Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Will Ship Windows 7 in Europe With IE Unbundled
jimmi_hendrix was one of several people to note CNET's report that 'Microsoft plans to remove Internet Explorer from the versions of Windows 7 that it ships in Europe, CNET News has learned. Reacting to antitrust concerns expressed by European regulators, Microsoft plans to offer a version in Europe that has the browser removed. Computer makers would then have the option to add the browser back in, ship another browser or ship multiple browsers, according to a confidential memo that was sent to PC makers and seen by CNET News." There's also a report at Ars Technica.
You're not! Check the pirate bay after the european release is made. Furthermore, look to those Windows - LITE versions that people put together. They are also quite effective.
My question is if they are removing the blue E icon or actually removing the rendering engine? My guess is the former. The way things stand, I imagine many apps would be impossible to run without the rendering engine. A simple test would be to open a file browser and then type in a URL to see if an internet web page can be shown. If it's there, you will see it that way.
A simple test would be to open a file browser and then type in a URL to see if an internet web page can be shown. If it's there, you will see it that way.
MS got rid of the tie between Windows Explorer and IE with Windows Vista; trying to view a local folder in IE opens Windows explorer, and trying to view an internet URL in Windows Explorer opens your default browser.
My question is if they are removing the blue E icon or actually removing the rendering engine?
My reading is that they basically can't remove the rendering engine completely; too much stuff depends on it. HTML is behind the entire Windows Help system for instance, and I can't see them either altering the technology that radically or disabling help. There's also a lot of third party software (e.g. Steam) that uses it.
I don't know how much IE adds to the rendering engine though. It may be the case that MSHTML (what's used for the help system and such) is actually pretty lightweight and IE adds quite a bit, so this split is actually quite meaningful, but I doubt that's the case.
The article submitter fails to note the EU is not necessarily on board with this as they've been circulating a survey asking PC companies about how many and what browsers should be pre-installed as well as asking questions about if MS is pressuring them on the issue.
Apple and every flavor of linux can't be hit with anti-trust charges... because they don't have a virtual monopoly on the desktop.
And I'd also go ahead and point out that there was a time when web browsers were sold seperate from the OS. At that point there was competition to IE - Netscape. Then MS bundled IE with windows so that you *had* to buy IE even if you also bought Netscape, and Netscape died overnight. And then we went 7 years without a new version of IE.
So yea, I'd certainly include "bundling IE" as one of MS's more egregious business practices.
Wordpad/Notepad? Probably staying bundled. But Word and Office? You'll note that they were never bundled, but if they had been I'm sure undoing that would be part of this deal as well.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Updates in Vista uses a seperate contral panel applet, presumably its the same in 7.
Big difference that you seem to be willfully ignoring. Neither Apple or any Linux vendor strong armed OEMs into exclusively installing their browser.
Can someone explain to me why bundling IE with windows is considered to be a trust?
No, because it isn't considered a trust. You don't even seem to know what a trust is, so one can only assume your ignorance of this topic is extreme. Have you considered a dictionary?
An antitrust law is a law against undermining the operation of a free market by using overwhelming influence in a market. A trust is a group of companies or organizations that collude to use their market power to this end. A monopoly is a company with enough influence to do it my themselves. MS has been ruled to have such influence in the "PC Operating System" market (differentiating it from the workgroup server OS market.). As such, they are forbidden from using that influence to disrupt other, pre-existing markets. The Web browser market qualifies as such a market.
MS doesn't charge any money for it
Irrelevant.
... and it was better than Netscape when it came out...
Irrelevant.
...why is it all of the sudden a trust and not a trust 15 years ago?
They had a monopoly then too, and it was a crime then, the US charged them with it. Since then other countries have tried them for it over the years. The EU finally charged them in response to complaints from their victims.
If someone wants a new browser they should get it themselves. Can someone explain to me why bundling IE with windows is considered to be a trust? MS doesn't charge any money for it, and it was better than Netscape when it came out, why is it all of the sudden a trust and not a trust 15 years ago?
