Microsoft/IADiscussion
From iA wiki
Microsoft iA Discussion
The following was a discussion concerning Microsoft between active iA writers. It took place on the Talk:Internet Explorer forum but became more germane to the topic of Microsoft.
<i>moved: </i>IE has some well known security flaws and should not be used if it can be avoided. -- C-Keen
- Careful to not inject personal opinion (especially Dangerous opinion) on a main Wiki page. It might turn into flamebait. <code> =) </code> -- rack
<i>moved:</i> IE also has a number of annoying problems including pop-up issues.
Similar to other Microsoft products such as Windows 95, upon gaining market share, Microsoft's initiative to innovate diminished. Now implimenting the media-industry friendly DRM, it now focuses on competing with IBM and Sun for the Web services market.
- I don't really think the latter statement has anything to do with IE, and the former isn't a problem with IE specifically - it's the web designers who put the pop-ups there, not Microsoft. -- Amw
Not an opinion or flamebait. Here's why I put it there:
Web Standards: Not being 100% compatable with Web standards and using a different version of CSS might fly but CSS straight up doesn't work. Quote:
- The famous talk show transcript says: "Further improvements to IE will require enhancements to the underlying OS." I tentatively translate this line as "We cannot improve IE any more" because it fits with an idea I've had in the back of my mind for two years now.
- Why is Microsoft unwilling to fix the CSS bugs that everyone's been asking it to fix for ages?
Pop-ups: Microsoft has a several-year issue with its Web browser and you point to Web sites that put the pop-ups there in the first place? I think the burden is on Microsoft as every other major competing browser out there has pop-up blocking. Even ZoneAlarm Pro comes with pop-up blocking. I don't think they'd offer it (being they're making firewall software - nothing to do with browsers) as part of the package if it wasn't in huge demand.
Also, its not an opinion or flamebait - Microsoft really isn't developing for IE anymore for free. They aren't fixing bugs. And they've done this in the past... is there a huge difference between Microsoft Word 97 and 2000? Between 95 and 98? Between IE 5 and 6? Windows XP happened because of Apple. Windows 2000 because of UNIX.
Windows Media because of MP3. The Tablet PC is pretty cool but that's hardware - not software. If you can find some evidence to the contrary, please share.
Otherwise, if I've made my point, please let me re-post! -- Webfork
- I realize MS have stopped releasing new IE versions as a standalone browser, but i don't think it was worded quite correctly. They're still going to provide upgrades, but those upgrades will be rolled into the normal Windows upgrades... It's all part of making the browser a part of the OS. It's a good thing to mention on the page, but i don't think it has any relation to DRM and web services.
- As far as CSS goes, my homepage uses a fair amount of CSS and IE displays it just fine (so does Mozilla and even Lynx). It's more a problem of web designers using CSS in a manner that is non-portable, because there are some features that are specific to IE (and some standard features that IE doesn't implement). This is the same thing as the PNG problem (which should probably also be mentioned). It's not that MS are explicitly not including the features just to annoy people, it's not a bug or "problem" with the browser, it just means MS aren't as up-to-date with the latest standards as Mozilla. This is the same as a few years ago when Netscape 4 was popular and didn't support ANY CSS whatsoever, IE supported a little, but designers were forced to continue using tags simply because Netscape wasn't up-to-date enough (not because it was broken).
