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

Getting Firefox?

[InvisibleClergy]

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?

Re:Getting Firefox?

[InvisibleClergy]

So you're saying that they're shipping an FTP client, and instructions to lusers on how to use it?

Re:Getting Firefox?

[je ne sais quoi]

Well what I usually do when I want to install firefox is type "sudo apt-get install firefox" and it automagically installs firefox as long as my internet connection works. If I want something special that isn't available with my default package manager I'll type in "sudo apt-get install lynx" and then "lynx" then followed by "g" and then "http://www.google.com" and then search for what I need. It's pretty easy, but I guess us free software geeks are a little spoiled with our package managers and 18,200 different software packages to choose from.

Re:Getting Firefox?

[Patch86]

If the computer retailer gave you a disk with Windows on it so that you can do a reinstall, smart money is that they also supply a disk with the rest of their bundled software on- including their browser of choice. If you downloaded/bought a copy of Windows yourself, you're probably smart enough to obtain a browser too. And you never know, we might even start seeing "free" browser CDs again, like the AOL days (I could do with some more coasters).

Not only that, but what's the betting that somewhere in the Euro version of Win7 there will be a big button saying "do you want to download the latest version of IE?". I wouldn't be surprised if they stick it in the "optional" basket on Windows Update and Automatic Updates, so you can grab it whenever.

Just because they're not bundling it ready-to-go with 100% of their installs anymore doesn't mean they won't still encourage you to use IE.

Re:Getting Firefox?

[drizek]

Ideally, there would be a desktop wizard which would give you links to download one of a variety of browsers. They can have a continuously updated list of the top 5 browsers, which right now would be chrome/safari/opera/ie/firefox. Check the boxes for the browsers you want and it will download/install them automatically and set one of them as your default.

Likeliness of happening? Not too great, especially considering apple will never let MS distribute safari(how else will they shovel their crapware bundle to consumers if they can't use a variety of misleading checkboxes during the download and install process?). Still, there is no reason why MS can't distribute Firefox, given that it is open source... or maybe Iceweasel.

Re:Getting Firefox?

[Serious Callers Only]

Presumably Microsoft want to get you all worked up about the absurdity of the EU demanding that they unbundle their browser in consumer editions of Windows.

I doubt the EU is demanding this specifically, and if they are, they've got it wrong.

Meanwhile, the real battle over which browsers OEMs are allowed to install by Microsoft (enforced by secret OEM contracts) will be forgotten.

Re:Getting Firefox?

[jimicus]

Who wants to bet they'll include some sort of "add/remove Windows components directly from the Microsoft website" (a la virtually any Linux distribution you care to name) tool which will happily install IE?

And I would not be even remotely surprised if the first thing Windows 7 EU edition does when you first boot it is run this tool and offer to download IE.

Great opportunities

[rumith]

Computer makers would then have the option to add the browser back in, ship another browser or ship multiple browsers

So, in other words, the status quo will be preserved: Microsoft will likely enter into agreements with OEMs to put IE back in (while keeping Chrome and Firefox out), which will only result into some additional revenues for European OEMs and tax collectors. Nothing else to see here, move along.

Streisand Effect for Opera

[orin]

What we will probably see is a bidding war between brower manufacturers with each OEM to get their browser put on new computers running Windows 7. In terms of deep pockets, you'd have to say that Google is going to fork over to get Chrome on machines, which isn't going to help Opera (or Firefox) one bit. The ultimate outcome of Opera's complaint will most likely be to increase Chrome's market share. Who will pay OEMs to put FireFox on new Windows 7 computers?

Re:Streisand Effect for Opera

[hkmwbz]

And where does the Streisand Effect enter the picture?

The more people who know that alternative browsers exists, the better for Opera. In addition to that, Chrome is standards compliant, so if it became the dominant browser, even more sites would be standards compliant, which would be good for Opera. Remember, Opera reported a massive increase in downloads after Chrome was launched because of the renewed interest in alternative browsers.

Re:Streisand Effect for Opera

[Eskarel]

I don't really think that google cares about Chrome's market penetration in and of itself.