It was antitrust 15 years ago. The DOJ found for Netscape. Then we elected Bush, and the enforcement of the ruling went out the window.
(BTW, it's antitrust because MS leveraged their OS monopoly to gain market share for their browser, after Netscape turned down their purchase offer.)
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Geez, how about just making the help consist of GODDAMN HTML FILES?
Um, they basically are. They're zipped together somehow because help usually has multiple pages and they want it in one file, but that's what they are behind the scenes.
They point is how do you display that HTML? It's that which we are talking about. Right now Windows uses MSHTML to display them. The APIs under discussion would allow Mozilla to hook up Gecko so that it could render your help files (which would maybe allow you to totally remove IE stuff from the system), or someone to hook up Webkit to display help files, etc.
(Another interpretation of what you say is to just have the web browser itself display help files; this has a number of drawbacks, not the least of which is that without a browser in there by default, you wouldn't be able to read help. And it's exactly that situation which is why I'm postulating that MS isn't going to remove MSHTML.)
You do know that MS was found guilty in the US don't you? You also know that the EU has imposed huge fines on EU based companies too don't you?
I've been saying this same thing for a long time now, but the odd part is, I've been using firefox and chrome between work and home and I almost never happen on an obviously broken site anymore.
To a certain degree I probably have a higher tolerance for things that don't line up, etc., but I'm pretty sure the web is a LOT cleaner than it used to be... in that regard.
Here's a question: why aren't people angry that Apple bundles Safari with OSX?
Allow me to anticipate the answer: because Apple doesn't hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems. This is true, Apple does not hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems, and arguably Microsoft does.
No, it's because Apple has not abused a monopoly to try to enter other markets. When they start to do that (for example in the iTunes space), you can expect the EU start to go after them. Now I'm sure the EU process can be corrupted, and they're far from perfect, but in this case I don't think they have an illegitimate target.
So why are people fighting to have Microsoft's software unbundled with Microsoft's other software? Why aren't people fighting against the OS monopoly itself, instead of the fringes of the monopoly?
Having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing that monopoly to apply leverage to your partners and customers is. Sometimes the radical solution to a monopoly has been to break up the monopolist, however I think fines and sanctions for abusive behaviour are a better remedy, as they set limits on the kind of thing companies think they'll get away with.
In this case, it seems Microsoft thinks they can do whatever they like, and have decided to thumb their nose at the EU by claiming they'll just unbundle IE from retail versions too (I imagine the focus of the investigation is OEM versions). If instead they decided to stop trying to abuse their monopoly position and just produce better software, this problem (and many others) would go away, but I don't think that's in their corporate DNA.
I mean, what problem is being addressed? Is the problem with Microsoft that they bundle the browser they develop with the operating system they develop? People are free to choose their OS, right?
Wrong. Because of past pressure by Microsoft on OEMs and other dirty tricks, all commercial competitors to them in the open OS market have disappeared (OS2,BeOS). The only competitor left is Linux, which for obvious reasons is more difficult to attack, though that hasn't stopped them trying.
Apple wisely (for now) sticks to producing their own hardware to get round this problem, otherwise I'm sure you'd see Ballmer saying I'm going to fucking kill Apple and putting extreme pressure on the likes of DELL to never bundle Apple products. That would be illegal, but they've done it before, and they'll do it again.
OEM versions of Windows are the real battle-ground here - people do not choose their OS, they choose a computer, and MS has cleverly shut off almost all alternatives to them in that space. Having done that, they bundle IE so that they can control competitors like Google by controlling access to the web - classic abuse of monopoly status to attack competitors.
So the problem is not having a monopoly, the problem is abusing it to try to attack competitors - because of Microsoft's track record in that area, and huge existing power, they are not given the benefit of the doubt when bundled software could extend their monopoly in other fields. Forcing them to level the playing field on browsers is a good first step to stop them trying to control the web and tie it to Windows.