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.
I'm jealous - we should be offered the same deal here in good old North America
Is it just me or is this huge?
We'll finally be able to measure IE's marketshare in a non-biased market.
This is what a governing body demanded. It doesn't have to make sense.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
I'm confused. So if I get a copy of Windows in Europe and do a full reinstall, how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?
FTP?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
duh... you didn't have the foresight to stick a copy onto your pen drive? Than I don't think you have the competency to re-install an operating system.
I'm going to guess that this statement applies to most of the people on slashdot.
"I provide tech support to my friends and family."
Doesn't it chill your blood to imagine that you could very suddenly be in a situation where every single person you know who gets a new computer is going to need you to set it up? They will be totally and completely helpless without Internet explorer, they won't be able to burn it to a CD or put it on a flash drive without your detailed instructions.
And then it won't work. And it won't be what they're used to be because FireFox/chrome/IE 8 isn't IE 6. And then you'll have to come over again to explain that the download manager isn't stealing their awful FWD: jokes.
This isn't progress, this is a punishment to each and every one of us.
I'm confused. So if I get a copy of Windows in Europe and do a full reinstall, how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?
And thus Microsoft proves it's point to the EU.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Make them stop that practice too.
I'm no fanboy of any software, but if Mac and Ubuntu (or any other distro) can ship with a browser of their choice, Microsoft should be able to ship with a browser of their choice.
They should, however, make it possible to uninstall their browser or have the option to not install it during OS install. Then the computer manufacturer can configure the PC as they see fit.
Wasn't one of the core arguments that Microsoft made during the US Antitrust trial was that IE could NOT be separated from Windows without fundamentally breaking the OS?
Sooooo...guess, uh, they lied.
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
No, MS will not enter into agreements with OEM's, that's what got them in trouble in the first place! They will have the kit available to OEM's but I really think they will stay far away from an official or unofficial pressure to use it. For consumers they will probably offer it as an optional component in Windows Update which hasn't been tied to IE since Vista launched.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I realize we are supposed to hate MS here, and at the same time ooh and aah over everything Apple does... but how is Apple's bundle of OSX and Safari not different than Microsoft's bundle of Windows/IE?
FTP?
God help the internet helpdesk people who have to walk 67-year old customers through command line FTP in Windows 7 to get their sparkly new computer online, and the retail people who get yelled at because the computers they sold "don't work", etc.
We don't like IE, so we invent justifications to pretend including it is illegal. We like arbitrary laws when they can be twisted to our side.
I'm confused. So if I get a copy of Windows in Europe and do a full reinstall, how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?
Well if you're compentent enough to do a full re-install surely you're competent enough to make a copy of Firefox on CD/DVD/flash drive before you do it?
Not even in the US....
That's very true. Our agricultural protectionism is something my right wing friends tend to overlook as they ballyhoo free trade.
This is my sig.
Microsoft is not removing anything, they are hiding one of the shell applications around the HTML control. All the same dangerous and insecure code will still be there, as part of Windows Explorer and Control Panel and Windows Media Player and Windows Update. Stil rendering websites for you, still displaying untrusted content.
Most people who are confident on how to reinstall an OS will probably be comfortable with using FTP.
That's assuming the PC manufacturer doesn't include a CD with the browser on it.
I think it is going a step-to-far to force MS to not include a browser as a part of it's OS offering given almost all their competitors do.
Do you think it is going to far to stop James Wenneker von Brunn from shooting guns at people given that the US Olympic shooting team fires guns all the time? Maybe your first step should be understanding what law it was MS has violated and why that law exists. There's no law that says you can't bundle an OS and a browser. There's a law that says you can't undermine the free market by leveraging monopoly influence on another market.
No matter how much you love FF or hate all things Microsoft it seems extremely unreasonable.
It only seems unreasonable if you're ignorant of what antitrust law is all about. Is it too much to ask that you educate yourself before burdening us with your opinions?
It also sets a bad precident[sic]...
Okay, assuming for the sake of argument antitrust law is all wrong and fundamentally flawed, you think it sets a bad precedent to enforce the law instead of letting MS get away with breaking it while enforcing it against everyone else? How does this make sense? Even if the laws were completely wrong, MS as a corporation should obey them while trying to get them changed, just like everyone else.
now someone can complain and get other builtin software removed because of the competition issue... think WinZIP, WS_FTP, util you've stripped down the OS (Windows or otherwise) that does next to nothing out of the box and won't lower Windows' cost.
Yes, they could get some other software removed, but we have only your assertion it won't lower costs. As for doing nothing out of the box, it does nothing out of the box now because MS doesn't bundle it with a CPU and hard drive and display. That's why we have OEMs, to assemble components into sellable products.
...and if Linux ever does get a foothold, regulators could start demanding what packages end up in the "default" install rather than the market, which really sucks.
Again, this shows your complete failure to understand antitrust law. Please, find out what the laws say before making absurd assertions like this.
how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?
The same way we did back in the days before bundling; from third party media. Remember when every magazine cover CD and ISP setup CD came with a copy of netscape and IE installers? Or if you're just reinstalling from your custom OEM media/restore partition, you'll get their setup, including browser.
