Technology

59402 readers

2667 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

645

Painful day for tech titans as EU finally sinks its regulatory teeth into them (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 8 months ago by celmit@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world

96 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Tja@programming.dev 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This happened in 2009, when IE had a market share of 56% and declining. IE is (arguably) defunct because it sucked, not because of a one-time, court-mandated popup.

[–] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

IE sucked since the beginning, that's not the reason it died.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago

Everything sucked back then.

Then Mozilla started not sucking, then in 2008 Chrome came out and in 2009 when the popup was mandated, IE had declined to 56% market share from 90% highs years earlier.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It happened in 2001, you're off by 8 years.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Back then Chrome didn't exist and they didn't implement the pop up, just assigned some overview and opened some APIs.

However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor did it prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future.

The popup came in 2009.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Seems to me they continued to take actions in 2009 as a result of their loss in 2001. "Some overview" continued after the case was decided. Unless there was a subsequent court case I'm unaware of?

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The 2009 dispute was in the EU, to begin with.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The comment I was responding to was specifically about the United States' actions.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The didn't cause the browser popup then

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why bring it up then?

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why did I bring up a regulation that the EU imposed on Microsoft, in the comments of an article about regulations that the EU wants to impose on tech giants?

You're right, totally out of context.