Yahoo Pushing IE7 On Firefox Users 300
El Lobo writes "Looks like things are heating up again in the browser wars. Google has been openly supporting Firefox, so now Yahoo is displaying a new feature on search results pages for FireFox users. It appears that Yahoo is pushing downloads of IE7 from Microsoft and including itself as the default search engine installed in the file menu area." I got the invitation to download IE7 when running Firefox on a Mac, and even when running IE5 under CrossOver; but not when running IE7 under Parallels.
Fair enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing different from this "Firefox protects you" official Google site: http://www.google.com/firefox [google.com]
Fair enough. Nothing to see here, folks [bg]
Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Detailed analysis follows. (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Seriously. So yahoo got a truckload of cash from Microsoft. Who can blame them? Not I, posting from Firefox 2.
Not "pushing" until they block your user agent.. (Score:5, Insightful)
My school started doing this last year.. I navigated to their registration site with safari and got a nice little "we won't let you go to this site with your browser of choice" message..
I promptly enabled the debug menu and chose MSIE6 as my user agent.. it then let me in and I had absolutely no problems doing what I wanted to do.
Now this may become a much more sticky problem when they start taking advantage of the "remote attestation" in treacherous computing to prevent you from lying to the servers of anticompetitive schticks like this school of mine.
'Targeting Firefox Users'? (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't really shocking or terrible or anything, as it seems like Yahoo has a branded download of IE ("IE7 Optimized for Yahoo" is visible in one of the screenshots) and doesn't have a branded version of the other browsers. Does it really matter what browser they advertise?
What's the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I can understand the advantages and disadvantages of Firefox and IE, but annoying me by acting like a jackass isn't the way to convince me to switch.
I will say, after trying IE7 under Vista at work, trying Firefox 2.0, having issues with IE6 remembering my settings and finding out about IETab [mozdev.org], the switch was an easy decision for me. Pundit asshattery hurt rather than helped the situation.
Hardly pushing (Score:4, Insightful)
Pushing would be forcing you to install IE7 to use yahoo.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the only issue. Another issue is that IE has the bulk of the market share, especially among non-tech-savvy users. This means web developers always have to consider how IE behaves on their sites, even if the behavior is clearly a bug in IE. For years, this has stalled progress on the web, because Microsoft would not support certain features in IE, making it unattractive for web designers and developers to use them.
The growing market share of Firefox has led more sites to include certain niceties, even if they didn't actually work well or at all in IE. This has increased the attractiveness of Firefox, as well as compelled Microsoft to improve their browser.
Arguably, it would be a Bad Thing if this development were stopped just now it's starting to yield fruit. Competition between web browsers is good, it leads to better browsers and better sites.
Re:Fair enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Insightful)
But I would say that in the so called browser wars the government has largely failed at performing their role in limiting Microsofts abuse of their operating system monopoly in achieving a monopoly position in another market. It is not illegal to have a monopoly, it is just illegal to abuse it.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's pushing IE, then websites should feel free to continue pushing things in that manner. It's the most unobtrusive ad I've ever seen. I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out to me.
This is a nonstory.
Wasted ad if they don't check the OS (Score:4, Insightful)
Apples and oranges (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a point, but you're making it poorly.
Re:Fair enough (Score:2, Insightful)
BSD is the base that Apple's OSX is built upon, among MANY other successful BSD derivatives, so I am not speaking without knowledge here.
BSD is the base that was copied to form much of the software that the FSF has. GNU stands for "Gnu's not Unix!" which is recursive, and an "inside joke."
Basically the way it was described to me best was that Linux (not the kernel but the userspace more than anything) emulates and copies Unix, and BSD.
Think about it this way - car manufacturers often copy other models and features. Some are better, some are worse.
BSD has other (different, not better, not worse) freedoms than the GPL (which is associated most with Linux). There is the freedom to go proprietary, which many exercise. There is the freedom to interface much proprietary software with it.
BSD is typically more stable than a comparable Linux installation. This is not always the case, several people may want to mod me down, but BSD IS STABLE.
BSD also doesn't have Microsoft screaming about IP infringement. Microsoft hasn't sued Apple for it, and they CERTAINLY would go after them if they had done it, since they're the deepest pockets based upon BSD.
BSD also has many tight-knit communities, some of which offer certain things people may like.
Remember, I like BSD and Linux - have used both for some time!
Re:Fair enough (Score:2, Insightful)
In this case, a federal court that ruled that it was a fact that MS abused its monopoly position.
Re:Fair enough (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, I'm still a bit miffed that Mozilla hasn't remedied their JavaScript issues in 2.0.
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Insightful)
I hit one page looking for a free/open source application (wish I could remember which one it was) and was greeted with a large banner at the top and an audio recording saying my computer was "infected" with internet explorer and I should switch to Firefox to remedy it.
Now I can understand the advantages and disadvantages of Firefox and IE, but annoying me by acting like a jackass isn't the way to convince me to switch.
After years of us, users of alternative browsers (opera, netscape 4, etc.), we've been fed up by litteraly thousands of "I don't care if it displays badly on your monitor because only IE matters" sites, you find offensive that a correctly designed site reminds you in a mild way that your attitude (among millions of "I pee on W3C standards" like you) has and will harm you ? Now that you're eating your own food, that sounds seriously funny. But I must admit a wave sound is a bit too much ; personaly, I validate my pages and make a warning that my site won't support any broken browser. This links to a list of good browsers, and IE isn't in it, full stop.
