Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Title text: Facebook, Apple, and Google all got away with their monopolist power grabs because they don't have any 'S's in their names for critics to snarkily replace with '$'s.
In the late 1990s Microsoft started bundling its web browser, Internet Explorer, with its Windows operating system. This effectively destroyed the Netscape company, who up until then had the most market share with its browser, Netscape Navigator. Microsoft was involved in a legal case against the U.S. government, which required Microsoft to allow IE to be uninstalled, and other remedies.
The comic sarcastically states that this stopped monopolistic software practices, when they seem to have continued both at Microsoft and other companies. For example, Apple. The comic also mocks how trivial the browser debates are in comparison to current antitrust cases concerning privacy and price fixing.
Apple manages to bundle a browser in on both its desktop and mobile platforms, and on its mobile platform (iOS) users are not even allowed the choice of changing the default browser. Google has its own desktop OS called Chrome OS in which Chrome the browser, is the operating system. On Android, Google has always bundled in a browser and as of version 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) the browser was a mobile version of Chrome, on Android you are allowed to change the default browser. Facebook has gone out of its way to make sure that users cannot get their data out of Facebook so they could move to another social network. Recently this has been mitigated by the ability to download a zip file of all content ever posted to Facebook, but it still remains difficult to delete data from Facebook.
The title text refers to the common Internet-ism of referring to Microsoft as micro$oft, or M$.
add a comment!
- Megan: Remember when we prosecuted Microsoft for bundling a browser with an OS? Imagine the future we'd live in if we'd been willing to let one tech company amass that much power.
- Ponytail: Thank God we nipped that in the bud.
Let the discussion begin! (replace this stub with actual content?) Odysseus654 (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Well in the case of Microsoft they already dominated the market and so threatened to gain monopoly power. In the case of Apple (disclosure: I use a Mac) the market share is insignificant, really. As for Facebook and Google, the oversight is puzzling to say the least.184.108.40.206 05:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)ExternalMonologue
- ¬I Ummmmmmm... Why does my IP address show?? Other peoples' addresses don't show. How do I prevent this from happening?220.127.116.11 05:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)ExternalMonologue
- Click the "log in / sign up" icon in the upper right and login or create an account for youself. Then you will no longer be known by your IP addressOdysseus654 (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think the reason Microsoft was noticed and Facebook/Google didn't was that Netscape complained. It didn't helped him, of course. Which may also be reason why nothing is happening with Facebook/Google: seriously, WHAT do you think can the court do? And about Apple: yes, they could forbid Apple to control the list of application, but ... RIAA/MPAA will then complain. They WANT to end the era of "you own the device, therefore you can install whatever you want on it", because THEY want that control. -- Hkmaly (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
One could add that the European Union did the same thing (see Wikipedia:European Union Microsoft competition case), first because of Windows Media Player (imagine any operating system coming without media player), but later also because of Internet Explorer. (It was already laughable back then, even before Apple completely dominated the mobile and tablet market.) Thanks to that we now have Wikipedia:BrowserChoice.eu, and we are a free people. --18.104.22.168 08:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- In the tablet and smartphone markets, Apple's market share is not at all insignificant. Furthermore, legal solutions are supposed to be even-handed, not "it's okay if these other guys do the same thing because." If a situation arises with a particular party arises such that one of its practices is determined to be abusive, then that practice is restricted, not that party.
Note that Microsoft has been in the news recently because they (accidentally?) broke the agreements they made (or were forced into) when the last browser rulings came down Odysseus654 (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
What about Fa€ebook, App£e, and Goog£e?
- In retrospect, the whole Internet Explorer thing seems pretty dumb. I guess at the time web browsers still weren't considered to be an essential, fundamental piece of computer functionality. But they certainly are now. It would be weird for an operating system, ANY operating system, to not have a built-in web browser at this point. 22.214.171.124 20:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't Fac€book be more exact?
- Yes, the browsers ARE essential and BECAUSE of that it's important WHICH browser you have. Personally I can't understand why the OS (any of them) can't came with multiple browsers preinstalled. I find hard to believe it's because of size. -- Hkmaly (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- How many web browsers? What standards are used to select them? Which one is the default? How are naive users to decide? As a semi-power user, I would be irritated to know that a bunch of redundant bloatware came pre-installed, especially when it's an application that often intertwines with the operating system. Frankly, it's NOT that important which browser you use for most users, just that you have one. The ones for whom it is important are going to change theirs regardless of what came preinstalled. - jerodast (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Would it also be relevant that, a week before this comic, Google surpassed Microsoft in market value? —126.96.36.199 13:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't really understand the advantage of browser market share. Browsers are free and have no ads. If the advantage is in using browser features to promote other services (like search), then THAT's the bundling that should be scrutinized. In contrast, forcing users to funnel all purchases for your system through your own store is much more abusive. - jerodast
) 17:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)