- I don't agree with the pop-up blocking issue... Mainly because i don't want my browser hiding stuff from me. Yes, pop-ups annoy me, but they're part and parcel of the web, and it's not the browser's job to artificially filter out bits of the web. Can you imagine the uproar if IE implemented this? Advertizing companies would be suing them left, right and center for censoring a standards-compliant use of the web. They turn a blind eye to Mozilla because it only has 1% uptake or something, but you can be sure as soon as Mozilla gets 50%+ market share, the pop-up companies are going to start taking it seriously, and the foundation could get a really nasty legal surprise. -- Amw
You're right: the wholesale blocking of popups would probably result in legal action. Also, not updating CSS is similar to Netscape 4. But the thing is: I'm the end user. I'm writing this article. I'm not going to make allowances because Microsoft is incapable of changing the browser to handle this annoyance because of developmental or legal issues. I HATE pop-ups. I don't feel as strongly about CSS but its still pretty annoying. You've admitted to at least being annoyed. I'm going to list it because it is annoying, not avoid doing so because I'm diplomatic. I might explain "perhaps due to legal issues" but I won't censor the fact that it sucks.
A similar situation to explain my reasoning:
- A lot of disabled people are out of work because of that nation-wide do-not-call list. I feel for those people. I've even done telemarketing myself. But its just not worth the trouble and I support the FCC's work on this issue. On the FCC page, I don't mind listing how I like that they did this but hate that whole deregulation thing.
Moreover, I think there really is a solution, they're just not willing to try it. After all, when MS introduced Spam-blockers into the newest Outlook, did they get sued? On the sites where you want to see pop-ups? The issue is handled very well by Mozilla: A little icon pops up everytime a Web page tries to give you a popup. If you want to see all the pop-ups from a given Web site you can also select Tools - PopUp Manager - "Allow pop-ups from this site". I think that's more than adequate.
Solutions to CSS bugs? I dunno - actually FIX the bugs? Am I missing something?
Lastly, the DRM thing for IE I swear I read something about but I can't find any articles to back it up, so that will definitely get cut.
- Well i think what you have there now looks fine. I see where you're coming from, and i probably get a little over-defensive regarding MS stuff, because the knee-jerk opinions a lot of Slashdotters (and IAers) hold bugs me. So i thwonk the hammer on my knee and jerk back :-) -- Amw
- Cool - no problem. Webfork
- In a calm, rational thought-out manner I've tried to avoid everything Microsoft for years. Your over-defensive response would be appropriate if MS was a good thing. I don't understand why you would defend MS, do you think they deserve more trust, profit or something else? Don't you support innovation on the desktop? - ABliss
- Just because Microsoft is a corporation doesn't mean they can't innovate. They have singlehandedly done more for computing than any other company in the world. They might not have invented everything, but they certainly managed to package a lot of things in a manner that consumers appreciate. That counts for a hell of a lot. At the end of the day it's not about if you invented something, or if you had the best implementation of something - it's about if you changed people's lives, and MS has absolutely succeeded in doing that. I talk to non computer literate people, and they off their own bat come up to me and said "wow, Windows XP is so great, it's so easy to get new music, to write this, to do that, to share my internet connection" etc etc. It doesn't matter how many nerds rant and rave about how evil they are, the bottom line is that right now they are producing a product that most computer users like better than any other products out there. I'm sorry, but Linux, Mozilla, whatever, none of them count for shit - if people really wanted them, they'd make an effort to find them. Obviously they're happy with what they have, and who are you (or anyone) to say they "should" be using something different. True freedom is the freedom to choose a so-called "monopoly" if you desire. -- Amw
Amw:
Microsoft is known for having an excellent management team and the ability to leverage their employees towards a common goal. I think they are a fine example of corporate self-management.
But here's an important idea I posed to a Microsoft employee friend: would the tech industry be better if there were only one hard-drive company? Do you think that they would continue to double in size every 6 months? What about processors? Was Intel doing a bang-up job before AMD rushed in with the Athlon and started shaking things up? Were moble PCs better than when Transmeta entered the market and Intel responded with its SpeedStep technology? Is McAfee a better product because there are other anti-virus companies? Ask a car guy if the entry of Japanese cars into the American economy years ago made both manufacture better cars.
Competition makes things better. Ask any economist.
