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.
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?
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.
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?
I wonder if any of the computer manufacturers will prebundle another browser??? Like FF!
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?
How are we going to download a more politically correct browser then?
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.
Include all popular web browsers and the uninformed are just going to click the internet explorer link. Include any other single web browser and it'll be just like a monopoly all over again. Include no web browser and hilarity ensues.
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.
Now how will anyone go to Microsoft WindowsUpdate for updates, it barely works with Firefox but has no problem with IE.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
Big difference that you seem to be willfully ignoring. Neither Apple or any Linux vendor strong armed OEMs into exclusively installing their browser.
so I can download a copy of IE...
This is so stupid. Why couldn't they have just told MS not to break third party software? And so what if they do anyway? Who says you HAVE to use a windows machine? A better solution would be to revoke some of their copyrights so others could compete more effectively.
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
Not even in the US....
No doubt MS's tactics during the height of the v4 browser wars were low, but...
A web browser is an integral part of the operating system of any modern user-based computer.
Sure, ship Windows without IE. Ship it without any browser, or for that matter http tool. The Microsoft implementation of the ftp command line tool should probably be removed too.
IE bites, but a browser *is* an integral part of an operating system. (I won't buy a cell phone without one!)
I just wish anti-virus was too.
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.
So, if IE won't be bundled with Win7 then, how are they gonna download the browser that they DO want to use? sorry, if noob question, but don't you need a browser to translate the web?
Will they also ship with a wget equivelant and/or a lynx-style browser? If it comes with nothing, how will we download firefox?
Glad you're open-minded enough to understand my point.
That would be great! Imagine that Microsoft supported ext3 out of the box. Dual-boot would become seamless.
Which browser will be on the machine and tell the vendors to stay the bloody hell out of it. You know they'll kowtow to MS and put IE back on it anyway.
For one, a percentage of users too busy to worry about security will end up with Opera, Chrome, or FFox (or Safari :) instead of Exploder. Whether on their own volition, or by support of some of the more knowledgeable IT friends.
This means less zombie machines out there sending spam to all of us.
I don't think google or mozilla should have any problem printing CDs and giving them for free on news stands or wherever else.
If I were a windows user, you'd better believe I'd be torrenting this baby so I can easily have an Exploder free version of the OS.
Kudos to EU, and kudos to MS for trying to play hardball.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
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."
But they wouldn't have the option of shipping the computer without any web browser installed at all? ;-)
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
I've heard of this fast, sleek, free browser called IceWeasel. Apparently, it gets installed in mere minutes, including all its accompanying dll's and stuff (the bundle is called Debian Lenny or something like that). And, purely as a bonus, it makes your system seem twice as fast!
Intellectual Property: an immaterial non-entity, most fiercely contended by those with no proper intellect to speak of.
hehe Oh i'm sure there are plenty of people would love that but the point is i think people take things too far just to get back at MS.
MS has done some evil things and they should be kept in check... but whats next and when is it just going to far?
The anti-trust issue is that MS has already been found guilty of using it's OS monopoly to shut out competing browsers by strong arming OEMs.
It should be noted that this is not some crazy technological feat. Internet Explorer is already uninstallable via the Control Panel in Windows 7. To comply with this all they have to do is not have it installed by default. I would imagine that they could even leave it in as an optional component to be installed later (like IIS or any other module). So all of you folks worrying about not having your massive Firefox download kit shouldn't.
Some others have also wondered how manual updates would be performed without Internet Explorer. Starting in Windows Vista this functionality was moved to a Control Panel applet. It was the same in Windows Server 2008 and is the same in Windows 7. So, no need for IE at all.
cheers, lost
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.
ie of course. since they are selling to distribution outlets which are generally ms vendors, or have connections to ms vendors, they will prefer ie. why not bundle it with firefox, while shipping a ms os ?
no. not good enough.
Read radical news here
Why should it be more? I presume removing iexplore.exe effectively prevents the browser from starting. Sure the IE core engine is still left there but that doesn't matter in this case.
