Mozilla jumps the shark

Wae, "LTE seems to be the next logical option for cellular providers since it doesn't require a huge change in infrastructure, although it will for a CDMA provider, since it's based on GSM technology" Not really. GSM is the natural upgrade path for GSM providers, but it is not based necessarily on the GSM standard. GSM is just upgraded TDMA. The All-IP infrastructure in LTE and the OFDMA air interface more resemble CDMA than anything else, because of the packet based nature and not being confined to time slots like TDMA based networks are. The nature of LTE also provides a very open approach to the air standard, paving the way for multiple air interfaces on one phone. AT&T in the US, instead of going to LTE, is actually going to hobble themselves with a more expensive rollout as they are upgrading to HSUPA and HSPA+ in the mean time. Sprint and Verizon's built out EV-DO networks are already fully deployed.

@Dipsh, whiplash55, I think the reason Mozilla chose to go this route is that the browser market is no longer dominated by two players any more. Things have changed since Chrome and (to a lesser extent) Safari were released for Windows. It's a much more difficult market for Firefox to be operating in. Also, if Google does to bundle Chrome with new PCs, it'll make things that much more difficult for Mozilla because they probably cannot afford to pay OEMs that kind of money to bundle Firefox. In the short term, Mozzila's decision (and Opera's decision) will definitely benefit them. In the long term, though, the winner will still likely be Google.

"The All-IP infrastructure in LTE and the OFDMA air interface more resemble CDMA than anything else" Actually, LTE doesn't require a huge infrastructure upgrade from existing GSM 3.5G networks. LTE is part of the 3GPP. CDMA is not. (Although UMTS is AKA W-CDMA, they are not compatible with the 3GPP2 version of CDMA) "AT&T in the US, instead of going to LTE, is actually going to hobble themselves with a more expensive rollout as they are upgrading to HSUPA and HSPA+ in the mean time." AT&T is only trying to compete against their current market competition. HSPA technologies are the evolution of UMTS, and all of which are GSM-based. Sprint and Verizon don't have anything on the go right now except for EVDO [Rev.a]. LTE and WiMAX are only in trials, and expected rollout isn't until a few years time at best estimate. AT&T already has HSDPA. HSUPA is only the uplink side of things, and HSPA is a general all-encompassing technology term, often used to designate networks that use both HSDPA and HSUPA simultaneously. For AT&T to release "full HSPA" (that is, to add HSUPA to HSDPA) they don't need to do a lot. HSPA+ includes service speeds up to 42Mbps, but doesn't deviate much from the HSPA standard. LTE does, but it still part of the 3GPP Group's proposed roadmap. There is no logical evolution of CDMA beyond EVDO Rev.A though. It is a dead end. WiMAX is a completely separate set of technologies that don't coincide with any set cellular data specification group.

Mozilla is against Opera's suggestion to force vendors to offer more options for browsers than just bundle ONE browser - like IE with Windows, Safari with Mac, and Firefox with most Linux distros. If Opera manages to force Microsoft to offer multiple browsers, Microsoft might insist that this policy be enforced on not just Windows, but also Mac and *nix to provide a level playing field. This might hurt Mozilla, and hence they are pulling a trojan horse by on one hand supporting Opera's case, while at the other hand diluting it's remedy recommendation of having to bundle multiple browsers with a [Windows] operating system.

When you buy a Mac, you are buying an Apple computer and an Apple OS which includes Apple programs. It's a complete package that comes from one company. It's not the same thing as Windows at all. I bought my computer from Apple, it comes with Apple's OS and Apple's browser. Fine. The issue is that other than buying a Mac, the vast majority of computers come pre loaded with Windows. There are a handful that come with Linux, but not many. So if the majority of the worlds computers, from hundreds of different hardware companies all run Windows that comes with built in Microsoft programs, how are other companies supposed to get their browsers and media players noticed? If Windows only came on Microsoft's own hardware, fair enough, but it doesn't. It has a virtual monopoly on all other hardware manufacturers. If I buy a Dell, there's a very strong chance it will come with Microsoft's OS and Microsoft's browser. There is no chance of getting rival software out there unless Microsoft is forced to, baring in mind that the vast majority of users won't change default programs, because they simpler don't know better.

