Coding Geekette: Browser Wars? Turf Wars? Why?

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Browser Wars? Turf Wars? Why?

While talking with one of my cubemates last week, he mentioned this article about Google aligning with the EU in the Microsoft antitrust case. The more I see the complaint that Microsoft is bundling Internet Explorer in Windows, the more I have to wonder why that's really an issue.

What's next? A lawsuit against Microsoft for including Paint in their operating system? Oh no... Adobe's Photoshop is going to be put out of business by the latest incarnation of Paint! What about including Wordpad? I'd hate to see Word Perfect or Lotus Ami Pro get obsoleted by such a simple text editor. Let's go after Microsoft for including their own software in their operating system.

Seriously, this seems ridiculous. Apple apparently includes their Safari web browser in their Mac OS, otherwise why would they list it under Mac OS X's features? Ubuntu comes with Mozilla by default. Then there's the K Desktop Environment (commonly known as KDE) with Konqueror. Do I need to continue?

Why is it such an issue when a software giant like Microsoft includes their browser in their own operating system, but it isn't a big deal with a giant like Apple includes their browser in their operating system? Am I seriously missing something here (strictly looking at the browser complaint - not the antitrust case in general)?

Labels: Apple, browser wars, Microsoft, Mozilla, turf wars, Ubuntu

Share this post:

kick this! live it!

posted by Sarah at 8:45 PM

3 Comments:

Barry said...: I think your point is both missing something and valid.

In the context of 10 (or, dare I say it, 15 years ago), Microsoft's inclusion of a browser was clearly anti-competitive. Witness the fact that it virtually put Netscape out-of-business. IE foisted a different object model standard on the world, resulting in "browser compatibility" issues that still cost us money and headache every day.

As for the validity of your point: the courts move a lot more slowly that the software industry. The issues they are reacting too, while valid at the time of the original litigation, when the precedents were established, may be ancient history by now. A software generation is frequently described as about 2 years now. Litigation of this magnitude will hardly ever be resolved in less than 2 software generations. It will level the playing field only long after the game has moved on.; March 5, 2009 8:39 AM
Tim Hoolihan said...: Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point. Just want to add that there is a difference legally between windows including IE and the other examples you gave. When you have a recognized monopoly on the market, you are held to a different standard in anti-trust law. Linux and OS/X can bundle away because they don't have > 90% market share. However, Apple has faced some similar complaints with iPod/iPhone market, and may be forced to stop bundling certain features.; March 5, 2009 8:46 AM
Peter said...: If IE was as standards compliant as the other browsers you listed, then the anti-competitive argument would fall flat. However, by not including support for Canvas, SVG and holding a different object model it forces developers to create code for IE and code for everyone else. Now in any other environment, this would mean the market would kill IE and the other browsers would rise. However, because IE is the default gateway to the internet in the most popular OS in the world, IE has managed to hang on. And if a developer wants to find the greatest audience with the least work, they would stick to IE only, eventually driving out standardized options. Because Microsoft has such a dominant position in the operating system market, they are held to a different standard.

Now I'm not against proprietary extensions on top of the standard. After all, XMLHTTPRequest was born out of Microsoft, not a standards body. I do have a problem with proprietary extensions instead of the standard (eg. VML, SilverLight). And don't bring up MoonLight support, Microsoft isn't doing that out of the good of their heart.; March 12, 2009 11:14 AM