Having taken Internet Explorer out of windows, are microsoft going to let us use the windows update site in firefox, or am i just being optimistic.
Blazing Spiders
Internet Explorer is not just another application, it's a deeply embedded part of the OS. Microsoft has not removed it from Windows, all they've done is hide it from a few of the places it comes into play. It's still there, as part of Windows Explorer and the Control Panel and Windows Update and Windows Media Player.
The application is called "Internet Explorer". It's what Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome etc are competing against, and what the EU antitrust investigation has problems with. This was removed.
The application uses a rendering engine, generally known as "Trident" or simply "MSHTML", to render HTML. This wasn't removed, but it's not really an issue, because it by itself does not unfairly compete with Firefox and other browsers. Simply put, user's choice of web browser is not hindered or affected by Trident libraries present on the system.
Citation please? I thought Vista did just that.
Never had IE pop up unless I asked it to. How does it happen to you.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
the difference is that the mac is only made by apple, why would apple need to be forced to be given the choice of installing a different browser.
I hope that makes sense, though i'm not overly optimistic that it does.
Blazing Spiders
Oh, I got your point.... However, the comparison to Apple is not fair in the sense that Apple is not a convicted monopolist. Just for the record, I'm not an Apple fanboy. Getting rid of IE is a godsend.
You actually believes anyone with decision making power cares for the big picture?
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.
allright,
although this has been mentioned on slash about a million times before, here it goes:
-there are other ways to install a browser, you can have a downloader supplied, you can do it via FTP, or you can simply pick up a CD.
-IE is insecure, and simply having it on your system is a risk. someone may accidentally use it, other programs with vulns can invoke it etc.
-apple does not have a monopoly on the consumer OS. And even if they did, they're not abusing it.
Microsoft was not found guilty of being a monopoly. They were found guilty of abusing it.
Welcome to slashdot.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Microsoft still hasn't removed FTP. That's how I did my last install of Firefox on a system with XP re-installed because
I refused to run that IE garbageware for any reason if I can help it.
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
Sigh.
Clever signature text goes here.
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.
What is it with people like you? Do you feel so inferior that you simply must insult others to convince yourself of how great you are?
Anyway -- nothing requires OEMs to install a browser. Especially those small PC-building shops who will grab OEM windows and install it. If they're not paying attention, they're going to have some supremely peeved customers.
Internet Explorer is not just another application, it's a deeply embedded part of the OS.
*cough*bullshit*cough*
It's still there, as part of Windows Explorer and the Control Panel and Windows Update and Windows Media Player.
Windows Explorer: Not true, starting with Vista.
Control Panel: Huh? Not true; that's just standard Windows Explorer.
Windows Update: Not true, starting with Vista.
WMP: I can't speak to that.
About the only "fundamental" part of Windows where their HTML rendering engine is used that I know of at this point is the help system.
Basically, you are part of a group of people who spout as much FUD about MS and Windows as anyone does about Linux.
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?
WTF are CDs?
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
You seem to conveniently skip the fact that the US has competition laws as well, and that Microsoft was convicted there in the late 90s. But hey, I guess it's only bad if the EU enforces its own laws, eh?
Clever signature text goes here.
OK, I didn't read TFA, but to offer a version [...] that has the browser removed sounds to me like the Windows XP N bullcrap.
Maybe next time you SHOULD RTFA then. They claim they are offering the OEM version in the EU without IE 8 and not selling a version in the EU to OEMs tat includes it.
"Offering a version" just doesn't cut it IMO, the browser needs to go, period. Just have a dialog box pop up asking 'which browser would you like?' when somebody first wants to access 'the Internet'.
That's what the EU commission seems to be favoring. This is MS's attempt to get away with less.
great, now I have to go find IE6 and download it myself. thanks a lot jerks
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
MAC: Hello, I'm A Mac
PC: And I'm a PC (PC is holding up a chicken statue in one hand and an Egg, in another)
MAC: Say, you should see my new picture collection of my trip to Cupertino that I posted on Facebook using IPhoto? They came out great.
