Hacker News Reader

Comment by anotherangrydev | Hacker News Reader

>Microsoft still essentially owns the desktop with Windows

So what? That doesn't mean they are obliged to comply with whatever you think is "the right thing"®.

I'm gonna highlight another another big difference that you seemed to overlook.

Microsoft is a company, their mission is to generate profits for their shareholders and they are the owners of Windows 10, because they developed it. Mozilla is a non-profit corporation whose main product, Firefox, is software that has been developed and tested (to a big extent) by people who do not get paid a single cent, because they have faith in the project and the overall mission that Mozilla attempts to portrait.

Now, I really want to understand your side, please explain, how come what Microsoft did with Windows was wrong but what Mozilla did with Firefox was ok?

Edit: Downvotes, but no arguments, as expected.

View on HN

I actually didn't say that what Microsoft did was wrong. It's a complex issue, and you can see multiple points of view in the HN discussion here.

I am not convinced that what Microsoft did was wrong, or that it wasn't wrong.

I am just sad to see people try to divert the conversation from the topic of Microsoft and Windows 10.

So what? That doesn't mean they are obliged to comply with whatever you think is "the right thing"®.

Yes they are. Those who own one or another monopoly-type chokepoints are required to do the right thing in the sense of not abusing their monopolies. ISP are required to connect you to the real internet rather than a walled-garden simulation, Airline are required to not to hold their passengers ransom for more at intermediate point in travel, Healthcare companies are required to provide real health care etc.

Yes, and is Apple required to open their platform to porn apps ?

This is USA where private property rights are supposedly important despite government's attempts in other direction.

The "they can do what ever they want with their private property" argument doesn't matter. This isn't about what they can do, it's about what should be done.

No nothing should be required of these organisations. But their products serve humanity. They SHOULD have a sense of moral obligation to do the right thing. As should we the people have the responsibility to hold private monopolies to high standards so as that they help most people (not just shareholders).

Apple controls a negligible portion of the desktop market. Microsoft absolutely dominates. Anti-trust is about protecting the free market from natural monopolies, and Apple is by no means a monopoly. A walled garden? Absolutely. But not a monopoly.

> is Apple required to open their platform to porn apps ?

If they reached the same percentage numbers on mobile that Microsoft has on desktop, yes they would be.

How about this: It was wrong for Microsoft, and it was wrong for Mozilla. But it's worse when it's Microsoft, because it's easier to move to a different browser than to move to a different OS, and so it's harder to escape Microsoft's attempts to force you to do what they want you to.

Also, Microsoft has much more of a history of deliberately doing this to people, and so the suspicion is higher with Microsoft. Mozilla might get the benefit of the doubt; Microsoft does not.

Is it harder to move to a different browser in Windows 10? I feel like you keep emphasizing how easy it is to change your browser and yet are still registering a complaint. I'm not sure what you are complaining about.

First, you may be confusing me with another poster; I don't feel like your comment reflects my other posts on this article. I don't "keep emphasizing" how easy it is to change your browser.

I don't know if it's harder or easier to move to a different browser in Windows 10. I presume it's about the same, but it may be harder. I don't think that alters my point whatsoever.

My complaint is that Microsoft is making it difficult for users to do what the users want, if that's different from what Microsoft wants them to do. My position is that it's significantly worse when the OS does that to you than when an application - any application - does that, because it's much harder to switch OS than to switch an application. (If you're a large business, your ERP or, worse, database, may be the exception to this, but those aren't really the topic of this thread.)

I think it is much more difficult to switch to a different default browser in Windows 10.

With Chrome at least, you used be be able to set it to your default browser when is asked on first launch, with only a click or two.

Now that API is deprecated and removed, and users have to click 11 times through the settings to set the default browser. Much worse. And this is after it sneakily sets Edge as the default browser when upgrading, with only a small blue on blue "customize" link to a unlabeled setting to opt out.

It's quite a bit more difficult. Last week I set a Windows 8 PC to use Chrome as the default; this was simple, two clicks and you're done. Now, it dumps you to a settings page which is a significant increase in steps required to set Chrome as the default. Those are the facts of this, however one can certainly make arguments as to why this is a better way of doing things for Windows.

According to Mozilla's video, it seems to take three clicks now, instead of two...

How to Change Your Default Browser in Windows 10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEUekKqLJ-E

However, the benefit for the user is that there's a consistent process and all the defaults are in one place.

I read a summary of the results of a user research team checking whether end-users managed to actually set a different default browser on Windows 10.

Outside of the "power users" group, I seem to remember that not a single user succeeded.

Ah .. well there's that related Antitrust Lawsuit Microsoft lost in 2001.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

Finally someone who talks sense.

Microsoft could as well ban Firefox on their OS if they want to. Reality is that with Google Chrome, Mozilla has become completely irrelevant and will eventually die out.

They can innovate but they chose to fire their CEO over some petty reasons and they are building some phone which has not seen light of the day for years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com