"baring in mind that the vast majority of users won't change default programs, because they simpler don't know better." That's not an argument. Any browser, multimedia program, imaging program, and even search toolbar will ask the user anyway. Google, Yahoo, Ask, (and most spyware too) even prevents future changes to the browser search engine settings, and Microsoft just recently added change prevention in Windows Live Wave 3 by way of Windows Live Choice Guard. Similarly, OEM's can change defaults as well, so you can't even argue about them either.

The rise and rise of Firefox can only be a great boon for the industry and for users as whole.

"If people did that, no one would be using Evil Microsoft's products." They wouldn't use Apple either.

BTW: Using WSU as a source just dropped yours (and probably everyone elses) IQ points about 20 figures.

No, it's "jibe". Note the differences. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jive "To talk nonsense; kid" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jibe "be compatible, similar or consistent"

"Do we still remember how to do that?" I'll answer my own question...most people lost that ability in November, it seems... -tayme

@tayme: You lost me at the point where you said "if I go buy a new Ford"....

Too right! http://laughingsquid.com/os-x-software-we-can-believe-in-obama-themed-t-... Amen!

"Master3 said: "chuckb84 said: Remember, Paul makes money from Microsoft, not Mozilla, Linux or Apple, hence the faux outrage." Really? So you have the photo of Ballmer handing Paul a check, right? Or something that constitute proof to people who are not morons?" Uh, he writes books about Microsoft products, his entire livelihood depends on Microsoft succeeding. I didn't say anything about "Ballmer handing Paul a check". He just has a vested interest. He's not objective. Paul says it himself, "It's time for Microsoft to respond to the challenges it faces with leadership and authority. And if you care about the systems you support now, your jobs, and your very livelihood, you might do demand the same from the company. All of us have backed the same horse." His livelihood depends on Microsoft. That's his statement, not mine. I just point out that it makes his techinical commentary about, oh, Apple, Linux, Mozilla, and Google, somewhat suspect. He may not even realize the double standard. Read the Upton Sinclair quote again.

@boyreinvented: I edited your illogical diatribe to show that it applies to Apple as well: "What I'm saying is, Apple *prevents* it's OS *running* on other hardware. Microsoft *encourages you to run* it's OS on pretty much all hardware going and in it's OS it *doesn't prevent you from installing other* programs. There is *no* alternative *than paying the ransom to Apple to run its OS*. *Preventing the perfectly capable* hardware market *from running* your OS *so as to charge a premium from the users* is anti-competitive. If you think otherwise, you're just confirming my opinion of you.?

robertsjoe's posts remind me of wae's comment from yesterday: ""It's an Asian kid so in terms of intelligence she's the equivalent of a 10 year old white kid." ....or about 30 robertsjoes." That was hilarious ... and so true. :-)

@boyreinvented - "Forcing the hardware market to only use your OS" Uh...that was over a decade ago and I will be the first to admit that they did that back then. At this point, they no longer do that...you know that, too, but are too blinded by bias to admit it. You are right up there with robertsjoe with your illogical behavior. I am guessing that you are a buddy of his from school that he talked into getting on Paul's site and spouting garbage. --tayme

Hey Chuck, I'd missed that article. Paul is really bummed about MS sharing Activesync with anyone...Apple, Google, etc. From the article in July: >>And honestly, why would Microsoft even license Exchange to Apple? Are they crazy? << Today: >>This is, I feel, unbelievably dangerous for Microsoft....By licensing ActiveSync to Google, Microsoft has in effect handed over the keys to the kingdom<<

All MS needs to do is to make IE completely uninstallable, like every other browsers on any OS

chuck, ocean, robertsjoe,boy, et al Seems like your only purpose on this site is to point out how biased Paul is and to attempt to discredit him. (Of course, for ocean and robertsjoe trolling is probably a full time occupation.) Again, just like no one is forcing you to use Microsoft's products, no one is forcing you to read this blog, so if you think Paul has no credibility, STOP WASTING EVERYONE ELSE'S TIME and go away. Please! You guys are more annoying than you realize.