PC: (stares intently at the chicken and egg.) You don't say. I'd love to but I can't until I figure this out
MAC: Figure what out?
PC: Well, since Windows 7 doesn't ship with a browser anymore, I can't look at webpages, and since I can't look at webpages anymore I can't get a browser. It's so philosophical.
MAC: I see. well, Macs come with Safari, the worlds fastest web browser, so you can browse the internet out of the box.
PC: Must be nice.
MAC, Well, since you can't look at my page, how would you like to listen to my new MP3 Mix tape I made using Garageband. It sounds awesome.
PC: Well.....
(Show picture of IMac with the Mac Background)
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
You didn't answer his question, though. Why are you reposting the same questions even though you have received a reply to them before?
Clever signature text goes here.
I can see software sellers in the EU using it as an excuse to bundle a version of IE with their software. Quite a lot of software requires a minimum version of IE. It will quickly become different versions of IE, and they won't miss the opportunity to customise it with their own crapware too. Don't be surprised if MS offer IE for bundling with other apps as well, some of which might end up installed as trial versions on new PCs. Then there will be the shady accounting practises from the PC sellers, suggesting that the income they get from the crapware covers the cost of the MS licence, and look, nothing has changed. If the EU wanted to get serious, they should insist that all PCs are sold with the OS as an optional item in the package - an option you don't have to pay for if you don't want it. I think MS have diverted their attention from this aspect of PC sales quite successfully with the fallout from the browser wars last century. Perhaps that was what it was all about from the start.
Big difference that you seem to be willfully ignoring. Neither Apple or any Linux vendor strong armed OEMs into exclusively installing their browser.
Ahem... Not to be nit picking, but the only OEM that produces OSX-compatible hardware exclusively install Safari and I don't think the creators of Safari would allow that OEM to install anything else. =)
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
Except even if Linux magically got a 96% market share there is no way any single organization could cause as much harm to anyone as Microsoft can and did. Even if Ubuntu started to have backdoors/malware/whatever everywhere, everyone would just leave it and join opensuse.
Please give detailed instructions on uninstalling the latest version of Safari from a Mac.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
So what OEM does install something other than Safari on an Apple?
Can we have this for Apple also?
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.
How is it an "option" when one of your primary suppliers has your nuts in a vice?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Of course you can. As long as you've got the filing fee.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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.
But hey, I guess it's only bad if the EU enforces its own laws, eh?
The laws are usually enforced to the detriment of American products. That's fine by me. Frankly, I think free trade is a fraud and I would prefer if the Europeans had their own products for their own markets and kept their crap out of the USA.
This is my sig.
For my web site, I'm working on a plan to cut the US Federal budget to 1 trillion dollars, abolish the income tax for both individuals and corporations, and fund it entirely with increased tariffs and something like a VAT.
This is my sig.
When I say that, though, keep in mind that I'm not necessarily being "anti-European". I think both the USA and the EU should have their own manufacturing base, and their own IT industries. Diversity is the spice of life and globalism undermines it. I rather like the European-ness of KDE, for example, and I would rather Windows become, well, more American.
This is my sig.
No but they should be forced to remove it (and quicktime) from Itunes as they are doing the same thing as MS in trying to leverage Itunes market advantage to boost the market share of Safari and Quicktime
' No it isn't. The EU is about the only organisation doing something in the name of consumers, now I know that a government working in the interests of its people may seem like a foreign concept in the US but it does happen. The EU ruling says that IE needs to be removable so that OEM's and consumers can choose their own browser. It's Microsoft not the EU that is removing IE from the word go, I also wager that MS will simply pay* the OEM's more to favour IE.
* by pay I mean with hold discounts for OEM's that dont fall into line.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
A CD is an optical storage medium for small (< 700 MB) digital archives that's still significantly cheaper than a USB or SD memory card of the same capacity. It's useful for sneakernet, or the distribution of software without needing a high-speed WAN link.
I take it your joke is that high-speed WAN links are ubiquitous.
