Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EC Considering Removing Internet Explorer From Windows

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the epic-struggles dept.

Itsabouttime writes "In a preliminary ruling, the European Commission told Microsoft that linking Internet Explorer to its dominant Windows operating system violates EC rules. The EC's ruling was triggered by a complaint from IE rival Opera. Microsoft could seek to offer a Windows version without IE, as it did in the EC's 2004 ruling on Windows Media Player."

9 of 827 comments (clear)

  1. Slow Justice is No Justice by alain94040 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's look at the facts:

    the EC said tying Internet Explorer with Windows provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage

    That's stating the obvious.

    Now check out the timeline on this procedure. Microsoft was accused of tying Windows Media Player to Windows in 2004. That's what the current case is based on.

    According to a Microsoft spokesperson:

    Under EU procedure, the European Commission will not make a final determination until after it receives and assesses Microsoftâ(TM)s response

    In other words, expect this to last another few years before anything happens. By then, Internet Explorer will have been renamed Windows 8 and Microsoft will argue that the lawsuit is moot. Do consumers win? Lawyers do, that's for sure. Slow justice is no justice.

    Expect Microsoft to offer to ship a version of Windows without any web browser. So you won't be able to download firefox either!

    --
    FairSoftware.net -- where geeks are their own boss

    1. Re:Slow Justice is No Justice by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess I'm confused about what Opera expects to get out of this.

      That's very understandable given the assumptions made by both the summary and the post you're responding to.

      I know I, for one, would be pretty pissed off to open up my new computer and not have any way to go download Firefox.

      That's not going to happen. No remedy is going to stop Dell or HP from bundling what they want, just Microsoft. From the end user perspective it means you might get a different browser pre-installed and if you build your own computer from components you may have to burn a CD with a browser on it.

      What exactly are they hoping to gain?

      Opera's complaint specifically addressed the fact that MS's abuse has resulted in a huge portion of the Web no longer being standards compliant and that this was part of MS's intention as revealed by their internal memos. I suspect Opera hopes for several things possibly including, Windows shipping with multiple browsers and MS being forced to make IE standards compliant and supporting a reasonable level of new standards on par with all the other browsers. Both moves would significantly benefit Opera both in market share and because they would not have to try to write a noncompliant mode for their browser to deal with all the pages designed to work with IE instead of standards and there would no longer be such a barrier to companies looking to switch browsers. Note, Opera said nothing about forcing MS to ship a version without IE, that was just other people's assumption based upon the EU's failed attempt at remedying the media player market.

      Are they really arguing that new computers should ship with no internet browser what so ever?

      No. That's just something people who don't know what they're talking about and who such a ruling would affect keep mentioning. Ignore them. It makes no sense to anyone who even slightly understands antitrust law and this case.

    2. Re:Slow Justice is No Justice by Afforess · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can see it now.

      Installing "Windows 7" Step 6 of 10:
      Picking which web browser is right for you. If you need help visit us at www.microsoft.com.

      1.) Internet Explorer 8
      DEFAULT CHOICE
      RECOMMENDED CHOICE

      2.) Other (Advanced)
      (Only recommend for Advanced Users)

      --
      If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
    3. Re:Slow Justice is No Justice by CommentThingSucks · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is because IE is not just the browser frontend, it is an entire framework that a lot of third party applications depend on.

      This was done intentionally by Microsoft, even going so far as making important components like Explorer depend on it. This isn't really the case any more for most of Windows, but the third party programs still need it, so removing it would break a lot of programs people use.

      Firefox is not a replacement either, because it does not implement any of the interfaces that the IE framework does (even though they could go to MSDN and implement them, but we're talking about a lot of work here.)

      Now... you could remove the actual IE program itself, as few other programs depend on it, but what would be the point? To save a few megabytes?

      I mean, there is already the option to remove access to it and use another browser as default. That's really all OEMs would need to ship a third-party browser (it would be problematic for Microsoft to do so.)

    4. Re:Slow Justice is No Justice by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Firefox or Apple with Safari didnt need a lawsuit. They are doing fine. They are standard compliant. And IE keeps loosing[sic] market shares.

      First, there is no lawsuit, just a compliant about a violation of criminal law. It is more akin to reporting a robbery to the cops than suing someone over a dispute. Second is the question of if IE losing market share as rapidly as it should in a free market or if it is being propped up. Is IE significantly better than Opera, enough to justify it's 70% market share even with its technological inferiority? If it wasn't bundled with Windows would it have that large of share? If MS had not intentionally broken standards to create IE only Web pages would it have that much market share?

      I'd also like to address your assertion that Firefox and Safari are standards compliant. They mostly are, but they also spent millions creating work arounds so they can handle non-standards compliant pages such as MS schemed to create as a way to harm competitors. These aren't even facts in doubt as they were established when the US investigated then convicted them of this same crime... the crime they never stopped committing.

      It looks like Opera is convinced that their product is the best, and its only Microsoft fault if they are not on everybody's desktop.

      No, it looks like Opera wants a fair fight. After all, if IE is a better browser users will pick it over Opera, right? Demanding other companies obey the law is not asking for favoritism.

      And maybe they are just not that good, maybe their product is not much better compared to the other ones, or maybe their Marketing failed.. who knows?

      Nobody, because the free market was not allowed to judge because MS broke the law. All they're asking for is the chance to fight on even ground so users or OEMs can pick what they think is best instead of having a default and a Web full of pages that only work in one browser.

      Maybe they didnt realize that a browser product by itself has little value for the end user (not enough value to pay for it in any case). And that its all about the devices and the content.

      Current browsers don't have a lot to offer, but that's because current Web pages are still using decade old technologies to display pages because one particular browser with most of the market has refused to implement any new technologies that might allow users to have a Web capable of making Windows less essential. If IE were to disappear tomorrow replaced by any other browser or combination, the Web would suddenly leap forward technologically and you could run Web apps, view video and audio using standards, develop Web pages in half the time, and use vector graphics to deliver better quality graphics using less bandwidth. MS's criminal actions are more than inconveniencing Opera, they are crippling the Web to keep user locked into Windows.

  2. Stupid.. by bradgoodman · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is so stupid.

    Last time they did this over the "media player", after months of laywers and stuff, Microsoft finally agreed to come out with a version of the OS which lacked the Media player.

    And the verdict?

    Nobody wanted it.

    If you don't want IE, do what I do. Just don't run it.

    1. Re:Stupid.. by Caetel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because Windows Media Player is free.

      "This download is available to customers running genuine Microsoft Windows"

      So no, it's not free. You just don't pay for it because it's incorporated into the cost of the Windows licence.

  3. Can IE be removed? by Onyma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would be very interested to see how Microsoft would go about even trying to remove IE. At best I would think they could extract the GUI wrapper for the engine that most people call "IE"... but the core rendering engine is required for many other components such as the help system for example. Being forced to remove the rendering engine from Windows would be like taking out the bottom brick in Jenga.

    --
    Play me online? Well you know that I'll beat you. If I ever meet you I'll "/sbin/shutdown -h now" you. -Weird Al, kinda.
  4. Re:So what? by JWman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not MS lover, but really, at what point does this stop? What if a company with a desire to litigate decides they want to enter the utilities market, but are hampered by the preloaded utilities available in Windows (defrag, search, etc.). Does MS have to strip out features every times someone calls foul? How far will it go? What if some company decides to make a CPU scheduler, and think that it's unfair that MS includes one with windows? Where's the line?
    How many people are there buying computers who would think of thier computer as complete without an internet browser? Is MS evil for catering to this need?

    On a related note, will Apple have to stop including Safari with OS X?