The question is not "does Microsoft make products that people like?" the question is how good would Microsoft be if it didn't use extreme tactics to compete with other companies? If it competed on a fair and level playing feild? Would its products improve? I think so - absolutely. Windows 95 would have been as stable as OS2. Windows XP would have on-video card UI handling. Microsoft's own Voice Recognition in Word XP would actually WORK.
They don't come up with these feature lists out of the clear blue, you know. Something has to push them to do it. Examples:
- Why was there a successor to Windows NT that was faster, more stable, with a rewritten core? It wasn't because NT was a bad OS. It was competition from UNIX.
- Why does Windows XP have video editing, multimedia features, CD burning, and an updated interface? It's no accident that those features were chosen for the next version of Windows. Competition from Apple's OS X.
- I think people in this topic (and in a few others like Talk:Journalism) are forgetting that what drives a company is the market. Microsoft didn't look at OS X and say "oh we need CD burning because they have it", they looked at their market, and their customers said "we want CD burning", and they listened to their customers. This is the key thing about capitalism - it is 100% rooted in democracy and populism. Anyone can start a business, and as long as they have a product that most people in a market segment want, they will become dominant in that market segment. Certainly, a company can influence what people want through advertizing and PR, but that is not the issue here. The issue is simply Microsoft looked at what consumers wanted, and gave them what they wanted. Competition is irrelevant. Knowing your market is key. -- Amw
Microsoft is well known - not for creating markets or responding to their customer - but for taking already-established ideas and doing it better than existing companies. Then, they push others out of the market with deceptive or ruthless business practices, establish dominance, and then sit back on their laurels.
That's why we don't like them.
To assume the only thing that drives a company is their individual market is to assume they have tunnel vision.
Many companies have tried to start a business - with a product that people in a market segment want - only to have that product mimiced, or borged, and then muscled out of the industry. Microsoft isn't the only company that has done this (DeBeers, IBM) but that doesn't make it right when they do. I would be just as anti-IBM if I had been my age back during IBM's dominance. The villian's the same but with different clothes on.
Just try starting a new operating system, word processor, or browser - Microsoft's three main money-makers. Linux had to be free to compete for several years and only now gaining acceptance. WordPerfect hangs on by being standardized with the legal system. Netscape, BeOS, Dr. DOS, and who knows how many others are gone.
- BeOS didn't have enough drivers and didn't push its features to the right people - it could've stormed the multimedia industry. Netscape didn't stay up-to-date with the latest features that people wanted. Microsoft beat those companies because those companies didn't market or support their products properly. Look at Apple - they've been quite merrily co-existing with Microsoft for years. How do they do it? They've got a unique market segment and a strong marketing machine that makes that market segment want to stick with Apple.
- In almost every industry there are one or two dominant players and hundreds of "independents" that cater to a specific audience. Not so in the computer industry. In the computer industry the "execs" are young, stupid and greedy - they want to drive Ferraris at 25 just like the dotcommers. Instead of cutting out a niche and gradually building from there, they immediately try to compete with the top - any Business 101 student could tell you that's a recipe for disaster. The company that beats Microsoft isn't going to come thundering out of Silicon Valley and have applications on every desktop in the next few years. The company that beats Microsoft is going to start in Podunk, South Dakota and spend ten years gradually edging into different markets, building a strong and loyal customer base. That's what Microsoft did - they didn't become millionaires overnight - it took 15 or 20 years. Obviously people didn't learn from the success of those before them. -- Amw
The Browser war would not hvae been won by Microsoft if it were not for it's size.
- Microsoft put it by default on the desktop of every Windows computer and had been made free to commercial customers.
- There were no compelling features that made IE better apart from speed thanks to access to internal Windows APIs.
The only reason Microsoft entered the Browser market was because they were afraid of a cross-platform tool that would allow applications to run independant of Windows. They were still pushing the Microsoft Network until Netscape came along with a new platform and a threat to the traditional OS. They were not interested in the Internet before and, when that threat was determined, they did not compete on an even somewhat level playing feild. It was gained through an unfair advantage.