Its plain & simple, Opera is a parasite... And EU must not allow a parasite who wants to cling on to Microsoft because it can not sell products otherwise
You know, some tard is just going to reply to your question with "Apple is not a convicted monopolist" (whatever that means) as if it answers your question.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Is there any plans for Ubuntu to do not include a Firefox while shipping in EU?
Apple does not have 90% of the market. Being a non-abusive monopoly is not illegal, being an abusive non-monopoly is not illegal. Apple is an abusive non-monopoly, they do not inhibit competitors and thus is not a valid target for regulators.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Wow, you are serious with that CPU example? I will dare answer, although I doubt I will get through...
You're right it won't because you don't even answer the question. You don't provide any quality that makes the Web browser market different from the CPU market and then explain why that makes a difference in term of either antitrust law or economics.
...question is where is the line drawn between OS and applications...
Not really, because it doesn't matter. Is a telephone part of a telephone network? It didn't matter in the AT&T case because it isn't relevant. What matters is if it is a separate, preexisting market, both in the eyes of the law and in terms of economics. No one writes antitrust laws about browsers and OS's or phones and phone servic because it isn't relevant, just as we don't write murder laws about murder with a waffle iron while wearing a sweater.
In the end, removing IE from Windows adds an inconvenience to Windows...
This is the logical fallacy, appeal to consequences.
You fail all around.
No, actually, I'd consider "charging for a fucking web browser in the first place" as the egregious business practice. I'm GLAD they crushed Netscape and their $39.95 USD browser. And Opera and their $29.99 USD browser.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
oh so it matters how much % of the market you have? How convenient!
I thought it was about integrating features within an OS that restrict competition.
OK so by your logic (and the poster before you)... It's ok to stifle competition as long as you're "not popular".
Whats good for the goose... is good for the goose.
Lets face it, everyone just hates microsoft and wants to needle them at every turn.
Microsoft sucks in many ways, but this is not one of them. This is just misdirected hate, that some hope will hurt Microsoft just in spite of the real bad things they do.... like writing terrible performing operating systems, or infecting the world with DRM'd os etc.
Of course its also just good to hate the king and i think a lot of that bleeds into things like this.
I could careless about the html engine being intergrated into the explorer. I never use the dam thing.
The rest of it is Trident, which is to IE what Gecko is to Firefox. They are removing IE, but not Trident. Of course, you'll insist that isn't enough anyway, regardless that you can't remove WebKit from Mac OS or KHTML from KDE.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
WMP: Look at the windows where you can find album info.
fai.musicmetadataservices.microsoft.com(idk if that's the exact subdomain)
It will do what it stated it would do all along. It will remove the .exe file for the browser but still keep the underlying functionality at the OS level, which itself can be used to browse the web. They'd need a complete overhaul of their GUI to rid themselves of IE.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
No but they should be forced to remove it (and quicktime) from Itunes as they are doing the same thing as MS in trying to leverage Itunes market advantage to boost the market share of Safari and Quicktime
You're confusing the iTunes application with the iTunes music store service. This is understandable as the former is used to access the latter, but it is incorrect because they are separate markets as evidenced by competitors that supply only one of them. If either constitutes monopoly influence it would be the service, so a potential remedy would be forcing Apple to open up the interface to their store to other applications.
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?
Start
Run
Cmd
ftp
o
ftp.mozilla.org
anonymous
anonymous
cd pub/firefox/releases
dir
(choose your version)
cd 3.0.9
cd win32
dir
(choose your language)
cd en-US
mget * (easier than typing the full name with escapes)
close
quit
Fir[TAB] (expands to the full name of the setup file)
This helped me a lot of times when i had to repair a screwed up windows xp where IE would crash.
Other alternative is having a cd with firefox but you know about murphy's laws.
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
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.
