers are free. I get how search engines make money - how on earth can MS/Firefox/Opera etc make any money from giving away something for free?

Blackhawk you are right in that I don't understand the inner workings. I'm taking the consumer view on this and from that angle it seems bonkers.

_________________
The stats below lie. I'm actually much much worse.

IEEE defines the standards. Its a non profit organisation for industrialization standards. As i said earlier, without these standards it would be impossible to communicate between a PC from HP and a IBM machine for example.

The standards are decided upon by these oranisation and *all* countries and companies connected to the organisation. When a new industry standard gets created its important to do this by the IEEE for several reasons. One reason is that want to be able for example to login with your wireless network at any compliant device, no matter its manifacture.

The exact same goes for webstandard. You should be able to visit online content regardless of what software you use. If a large company decides to break with these standards constantly you get the IE effect. In short: MS doesn't comply by standards. Developers need to hack their way around this to make their websites show on IE, after all thats what people use alot. Browser B in that case will either have issues showing the website properly, or they have to adapt their forced upon standards so their browser wont look faulty.
As you can see a large company can force others into a dark and tiny corner because they get no air. First off they can barly grab a market share because of IE default install, and secondly they constantly need to proof that not their browser is faulty, but all the websites with their IE hacks are. Basically you give another company no chance to join into the business in a healthy manner.