Of course, it's not like they're actually *removing* IE; they're just flipping the switch in the registry that says to hide the shortcut. Go into control panel and re-enable it, and there it is again.
I have to admit, it'd be a stroke of genius by microsoft; they can tell the monpolies regulator that IE is off by default, and that it's just coincidence that all OEMs* choose to turn it back on as part of their sysprep image cos it's a lot simpler than explaining to users what opera or firefox are. So nothing changes in the end at all, but it gets Microsoft nicely off the hook of having to actually compete on a level playing field.
And since no doubt somebody in this thread is getting upmodded for muttering the words 'free market' and it's 'just anti-US bias against microsoft' and 'everyone needs a browser, like KDE or apple supply' I'll take the opportunity to explain - again - why this matters.
Yes, every user needs a browser, so isn't it convenient if nearly every computer in the world shipped with IE, then third parties don't need to support the standards, they just need to support IE. They write to some extension specific to IE - like say activeX - and that's the same as supporting everyone by an open standard, and it's easier to just write to one specific browser than test it in a bunch of them. Eventually, when so many websites are written this way, it becomes nigh impossible to use the web without using IE - and then microsoft have a new defacto monopoly with IE, because everyone writes to it because everyone uses it. That makes it extremely hard for any browser, or any OS that doesn't ship with IE to compete - because they don't work on the web without IE. So Mirosoft have leveraged a monpoly in one market, windows, into a monopoly in another market, the web, and that just reinforces their original monopoly and makes windows even harder to compete with. We've seen this in actually happen Korea for example, where virtually all banking websites use activex, making IE - and thus windows - a near mandatory requirement.
The way to break that cycle is to ensure that third party developers can't take the shortcut of assuming that because 95% of users are windows users, that 95% of people will have IE, by taking IE off the desktop by default, and giving the alternatives an equal platform. The only reason firefox has the market share it does is because IE won, and was left to rot for so very long indeed that users and developers switched to a project with a pulse.to get new features. The only reason we have IE8 at all is because of firefox forcing microsoft to have to compete again.
Without competition, there is no choice in the market, and with no choice in the market consumers lose their own weapon to force improvements of service - to switch to somebody else. When existing monopolies step into new markets, and compete purely on their existing domination rather than any merit, governments are duty bound to protect the long term interests of the public be ensuring competition is kept fair, even if letting the monopoly do what it wants is easier in the short term.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
I mean I really don't understand you...
Yup, that's pretty obvious.
Why is this a good thing?
It helps to restore the free market so we can have innovation in Web technologies.
The fact that you need a browser in order to get a browser (no, a bundled wget would certainly not do for Windows users), for me means that the browser should be part of the operating system... However isn't the fact that you REALLY need to bundle a browser an indication that it should be part of the OS?
You really need a display to get a browser too, should it be bundled with the OS? You really need a CPU to use an OS, should it be bundled with the OS? If Microsoft were to come out with their own brand of CPU tomorrow and required all PC makers to buy a bundle of Windows with their CPU, instead of just Windows would you support that? After all, a OS won't work without a CPU. And PC makers can always throw away the MS brand CPU and buy one from Intel or AMD right? And if you wanted to run Windows on a PC you were building you could just throw away the CPU too right? And just because MS pays to create that CPU and deliver it does not mean the price of Windows was raised to include it, does it? After all, it comes "free" with the OS.
Perhaps we should have Apple remove Safari next. The DO have a monopoly on pretentious/cool-wannabe devices, don't they? ;)
They don't have a monopoly on desktop OS's or on Web browsers, so it does not undermine the market. MS does have an effective monopoly on desktop OS's so anything they bundle with it does undermine the free market.
Browser inclusion will be a bidding war. This means Opera will now have to pay to get its browser on machines initially. Google has deep pockets to get Chrome on new computers and can out-bid Opera. If users already have an alternate browser, they aren't going to bother using Opera or Firefox. The winner in this is Google. The losers will be Opera and Firefox because an alternate browser is going to gain market share and the one that gains the market share is the one that convinces OEMs, though a completely legal bidding process, to include its browser.
Sigh.
Clever signature text goes here.
It would be hard for the EU to make a case that Microsoft's proposed remedy doesn't address the complaint. After all, if they're no longer bundling the browser with the OS, it can't be considered "illegal tying of a different product to a monopoly." It shifts that part of the regulatory burden onto the OEMs, who aren't nearly the kind of deep-pockets attractive target for a fine that Microsoft is.
It's not hard to see why MS would prefer to ship "no browser" than a competitor's browser.
The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
It would be hard for the EU to make a case that Microsoft's proposed remedy doesn't address the complaint. After all, if they're no longer bundling the browser with the OS, it can't be considered "illegal tying of a different product to a monopoly."
If you stop extorting money from the guy down the street it's hard to argue your stopping didn't address the complaint. That doesn't mean they don't toss your butt in jail for a few years then garnish your wages until the money is repaid. MS committed a criminal offense. Stopping committing that offense doesn't get you off the hook, especially when there are still damages to others that have not been remedied.
It shifts that part of the regulatory burden onto the OEMs, who aren't nearly the kind of deep-pockets attractive target for a fine that Microsoft is.
