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.

Comments

Why are we deprived of this in North America?

[TropicalCoder]

I'm jealous - we should be offered the same deal here in good old North America

Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America?

[Rockoon]

The people whos software no longer works would not 'rejoice' at the outcome.

Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America?

[shutdown -p now]

If I recall correctly, the API:s that expose browser components (e.g. to Windows Help) were designed with the intention of making rendering engines pluggable. Thus, Windows Help could at some point in the future use Mozilla to render if Mozilla wrote a bit of code and Microsoft finishes this API.

The API to host IE is COM-based, so it consists of a bunch of interfaces, all of which are documented. Technically, anyone can reimplement those interfaces to the spec, replace IE's CLSID in the registry with its own, and everything on the system will start using the new code. We do actually have the first part of it done already, though the coverage is not 100%.

The tricky part is that most applications that host IE also assume IE-specific behavior when rendering pages, running scripts, ability to host ActiveX controls inside, and so on. That's what's hard to duplicate.

Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America?

[johannesg]

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.

Who cares if the rendering engine is still there? The *browser*, the thing that Microsoft uses to leverage one illegal monopoly into another, is gone, and that's what counts. The rendering engine can sit amidst the countless gigabytes of crap that is already there, and serve local help pages, steam, and other crap, and it really doesn't matter at all.

Arguably this fight is over anyway. Microsoft has already lost the leveraging power it had in that space.

Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America?

[spitzak]

Microsoft did not allow any *other* browser to be installed in OEM copies.

I think it is Microsoft shenanigans that got it changed to "remove IE". What should be allowed is that an OEM can sell the system preset to use a different browser by default, and remove the 'e' from the desktop and menus. It should not really matter if IE is there.

Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I think it sucks that they won't package IE

Your opinion is noted.

and the EU needs to stop meddling with these things.

No they don't. The US needs to start enforcing their laws so businesses don't go to the EU to get the same laws actually enforced.

If they want to support open source software by doing something ...

They don't this has nothing to do with OSS.

...but to cripple a OS over it is weak.

Is Windows crippled because MS doesn't get to pick which CPU it is run on or which video card it is run on? Why would it be crippled if OEMs pick the browser it runs with?

What if they forced everyone to include every alternative software bundled with the product, and what decides which alternative programs will get the special treatment?

What if? What if they stab all blonde people or make fire illegal? Do you even know what this article is about?

Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America?

[shutdown -p now]

It's still sitting there making Windows less secure, because you'll still be able to embed it as a component and feed it data

Well, it's up to developers to do or not do that, isn't it? And you as a user to affect their choice by those means you have available (namely, your wallet). With QtWebKit available, you may be able to make a strong case.

And EU actions weren't about security anyway, they were about monopoly abuse.

HugeOrNot

[alain94040]

Is it just me or is this huge?

We'll finally be able to measure IE's marketshare in a non-biased market.

Re:HugeOrNot

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

We'll finally be able to measure IE's marketshare in a non-biased market.

Not really. Many years of a broken market have created a huge number of Websites and Web applications broken to only work properly with IE. Unless this is remedied, we'll only have a slightly less broken market. Additionally, this applies only to the EU, so any company doing business anyplace outside the EU or Web developers wanting to target customers outside the EU will still be subject to artificial market incentives caused by MS's bundling elsewhere.

Re:HugeOrNot

[mpcooke3]

We'll finally be able to measure IE's marketshare in a non-biased market.

Now browser market share in Europe will be determined by what kickbacks and/or threats the computer makers receive from the companies behind the major browsers.

Is that what you meant by non-biased?

Re:Getting Firefox?

[Bacon Bits]

This is what a governing body demanded. It doesn't have to make sense.

Re:Getting Firefox?

[causality]

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?

This will be hell

[Useful Wheat]

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.

Re:Great opportunities

[afidel]

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.

Re:i still dont see the logic

[Toonol]

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.

Re:Getting Firefox?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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?

Re:Total protectionism by the EU

[tjstork]

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.

Microsoft is NOT removing IE

[argent]

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.

Re:I don't understand you guys...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Here we go again

[hkmwbz]

Cue hundreds of comments like "why can Apple bundle a browser but not Microsoft" (Apple is not in the same dominant position, and didn't break the law), "EU is a bunch of commie bastards" (ignoring the fact that the US has the exact same antitrust laws as well), and so on. It's the same old drivel every single time. It's as if there is a legion of Microsoft shills just waiting in line to post the same fallacies over and over again every time someone posts about the EU antitrust case. I can't believe that some people still don't get the basic facts of this case.

Sigh.

Re:Here we go again

[GF678]

I can't believe that some people still don't get the basic facts of this case.

If my readings on Neowin are anything, I think it's a bit simpler than that:

* People either don't KNOW about Microsoft's history with the law, or
* People don't care, or don't see it as being particularly important

The first is simple ignorance. Keep in mind a lot of younger folk won't remember or will have heard about past issues with MS. Furthermore, Slashdot seems to be the only site that has a fixation about Microsoft's anti-trust issues, and since we keep going on about it in comments, people from the outside see us as IRRATIONAL Microsoft haters instead of wondering WHY.

The second is simple - unless it affects them, people don't care about what Microsoft does. The EU are seen as money-grabbing corrupt bastards, and everyone's trying to get a piece of the Microsoft pie. Poor Microsoft.

So don't act surprised.

Re:Only Half the Story

[Slothrup]

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.