Modern OSes require connectivity. When Windows 3.1 was out it was still common for people to connect with FTP, which came free with Windows, or with a terminal program, which came free with Windows, or through online service gateways (e.g. AOL), which usually came bundled with Windows. (Note that the fact that there was a free ftp or telnet or hyperterm didn't stop programs like CuteFTP and HyperACCESS from existing and making money.) At this point Web browsers weren't yet integrated into "the OS," meaning Windows or any other Operating System, because they weren't yet a popular means of connectivity. But when they started to become popular, Microsoft, Apple, Sun, NeXT, Linux makers ALL started to bundle Web browsers. Microsoft wasn't doing anything unusual here, and they shouldn't be penalized for it. In fact, the first IE wasn't actually free -- it came with MS Plus! which was an additional purchase. And it had to compete with Netscape, which despite its nominal fee was effectively free for home users, who could keep updating the endless beta.
Did they abuse their monopoly in (many) other ways? Yes. Arguably the fact that they chose to make IE broadly incompatible with established web standards did negatively impact competing browsers, since Microsoft's dominant position caused the World Wide Web to evolve as an IE compatible beast. (Note that this is a separate issue from the mere existence of a Windows branded broswer.) But at this point they've already been fined hundreds of millions of euros, the horse has long left the barn, and the browser is no longer an optional part of a decent operating system. Let's just let the best browser win.
Besides, Internet Explorer is an indispensable tool for one thing -- downloading Firefox onto a virgin Windows install.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Internet Explorer is not just another application, it's a deeply embedded part of the OS. Microsoft has not removed it from Windows, all they've done is hide it from a few of the places it comes into play. It's still there, as part of Windows Explorer and the Control Panel and Windows Update and Windows Media Player.
No. IE is just as embedded as Safari. Which is to say, not at all. TRIDENT is used in a lot of places, just like how on a Mac WebKit is used in a lot of places.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
As an Apple guy, I can tell you this is completely wrong. WebKit (the engine powering Safari) is a shared framework. it can be found here: /System/Library/Frameworks/WebKit.framework. This framework is key to the "help" Display system and Dictionary. In fact, the new safari 4 engine replaces the webkit framework.
You can check out more information at developers.apple.com
I don't want anyone to strip out the underlying code on either system - having someone else do all the work for building a Help system is a relief.
A sig?!? I don't think so.....
oh so it matters how much % of the market you have? How convenient
When you're determining whether or not someone has a monopoly and whether or not they're abusing said monopoly, you're damned right it matter how much of the market you control.
WTF are CDs?
They're like 5.25" floppies without the envelope, only reflective and shiny. And you can fit - imagine that - a whopping 700 MB on one!
It's just excuses. If Microsoft were a European company, there would be no fine.
This comes up on /. again and again, and every time it is pointed out that EU actually fines European companies more often, and for higher amounts, than US companies. So let me be the one to once again point out that fact in this thread.
Besides, doesn't Microsoft pay most of its taxes in Ireland? So why are you calling it a US company? ;)
No, actually, I'd consider "charging for a fucking operating system in the first place" as the egregious business practice. I'm GLAD they crushed Microsoft and their $399.5 USD OS. And Apple and their $299.9 USD OS.
I like it!
...as it's gonna be called Windows 7 "E" and delivered/configured separately from the normal install, like the Windows Vista "N" version (minus media player)....which totally tanked, because real people actually don't care what browser / media player comes with their PC. Unless of course you have an iPod/iPhone which requires iTunes.
This is a dance around a formality that may or may not have a justified cause; looks like Microsoft are dealing with the problem before it causes a real problem later on.
throw new NoSignatureException();
Quicktime and Safari are installed at the same time as Itunes.
Itunes is required for Ipods, and the ITMS. Apple are using Itunes's popularity and requirement for Ipods and ITMS to increase the install base of Safari and Quicktime by installing them when they aren't actually needed. This is the exact same type of piggybacking that lands Microsoft in such hot water.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Neither does microsoft, if you believe Apple fans. So if MS is no longer a monopoly, then antitrust laws no longer apply.
That is a massive contradiction. If you are not a monopoly then your competition is able to compete no matter what you do. When you don't have a monopoly it's pretty difficult to stifle competition as its well and truly beyond your control, in a monopoly this is the opposite.