OEMs can do whatever they want because none of them has monopoly influence to abuse. It doesn't matter how much money they have since they are incapable of committing this crime if they wanted to (well unless they band together and form a trust).
t's not hard to see why MS would prefer to ship "no browser" than a competitor's browser.
True. It remains to be seen if the EU will let it go at that and a fine or if they'll continue to push for a more significant remedy that will do more to reverse the damage to the market. MS is a repeat offender here and as of yesterday the EU was in talks with PC makers about a different remedy.
They don't have to use any standard protocol or client. They can probably ad an icon somewhere that says "Install IE" and get whatever is needed from the network with no further user interaction. I dont think they are expecting naive users to open a client, connect somewhere and getting a file using a FTP client or something to that effect.
Before web browsers were pre-installed (if the kids remember back that far) you could just pick up a free CD at computer stores that had Netscape, and ISPs would send you a "starter kit" CD that had a browser on it (and other junk). AOL used to even send you several CDs a month whether you wanted them to or not.
While I think the OEMs will handle the majority of this set up for you. For the retail stores, I suspect there will be a stack of free or nearly free Windows IE8 CDs next to the boxes of Windows 7.
But back to anti-trust law and Microsoft browsers. The market has pressured Microsoft to incorporate better standards compliance into their browser. That's the end goal, right? To make sure that the monopolist supports what the people say that they want.
The point of antitrust law is to ensure every player in continually pressured by the market to make the best product. Right now MS is feeling pressure to make the worst browser slightly less terrible, but still not as good or better than every other browser out there. Therein lies the problem. Unless the laws are enforced, there is no reason to expect the type of rapid innovation and improvement we see in other markets because the financial incentive is not there. We're a decade behind where we should be already. We need to make sure MS is subject to the same pressures as everyone else. That means when they have absolutely the worst product on the market they don't have 60-70% market share, like they do now. The only think keeping IE in the game is bundling. We don't want that changed because we want IE to fail, but because we want IE to be a decent browser.
Just because MS has monopolized the desktop OS market that doesn't mean they should be given a free pass to push crap on us in other markets. Every time in history that has happened we see innovation in that second market slow to a crawl. That's one of the big reasons we passed those laws. MS is breaking those laws.
You write, "I'm all for anti-trust law." Okay, but you don't think it should be enforced in this instance for some reason? Why? What they're doing is illegal. Are you proposing we change the laws and if so, what changes do you propose that would make what MS is doing legal, but not make antitrust law ineffective?
So the batteground will evolve, and it will come down to what vendor gives the developers the tools that they need to construct the applications that do what the users want to do.
But the battleground hasn't been evolving. We're still trying to present Web pages using half implemented decade old standards because we haven't been able to move forward with anything new because MS uses their illegally gained dominance in the Web browser market to stop it. Further, other companies have no financial incentive to move forward either, since they know IE won;t implement anything new so Web developers won't target anything new they create.
IE 7 and 8 are far too little far too late and offer no promises for the future. Putting MS in the same position as everyone else, where if their browser sucks they rapidly lose market share, does offer that guarantee. That's a big part of the reason we have such a strong capitalist component to our economy. Rather than trust MS will keep improving, what's you objection to giving them direct financial incentive to keep improving at the same time as enforcing our current laws and giving every other browser developer a fair shake?
It's just excuses. If Microsoft were a European company, there would be no fine. Of that, there is no doubt. You guys just want European PC makers that are selling Windows to bundle them with European browsers. It's just protectionism to benefit Opera.
This is my sig.
Wouldn't it just make more sense to leave IE in, and let people use whatever browser they want?
Not if you understand why antitrust abuse is illegal. If you don't understand, find out. I'm tired of explaining it.
For that matter, OEMs themselves were free to take the hassle/cost of installing a different browser if they so desired.
You blew it there. That is a LIE.
I've seen people argue both for and against it several times on /. - i.e., that OEMs are strong-armed into leaving IE in place (some even say that agreements they sign legally require that, some say it's just behind-the-scene), or that OEMs are free to do whatever they want. However, neither side has so far produced any references backing up their claims. I would be curious to see either.
Note however that I'm talking about the present-day situation, not what was going on 10 years ago...
looks like Microsoft are dealing with the problem
With all due respect, I disagree. This is window(s) dressing, and I think MS knows this. They still appear to think that trying to game the EU Commission will work like it has with the US DoJ (which, as a result, has lost a HUGE amount of credibility), and I think (and hope) they're in for a very rude awakening.
MS appears to forget that it's now under extreme scrutiny because the EU Commission fines to change behaviour, not posturing. The Commission hasn't exactly reached the end of what it can do with MS if it doesn't play ball properly. MS is playing a very dangerous and irresponsible game, and if the EU decides to call hem on it it will *really* hurt.
Insert
It is trivial for MS or an OEM to create a BAT file that will run ftp / wget / etc to fetch an installer from a well known URL. Do this for each browser and create a simple GUI with simple controls to allow the user to select a browser. Then the user just points the mousey thing at the buttoney thing on the screeney thing and does a clicky thing.