New IE Disables Netscape-style Plug-ins 534
Snibor Eoj writes: "In his latest column, Robert Cringely takes a look at Microsoft's motivation for disabling Netscape API plug-ins in IE. As always with Cringely, it's an interesting take on things. We'll see how this one turns out..." Among other things, this will disable Quicktime plugins.
Re:Uhh (Score:1, Insightful)
To make lots and lots of money.
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:5, Insightful)
Monopolies are regulated. Monopolies - regardless of your overwhelming adherance to capitalist-dogma - can occur with much less than %XY of marketshare. Any business with enough power to do as they will, with no effective opposition to check on technology, direction and price is a monopoly. Period. Corporations serve customers. When customers have no choice the corporation is a public service.
And btw, if MS ditched RFC 822 and did their own e-mail thing then yes, it would be their perrogative. They could do ANYTHING they want with THEIR software, and I will do ANYTHING I want with my computer.
Wrong, they would be doing exactly what it anti-monoply laws are meant to prevent (see above) - one major player cannot randomly force their clients to make a move - one that makes no sense, other than to cripple already limp competitiors - this is abuse of their monopoly position. If they *DIDNT* have a monopoly - would they arbitrarily switch to a non-open standard? NO, of course not, it would be suicide, unless their was a compelling reason (technology or price)... breaking the plugin API is almost the same as saying "we are a monopoly - watch us extinguish our only competitor and ram change down the throat of the plugin vendors.. try and stop us"... where do the vendors go? NOWHERE b/c m$ is a monopoly... see it coming round now?
Its important to remember that popularity and market share do not mean monopoly. Even if 99.99% of all computer users used IE it still wouldn't necessarily mean MS had a monopoly in browsers.
Most people, and the law disagree. It really matters how you define monopoly. In the US, if Microsoft isnt a monopoly - your laws need to be adjusted. M$ has been running rampant in the IS industry - UNCHALLENGED - for far too long.. the health of the IS industry is suffering, opportunity is non-existant, innovation has been stiffled.
If the DoJ dosnt win a reward with some teeth this wont be the end of Anti-Trust concerns for M$... there is always the EU
Re:Microsoft's stance on the Java VM (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft thinks to itself ~if we change it these ways, and don't point out what we changed, lots of people won't notice they're writing "Java" that runs only on our systems~ (this is documented in the antitrust findings of fact)
Sun takes umbrage at M$ breaking their contract and trying to hijack their product. Sun takes M$ to court, and wins.
M$ then blames Sun for the fallout, and whines
-- I especially love the "real world compatibility" part: compatibility, that is, with Microsoft's trojans, designed to get their corrupted "Java" in.Lord, how I pity the honest people who work there.
of course you can run netscape. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm trying to code an online test that has an audio clip with questions about that audio. The desginers requested that I make it so that the audio can only be played twice.
My first thought was to have an embedded quicktime movie that used javascript to control when it was played, and how many times. Not only does IE not support the quicktime/javascript API [apple.com], but now I read that they are doing away with completely.
Great. so what am I supposed to do? Insist that all students who take the exam use netscape? Learn activeX and write two completely different versions of the test? Create an interactive flash movie to do something as simple as control the playback of some audio?
Those are great options. Man, the web has become a shitty place to publish content....
Some thoughts.... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) If a plug-in maker goes out of business, I won't have future updates of that plug-in for my Linux based browser.
3) If a plug-in such as RealPlayer or Flash goes away, websites will change to a MS based technology to drive it's content.
4) If a websites require MS based technology that is not supported by my browser, the internet starts becoming much smaller for non-MS people.
5)By creating the perception that plug-in technology is a liability, the laywers start looking for other browser publishers who do use plug-ins and sue them. Hello Netscape, AOL, and maybe even desktop shells with integrated HTML support. Hello Gnome.
6) Without plug-in support it becomes damn near imposible for other OSs (Hello Linux) to utilize Microsoft's
7) This is a very clever way for MS to further the goal of "the browser is the operating system". Hello monopoly.