When you are forcing customers to use your products over a competitor your damn right it is. If Company A (lets call them MicroS, no no that's too obvious, lets use Msoft instead) has 90% of the widget market and then forces all Msoft widget owners to switch to Msoft brand Cruskits then we have a problem as their 90% gives them an unfair advantage pushing into new markets. If company B (Lets call them Pear) has 4% of the tinned fruit market but forces customers to eat from special Pear(tm) bowls then those customers who don't like it can purchase from one of the tinned fruit companies that comprise the other 96% of the market.
If you have having trouble understanding the difference between a monopoly and not a monopoly I suggest you avoid economics and take up something with fewer numbers, like woodworking.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Sorry but that is a load of crap.. Your windows version will not be cheaper because all of the suddon, IE is not there anymore ( probably will still have the option to install during setup right?) So will we start to sue car companies because they put 'wheels' on cars ? of because they have an integrated stereo in the car which is "bundled" ? ( and those things are harder to replace then a browser)
In the and, the commision is messing with things they have too little knowledge of.. When i install ubuntu, evolution, Firefox, etc.. is bundled too.. i can uninstall ( just like IE).
And in the end: Yes.. you DO have the option to switch to Firefox, opera , chrome.. etc.. so why make the choice for the end user ? Let them decide theirselfs.. so users who are not as familiar with computers as us "geeks" can just do their thing, and people that want to change can..
The only thing that really makes the market "free" is choice.. and that we already have...
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
If Windows 7 doesn't ship with a browser, how are people with a fresh install actually going to obtain any web browser?
Did no one think of this problem? With no browser to download another browser, you either need one on CD, or master the art of using wget and a text editor (assuming they are even installed).
I'm guessing they'll have to bundle some sort of micro-browser, for people to obtain their own, but this isn't going to make computer illiterate types happy.
Let me ask you honestly: Do you really think the web would be as popular as it is now if people still had to pay $50 every time a new version of their favorite web browser came out? Do you think standards compliance would be better rather than worse? You don't think various companies would have fragmented the web with non-compliant HTML or exclusive plugins to try and lock in users to keep the yearly update cash flowing in?
People would have eventually turned to a free alternative anyway. Netscape (or whomever) would be attempting to sue some open source browser for attempting to support their plugins or broken non-compliant lock-in bullshit. How much of this is just people trying to see MS get dragged down because they're the big fish, rather than actually caring about what's best for the internet and technology?
By the way, I've been using and advocating Firefox since it was called Phoenix 0.5. IE might suck but bundling it for free with Windows was an essential step in making the internet as ubiquitous and accessible as it is today.
Can you please back up your words, man? Or should I say Microsoft brainwashed man?
Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on
It's just excuses.
What is?
If the EU is so anti-American, then surely they would also be going after Apple?
You guys just want European PC makers that are selling Windows to bundle them with European browsers. It's just protectionism to benefit Opera.
That's just crap. Opera probably contributes zero-point-nothing to the EU economy; I'm not knocking their success in what they do, but they're a tiny tiny company on any kind of global scale, so there would be no point in this EU action purely to benefit Opera. Plus if that was the case, then, as mentioned above, surely Apple would be in the frame also? Plus, the outcome [what ever it is... it's not been determined yet] should benefit *all* alternative browsers, so that could include Safari and Chrome which whilst both largely open-source, are products built to benefit the companies that produce them -- both of which (Apple & Google) are of course American!
This action [whatever it is....] is being taken because of Microsoft's position in the market and their actions. It has nothing to do with them being a non-EU based company.
Firefox users in Europe are in the majority now, and IE only has a minority of less than 36% market share.
That makes for a nice headline, but is quite misleading: according to your link, FF3 has overtaken IE7 only because IE users are in the middle of upgrading to IE8. Taken together IE users account for around 50% of the market. Which is already an impressive statstic - no need to over-egg it.
At last the tables have turned - now it is you who is the victim of market segmentation!!! Too long have we toiled under yoke of the imperialist. Soon the whole world will know of...