If you're using the idea that execs in the computer industry have dollar signs in their eyes as opposed to being interested in doing the long, difficult work to acheive success, I think you're excluding the industry before the dot-com era. Sun, IBM, HP, Compaq, Intel and more are not fly-by-night organizations. But yet Java was thrown out of Windows because it conflicted with the C# language. AMD testified in court for Microsoft during the trial and suddenly Windows XP annouced support for their 64bit line. Be and many other OS's (including Linux) were prevented from installation in newly-built computers because of licensing deals with Microsoft who wanted OEMs to stay away from other OS's or be put out in the cold. I could go on all day.
As for Apple, I'm sure Microsoft was fine with Apple's nitche of 1.43% as of Sept. 2002.
Intel: "The Wintel relationship went through a chilly period in 1995 when Microsoft wanted Intel to stop writing software, (so slowing the introduction of 32-bit Windows); to favour its Internet Explorer browser; and to stop supporting Java multimedia." BBC
Lastly, I don't think there's any one or two dominant players in every industry but I'm not really qualified to comment on all of business. I would agree with you that they do exist in natural resource industries such as Exxon/Mobil and DeBeers - neither of which should be allowed to behave in the market as they do. Because of the varieties of different businesses and the complexity of industry, I think whatever I say my view is pretty much opinion.
However, I will say I am in favor - in any industry - of every effort being made to level the playing feild for competition.
- I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. None of your arguments hold any more water than the ranting and raving on Slashdot to me. I still haven't heard a reason why what Microsoft does is objectively Bad. Yeah they've cut some dirty deals - so has every company, and there's nothing illegal about that. Yeah they did a backflip on the internet once they realized it was going to be popular - that's good business. All the companies you named are just as guilty as Microsoft of being cut-throat in trying to build market share - that's the way capitalism works.
- And to get back on topic, IE4 was at least as good as Netscape 4, and it featured what some would consider "broken HTML support" that actually made it EASIER for unskilled people to make their webpages display properly. Imho that was a good thing - it helped bring the web to the masses. Once IE5 came out there was no contest any more. What killed Netscape was the Mozilla crew procrastinating for five years instead of releasing a Mozilla 1.4-quality browser back in 1998. This is also well-documented. -- Amw
Netscape was well on its way to death well before Mozilla and not because of some small HTML issue. Certainly, that was a benefit but that in no way somehow changed the whole industry.
All I really have left to say is that Microsoft, DeBeers, IBM, and JP Morgan's dirty deals REALLY ARE immoral and they should be regulated. Even Netscape at one point tried to push out other up-and-coming browsers. Oracle had operatives looking through other companys' trash. ALL of these activities are illegal and for good reason. I really hope you don't believe that being dishonorable is "normal" in business - or any other area. And I'm not some kind of idealist in the face of the world's harsh realities or just echoing the people on slashdot. Telling the truth and not screwing other people over isn't something you do just when you feel like it.
- Woah, woah, don't get personal on this. My friends and colleagues know me as a loyal worker and an honest person. There are plenty of legal things that i won't do because i don't consider them ethical, but i strongly believe in the freedom for people to live and interact as they desire. I don't agree with government regulation out of principle, but that doesn't mean i wouldn't be happier if companies self-regulated in an ethical manner. My point throughout this thread has been that i don't think Microsoft should be condemned for conducting business in a successful manner, not that i necessarily agree with all of their business practises. -- Amw
Allright - that's quite a different message than I was reading. I took:
"Yeah they've cut some dirty deals - so has every company, and there's nothing illegal about that."
... to mean that this is somehow something I shouldn't be against. But it sounds like you're not in favor of government regulation, which of course has its own set of unique issues, rather than that doing bad things is somehow justified because of the rest of the market.
As a business person myself, I know that kind of thing goes on as well but I didn't want to imply that it was okay. Thank you for clarifying.