Re:I have the perfect solution! (Score:3, Insightful)
>Only problem: most web developers write HTML
>with IE in mind
The problem, to be more precise, is that web developers do not write HTML at all. They write
the markup language for some or other particular browser application, but it most certainly is NOT HTML.
If web developers would be professional enough to embrace standards properly, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:4, Insightful)
YOU CAN RUN NETSCAPE AND USE THOSE PLUGINS. Netscape DOES run on windows!
Microsoft is removing jvm 1.1.3.. which HELPS (Score:2, Insightful)
Java is Proprietary until sun gets off there ass and standardizes it.
It is only helping, as anyone knows java 1.1.3 sucks and 1.2 and 1.3.1 are mucho better.
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:4, Insightful)
Standard Operating Procedure for Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
Have people write software to OS standard.
Now their OS is only one with Applications
People buy only their OS.
Got Control of OS.
Change OS to break competitor's Applications.
Say competitors Applications are buggy.
Distribute MS Applications "Free" (come bundled with PC at purchase)
No More Application competition.
People try to break MS control of OS.
Company creates work alike DR DOS.
Change Windows 3.1 so that DR DOS is buggy.
No one buys DR DOS
Eventually combine DOS and Windows (Win 95) to shut out this possibility in future.
Not in control of Internet?
Distribute Browser Free with PC (like OS and applications before)
Comine Browser with OS to shut out competition (Like Windows with DOS)
Become dominant in Browser Market.
Others write software to use Browser (like OS before)
If anyone tries to make a competitor that is compatible change Browser (like OS). When user complains say competitor is buggy, just use IE.
Use control of browser to eliminate competitors plugins. Make competitors use Active X. Change Active X, OS, API at random to break Quicktime, RealPlayer, MP3 players, Netscape Browser, Office Apps etc.
Users complain? Competitors software is buggy not MS.
Once MS apps are standard change Media formats (say they are improved, innovated) now control Media formats, Internet Protocols, OS, Application and file formats. Charge media companies distribution fees and consumers playing fees.
MS rich. PC users poor. Internet Coporate playround. RMS crying in corner somewhere.
The point is not the action... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft is =selectively= crippling IE, to force users down a specific upgrade path, then that is a very serious problem. So serious, it may well come up in the DOJ vs Microsoft trial, during the re-evaluation.
Using a monopoly in one area to create a monopoly in another is a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law.
How is this relevent to plug-in technology? Actually, that's surprisingly simple. Dropping the API is not the important part. That's just the mechanism. The important part is that they are "conforming" to this patent only in part. That part being dropping compatiability, which is the entire point of a =world= wide web.
What is happening is that they are generating negative press for competitors, at the same time as making it difficult to impossible for users to use any products other than Microsoft's.
If it were a case of needing an API wrapper, to use Apple's, Netscape's or Sun's plug-ins, there would be no problem. No such wrapper exists, and I very much doubt that sufficient documentation exists for anybody to write such a wrapper.
If you remember, when Microsoft dropped Java support, people voiced the opinion that all people would have to do is download the Sun Java plug-in. It now turns out that Microsoft won't let you.
So. No 3rd-party plug-ins from ANY source Microsoft doesn't approve of. That's a monopoly. Or, to use "real english", that is a Feudal state. THIS is the "real issue", not whether the API is alive, dead, or both. Schrodinger's Cat it is not.
To sum up, the allegation reduces to this: Microsoft is running an operation bordering on the paramilitary, in an effort to conquer and plunder territory, in a manner that is more rememiscient of a feudal war-lord than a civilised corporation in the 21st century in a country based on freedoms and democratic principles.
I don't know about you, but I don't give a damn what runs in what. =I= don't want Napoleon Bonepart running the tech industry at gun-point.
Do you really believe that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has exactly as much right as anyone else to promote a standard.
Actually, as a confirmed monopoly, they most definitely do not have the same rights as any other company. And until/unless the supreme court overturns the unanimous opinion of the circuit court, that's exactly what they are.
Great (Score:1, Insightful)
MICROSOFT, what corner would you prefer being forced into today?