What is even more irksome is that the original antitrust case from 2004, in which Microsoft was found to have abused its market dominance by bundling Windows Media Player with every copy of Windows, the software giant was forced, among other things, to sell a version of Windows without Windows Media Player. Notwithstanding the fact that there was no demand for the reduced media edition of Windows, should a similar outcome be reached by the EU in the present case – whereby a version of Windows must be sold without Internet Explorer – the EU's gross imbecility will be cemented. Modern Operating Systems – be they Mac, Windows or Linux – are effectively emasculated without a browser. Indeed, without a bundled browser, consumers would not even be able to search for and download a competitor browser. This leads me to conclude that the EU has become a rapacious addict to Microsoft's sizeable pool of profits, a pool from which the EU feels it is entitled to plunder as it so wishes. More disparaging is that this type of overzealous antitrust intervention fosters a market to become full of competitors that are prone to seeking regulatory solutions to their failed business plans rather than conducting honest self-assessments, rationalisation and innovating their way to success. The late Milton Friedman's comments in relation to the US Department of Justice antitrust suit against Microsoft are as particularly resonant now, as they were in 1999: "My own views about the antitrust laws have changed greatly over time. When I started in this business, as a believer in competition, I was a great supporter of antitrust laws; I thought enforcing them was one of the few desirable things that the government could do to promote more competition. But as I watched what actually happened, I saw that, instead of promoting competition, antitrust laws tended to do exactly the opposite, because they tended, like so many government activities, to be taken over by the people they were supposed to regulate and control. And so over time I have gradually come to the conclusion that antitrust laws do far more harm than good and that we would be better off if we didn’t have them at all, if we could get rid of them. But we do have them. Under the circumstances, given that we do have antitrust laws, is it really in the self-interest of Silicon Valley to set the government on Microsoft? Your industry, the computer industry, moves so much more rapidly than the legal process, that by the time this suit is over, who knows what the shape of the industry will be. Never mind the fact that the human energy and the money that will be spent in hiring my fellow economists, as well as in other ways, would be much more productively employed in improving your products. It’s a waste! But beyond that, you will rue the day when you called in the government. From now on the computer industry, which has been very fortunate in that it has been relatively free of government intrusion, will experience a continuous increase in government regulation. Antitrust very quickly becomes regulation. Here again is a case that seems to me to illustrate the suicidal impulse of the business community."

I could help but laugh at Boyreinvented's assertion that Microsoft somehow forces themselves on people. You don't like PC's? Buy a Mac. You like PC hardware but don't want to use Microsoft products? Fine. Nothing stopping you at all. Dell and plenty of others sell PC's with Linux on them. The fact that no one buys that crap isn't Microsoft's fault. I honestly think that "boyreinvented"'s post was one of the dumbest things I've read on the internet. Sorry, that might sound mean, but I honestly had read it 3 times and it still reads stupid.

>>It reminds me of linux or the Apple app store. Most of the programs run like trash.<< Really?

Jumping the Shark? http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/index.php?blog=14&title=an_open_respon...

"Telstra's network is capable of 7.2mbps nationwide in Australia and will soon be capable of 42mbps." Did you even read the press release? They are moving from peak speeds of 3Mbps to 21Mbps - IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS! (Starting with trials in "early 2009") There is no mention of 42Mbps speed ANYWHERE in that press release, nor is there any mention of it in any later release.