My theory is that google cares about getting fast, reliable, standards compliant javascript rendering a bigger market share. That's why I think they released chrome under a BSD license instead of as GPL(or some other form of copyleft license). If Microsoft and Mozilla steal Chrome's javascript engine, Google wins, if Chrome gains substantial market share, Google wins. Google wins because they're getting very close to needing fast javascript to make their ajaxy web apps work properly and however that happens they win.

i still dont see the logic

[meow27]

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?

Doubt this will affect much

[MLS100]

Any OEM with any brains at all will re-add IE to their system images, lest they field a mass of tech support calls claiming their computer doesn't have 'the internet' because they don't see the big blue E on the desktop.

This will only affect people buying at retail who likely already know how to install and configure an alternative browser, but now have to download via FTP or flash drive.

MS Updates

[Wowsers]

Now how will anyone go to Microsoft WindowsUpdate for updates, it barely works with Firefox but has no problem with IE.

Re:This will be hell

[Corporate Troll]

be in a situation where every single person you know who gets a new computer is going to need you to set it up

I don't support people, family or not, if I didn't setup their computer and if they don't abide by my rules.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, how about just making the help consist of GODDAMN HTML FILES?

Why this fucking around with APIs and all that bullshit?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing useful as explorer.exe doesn't seem to parse its command line anymore.

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

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Oh, come on, of all the arguments you could use you resort to cheap sophism? I can't seriously respond to this, perhaps I could revert to humor... but...

This isn't sophism, it is how antitrust law works. Answer the question. Should MS be able to bundle a CPU with their OS? If not, how is a CPU qualitatively different from a browser? Either action is the same in terms of effect upon the market and both are illegal under the same antitrust law.

I have no doubt you can't respond to this, but not because it is not a serious argument. It's because you;re completely wrong in principal.

How many idiots are there here on Slashdot?

[spitzak]

I don't know if it is stupidity or Microsoft shills.

However if you read the fa, or even if you think a little bit:

NOBODY IS GOING TO SELL A COMPUTER WITHOUT A BROWSER!

The machine the end user gets will have a browser. Likely more than one. Probably the blue E and the firefox will be on the desktop. The user can click on either one.

This is what Microsoft did not allow before and what they have been forced to allow.

They are still up to the same shit, saying "IE is missing" without saying exactly what they were forced to do.

WINE : Gecko

[DrYak]

Meanwhile, WINE is happily working without any IE code at all.
The trick is, WINE uses another HTML engine (Gecko in this case) whenever a software expects to use MSHTML. (And I'm ready to bet that ReactOS does a similar trick).

In theory you could completely remove IE, as long as you replace the rendering engine with some other, and provide the necessary bindings so all the softwares using HTML can still function.

But currently, beside WINE & ReactOS' Gecko-based implementations, I don't know if there are that much replacement to help people run softwares requiring an HTML engine.

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

[amicusNYCL]

I realize you're modded Insightful and all, and I guess I'm sticking my "excellent" karma up for grabs, but the GP has a point - what does unbundling the browser from the OS really solve? 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? So what does it matter what software the vendor chooses to ship with that OS? If the public doesn't like the software choices they can choose a different OS vendor, right? ..right?

No?

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.

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?

The problem with MS is that they hold a monopoly on operating systems. Why is it a big deal to fight against their browser? Shouldn't the operating system be the target? No one should care which software a vendor chooses to bundle with their other software (if you don't like it, don't use it), what people should care about is what choice they have in the marketplace. What it sounds like to me is that people *really* want to use Windows, they just don't want to use IE.

Why is Windows not the target? Why has IE been made the target? What problem does this action really solve?

Re:This will be hell

[RAMMS EIN]

``This isn't progress, this is a punishment to each and every one of us.''

If we choose to support Windows, that is.

I stopped doing that years ago, because I saw it as a sort of punishment in and of itself. The thing is, ideological arguments aside, I use Debian because it requires very little time for maintenance. Supporting any sort of other operating system besides is going to increase the maintenance burden, and that is particularly true if maintenance requires a lot of manual actions or even physical access (which I have needed only once with Debian - and even that was once too often for my taste).

Nowadays, I just tell people "Sorry, I don't know how to deal with Windows and I have no desire to learn." They turn to somebody who actually likes supporting Windows, and everybody is happy.