Re:What is gates thinking ??? (Score:2, Insightful)
All questions of ethics and fair business practice aside, Bill Gates' is unquestionably a genius (To avoid invoking Godwin's Law, I'll refrain from comparing him to a certain other genius from history). He has had his share of "being in the right place at the right time", but building a multibillion dollar software empire and becoming the richest man on earth takes a little bit more than luck.
I don't claim to have any clue what Microsoft's plan is, and I can't predict whether it will backfire on them or not, but you can be assured that they DO have a plan that is VERY carefully thought out and reviewed. And honestly, I wouldn't be too shocked if whatever plan they have works.
Alan
How does .Net get around this? (Score:5, Insightful)
True, and I know the Microsoft KB article [microsoft.com] says to switch to ActiveX, but Cringly said ActiveX infringes on the Patent, and I can't see where he's wrong on that point (without looking at the patent, and even then IANAL).
On the other hand, Cringly says .Net is the "solution", but I'm not sure .Net won't violate the patent, either. Well, .Net may not violate it, but .Net won't be able to "embed program objects or applets in the browser", or implement "dynamic, bi-directional communications between Web browsers and external applications" (i.e., .Net apps running on a server). I'm not sure how .Net is supposed to get around this patent.
In favour of active x (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand wasn't active-x meant to be one of the gapping security holes in IE? I often find active-x allowing websites to install software on my computer without even asking me.
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:5, Insightful)
- Netscape plug ins run on three platforms. (Unix, Mac, Windows)
- Many of the plug in's are important (Flash, QuickTime, RealOddeeo, etc.)
- Some major web sites use these plug ins
By changing these plugins to ActiveX, it increases the possibility that these plugins will stop being supported on non-Windows platforms.So non-windows platforms end up being second-class (or worse) citizens when it comes to the browser.
Since the only business model MS knows is the leverage and maintenance of monopoly power, it makes sense for MS to do everything they can to make IE the standard, and make it incompatible with everything else. This helps them effectively steal open standards and turn them into proprietary standards by leveraging their monopoly on the desktop. By making other browsers second-class, it helps them maintain their monopoloy on the desktop. Nobody wants to use a desktop with a second class browser.
Both leveraging and maintaining a monopoly is what got them in trouble in the first place.
Re:I have the perfect solution! (Score:3, Insightful)
:)
Well look at it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is getting sued by Eolas for patent infringment. Microsoft (while also litigating with Eolas) is also removing the infringing code from their product. It just happens to be (according to the article) support for the APPLET and EMBED tags. So it seems that Quicktime needs EMBED tags to function. I'm sure someone will find a way to write a plug-in to fix that.
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW, the Microsoft jvm is based on the entirely outdated 1.1.3 jre. So it is only best to focus people on downloading from Sun's website.
Sun's claiming Microsoft said they would include Java for 7 years when in reality the settlement basically said Microsoft had 7 years to use the JVM and then remove it. So microsoft just removed it prior to the 7 years that Sun threw at them
Hell if Sun meant for java to succeed it would have been to a standardization body by now. But now, they wan't control just like Microsoft wants control so it is bully picking on bully.
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:5, Insightful)
By changing these plugins to ActiveX, it increases the possibility that these plugins will stop being supported on non-Windows platforms. [...] blah blah monopoly blah blah open standards blah blah
So what you're saying is that Microsoft should have to support someone else's proprietary standard (i.e., Netscape) rather than being able to use their own standard. That's absurd.
One again it must be said: Microsoft has exactly as much right as anyone else to promote a standard. If you are worried about other platforms, then put in support for ActiveX controls.
Embed by any other name... (Score:2, Insightful)
Can't we all just get along? (Score:3, Insightful)
This last sentence pretty much says it all.
The whole pissing match between Sun, MS, and every other fscking co. does nothing but insure that we all have software and hardware that sucks. Isn't about time that these a-holes start showing concern for their customers by working on making decent products instead of worrying about their stock prices, IP, and market dominance.
I digress....
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft does not have a right to ditch support of a de facto, platform-neutral standard for one which only works on Windows machines. They lost that right when they were declared a monopoly.
If Microsoft ditched support for RFC 822 and started using their own email, would you argue that it's their perrogative?