Re:Fair enough (Score:3, Insightful)
It's really not that complicated:
1) When the dominate browser is the least standards-compliant, and actually pushes proprietary features instead of their standards-compliant equivalents, it encourages a proprietary web and is detrimental to everyone else not on the proprietary platform. It is also detrimental to those ON the proprietary platform, because their costs are kept in-check by competition. Without competition, you have a monopoly and prices spiral upwards (just take a look at the prices for Vista).
2) Security. The internet is inter-connected. A bad apple is a burden on others on the network. John's infected Windows PC affects plenty of others, with attempted infections, DDOS attacks at machines or websites, junk email, and just added traffic that slows down the internet. Even though I don't use IE or Windows, those that do and get their machines infected have a direct negative effect on me and my online experience. All that spam sure as hell isn't coming from my FreeBSD, Mac or Linux friends running Firefox/Safari/Konqueror/Epiphany/Galleon/Opera/e
3) Support. Those with the most grievances with Windows tend to be IE users. I am empathetic to my friends and family... it is not pleasant for me to hear about their computers being rendered useless by infections, and their pains and struggles getting them fixed. I often fix the computers of close friends/family for free out of pity but I'd much rather they didn't have to endure that and learn about stuff like Firefox the hard way. I really don't care that they use Firefox, just that they DON'T use IE (or anything based on IE). "Anything but IE" = "much fewer computer problems", plain and simple. Unfortunately their monopoly OS likes to push their monopoly browser and most users just don't know any better, and suffer horrendously for it.
Re:Fair enough (Score:3, Insightful)
While this is hardly a good excuse, the fact that IE exists means that web technology is at about the year 2000. Anything developed since then is useless to us because IE does not support it. There are also many other cool technologies that we would love to use (like MathML) but can't because IE doesn't support it.
As for IE, there's no excuse for its utter crappiness. It's not like Microsoft is a poor, tiny software company. So sometimes web developers get really annoyed and do something like this. I don't think it's a good idea to intentionaly block any browser, but that's why they do it.
As for me, I develop my site so that it works in any standards-compliant browser and IE users get to see it in all IE's buggy glory (which usually isn't that bad because I know how to avoid the common bugs). If I was getting money from my website I might make some more work to make IE work nicely, but right now I really don't care.
Javascript - the devil? (Score:2, Insightful)
A bit more than preference (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough (Score:3, Insightful)
This actually brings up a point against your whole argument.
I mostly develop under Firefox, and I develop with XHTML. This is because if I forget a closing tag, Firefox will tell me about it. It won't just make the page look uglier, it'll tell me I have a problem. I also use the Web Development Toolbar, which tells me when I've enabled "quirks mode" -- if I haven't, then I know I'm not relying on any Firefox-specific intelligence.
This means that by the time I'm done with a page, I'm pretty well guaranteed to have it work on any browser that supports the standards.
Your suggestion about "smartness" is one of the most frustrating things for the web community. IE is "smart" in certain ways that other browsers aren't "smart" in, and in fact, ways that kind of break the standards. However, even if IE was fully standards-compliant, any additional "smartness" is harmful, because it means that lazy web developers will develop under IE, see it render fine, slap a "Best viewed in IE" notice, and call it a day -- leaving tons of crap in there that relies on a particular kind of "smartness" that may not be supported everywhere.
I think having Safari (and others) actually fail on such asinine pages is a well-deserved slap in the face to lazy web developers. As long as developers continue to depend on certain types of "smartness", including the old "hide javascript code from older browsers" trick, we will be stuck with relatively large, bloated browsers. A particular type of "smartness" will become a defacto standard, and any browser that doesn't support that type of "smartness" will be called stupid by developers and users alike, even if it supports the standards to the letter.
Hello? This is why we have standards. This is why we have w3.org. They are meant to make development and browsing easier, not harder. If your site doesn't validate, the Validator will tell you, and it'll look wrong on one of the major browsers. If most web developers did that, it would mean we could all use browsers like Safari, because so few sites would look wrong, and we'd be able to complain loudly to the few that still did.
It's a chicken and egg problem, yes, but I work at it from both ends. I pick Firefox for other reasons, but I'd rather have strict web compliance both in my browser and on my websites. I would much rather be part of the solution than part of the old problems, still dragging along things that were considered "smart" back in the days of dialup.
Re:Fair enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you consider it a strength that you are too lazy to code to standards and work around flaws in the most popular browser?
That's two questions wrapped in a single bias, really. I don't consider myself being too lazy for coding to standards. It's time consuming, and doesn't display an enormous difference with a more lax coding. So, it's overall more efforts. Especially when you stick to -strict DTDs as I do.
On the other hand, "work around flaws in the most popular browser" isn't only about lazyness ; I can do it, and I refuse to do it because standards are usefull if they are respected, and useless when violated. Worse, it actually promotes lazyness a) from the users of IE7 because there's no incentive for them to switch if it simply works from their point of view - anyway, they won't reward you for any extra care you took, they feel they desserve your time. Well, too bad, wrong. And b) it promotes lazyness and malpractice at Microsoft, and it's akin in fact to active support of their "embrace and extend" strategy for coders to spend time where Microsoft really should have. And it help them defeat open standards at the same time. If something is needed at Microsoft, it's not complacency with their mischiefs, it's strict enforcement of general public rules. And this is up to any user vigilance.
So in a word, it neither is a strength nor a weakness to strictly enforce standards. It's a about politeness. I do my best to talk to whomever likes to read me in decent languages, both in "human" form and "computer" xhtml, and I expect visitors to be educated enough to understand both. And if I'm wrong, well, those are people I'm not very likely to have pleasure to have a relation with anyway.