Re:hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Scary shit!
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of Verizon making phone jacks that were incompatible with everyone's phones. Why should they have to go along with someone else's standard?
This is why we have antitrust laws.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason IE was free all along was that it always was a tool to help cement Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop.
By giving away a browser on a monopoly platform, you make that browser the standard. Once that browser is the predominant standard, then you begin changing things so that everything else is incompatible, and therefore "non-standard". (i.e. Konqueror wants to use these "non-standard" netscape plugins to view Real Video.)
Once IE is utterly the uncontested king, and there are no other browsers to compete, you can bet it will not remain free. Someday it will be unbundled, amidst a bunch of marketing manure, stating how this provides the best value for customers and other such bullshit.
Monopolies never give away something for free, unless it is to maintain market share. There is always one thing reflected in the actions of any monopoly: they will do anything legal, or illegal, even at a loss, to maintain that all important market share. Nothing is more important than market share. Even if you loose your shirt in the short term. Even if you are found guilty and have to pay fines. Once you have everyone bent over a barrel, you can make it up to them.
Too bad MS probably never really expected the legal route to go so far as a breakup. Even if you are found guilty and pay a stiff fine -- you're still a monopoly!
Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either (Score:2, Insightful)
What will I do now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh wait, Microsoft makes one.....go figure.
D
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, Java didn't start out as a web scripting language. JSP and servlets didn't come out until Java had been out and buzzworthy for quite a while, and they've never been the dominant form of Java expression. If you think that Java Applets are at all the same as 'scripting languages' then I'd question the rest of your conclusions as well...
From where I sit, most coding development, be it Java, C++, or C# is written based on the context of where it will be used. If it's an enterprise solution, the enterprise can mandate the technology and install Java on XP machines. If it serves a global audience, then shooting itself in the foot or not, Microsoft's decision to axe Java from XP means the developer will have to use another solution.
I'm thinking "Spoiled Brat" (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, sure, "It's their product and they can limit it as much as they want... they can choose to not include Java support... ad nauseum" But if you view the Microsoft present in combination with their past, it's easy to make the conclusion that their purpose for dropping support for various APIs and languages (Java and more) is more motivated to damaging the ubiquity of the market than anything else.
So first, they earn market share by embracing the standards in a way that makes the consumer comfortable. Next, they kill the competition. finally, they drop the "standards" they used to attract people with in the first place! Now since they own the market (effectively removed consumer choice) they can drop support for the things people wanted most.
Following the time line from beginning to end shows the pattern clearly. So while it is "their choice" to support this feature or that, especially when it isn't theirs to begin with, I have to question the motivation behind it. Further, it would seem like a clear example of further monopoly power abuse. The move seems rather deliberate and further, it also feels as if Microsoft's "true" goals are coming to fruition.
"Microsoft Conspiracy?" Well, yeah, maybe...
Re:Please explain... (Score:1, Insightful)
Even though all previous versions of IE supported the Netscape interface, the *only* major plug-in that doesn't run under ActiveX is QuickTime. Flash, Real, etc have all long supported ActiveX -- the installation is far smoother.
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:5, Insightful)
Good reference.
I fear that you're a bit optimistic. MS still controls the desktop in corporate America. Where I spend my days the idea of considering migration of desktops away from MS is not seriously considered.
I'd love to see us dump MS like a bad habit.
Let's get an equivalent to VB (with an accurate interpreter), a clear direction and single object model for X, and solve the font translation/printing issues and move forward with kicking their butts out of the workplace!
I'd love to sign up for this, but we're not close enough yet. To succeed, we must do what AMD does - be better and cheaper. We're more reliable, and we're cheaper, but MS has got us at point blank range when it comes to ease-of-use.
Try things like macros, or resolving printing issues, or clip art, or add-on programs like browser plugins, or killing applications through the GUI.
Once we deal with this type of thing, we'll be truly competetive. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer.
Let's find more geeks who find it interesting to do the coding necessary to make our GUI environment more AOL-like, or more MS-like - then the masses can easily move to our platform!
Regards,
Anomaly
Re:Cringely got one thing backwards. (Score:3, Insightful)