Oh wait... I use Linux.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
If Windows 7 ships without IE installed, how am I going to download Firefox?
For people who like peace and quiet. A phoneless cord!
Result. EU imposes a bigger fine on Microsoft. I really don't think that MS would try something as stupid as that.
Asked and answered.
Apple = Free Pass Linux (every flavor) = Free Pass
As others have pointed out, that's because Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the field desktop operating systems and that has now been tested in court
As for Linux, I count about a dozen different web-browsers on offer in the Ubuntu distribution. - and all the EU required of MS was to offer a choice, not to unbundle IE.
However, I am inclined to agree that 1994 is on the phone and wants its problem back.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Asked and answered
It doesn't matter IE 8 is listed as a critcal update and when the user goes to install updates they will always have to deselect it. Microsoft would have put up a bigger fight if they did not have another way of pushing their software onto the desktop.
As an Apple guy, I can tell you this is completely wrong. WebKit (the engine powering Safari) is a shared framework.
I didn't say it's "not a shared framework", I said it's not deeply embedded and integrated into the OS in the way the Microsoft HTML control is.
Finder doesn't use Webkit.
Applications like System Preferences and iTunes and Software Update don't use Webkit.
Unlike the Microsoft HTML control, Webkit doesn't contain components that allow you to run untrusted code via cross-zone exploits.
The design of Webkit, unlike the Microsoft HTML control, is not an unfixable and unavoidable security hole.
No problem for MS. They can just have it silently install in the background upon the user doing the first update. I am sure MS will claim it is a critical patch.
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
IE has not been part of any of those components since XP.
The shell program Microsoft calls IE so they can pretend that they're not violating the consent decree isn't.
The HTML rendering engine that is the real problem, because of its deep and unfixable security flaws baked into the very API of it, is the important part.
Control Panel: Huh? Not true; that's just standard Windows Explorer.
Since Windows Explorer is also a shell around the HTML control, this is a difference that makes no difference.
About the only "fundamental" part of Windows where their HTML rendering engine is used that I know of at this point is the help system.
Cite, please.
The application uses a rendering engine, generally known as "Trident" or simply "MSHTML", to render HTML. This wasn't removed, but it's not really an issue, because it by itself does not unfairly compete with Firefox and other browsers.
I don't care if it competes against other browsers. I care that Microsoft embedded it into the OS in completely inappropriate ways to get around their consent decree with the DoJ, and in the process of doing so they created a security nightmare that we will not awake from any time soon.
The whole "anti-competitive" part of this has long since become a convenient distraction that has let Microsoft avoid taking the hit they need to make applications that use it secure.
Gecko and Webkit do not have a security model that is deeply and unfixably broken. The HTML control makes the control itself responsible for security, rather than the application around it, so it has to guess at whether a request from an untrusted object to execute unsandboxed code through the ActiveX embedding API should be granted or not, instead of only allowing components (such as I/O slaves in KHTML/Webkit) explicitly embedded by the application to run.
What it actually says is that browsing functionality will be disabled in Windows 7. Remember the help system still requires the core HTML rendering engine. As does any web applets, like embedded search in the applications, such as Microsoft Office.
'The E versions of Windows 7 will include all the features and functionality of Windows 7 in the rest of the world, other than browsing with Internet Explorer'
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
You part of EU's governing body? That makes so much sense.
MSIE may stink and may be insecure. But still, it's a LOT more secure than any 2-year old firefox/opera/safari browser. On a lot of installations I've seen, Firefox hasn't been updating for years as the user doesn't have permission to install updates. MSIE is (by default) updated by windows update.
Therefore MSIE is a lot more secure to the average user. Hate to admit it, but when one of my family members wants a reinstall, they get MSIE.
.sig: No such file or directory
Last attempt. Let me try a car analogy since everything else has failed. And it doesn't even have to be a far-fetched analogy.
So, if you are right and I am simply not getting it, please phrase it in terms of a car analogy.
Anyway, say that originally cars did not have windshield wipers (true). Then some University develops them and various shops start building them and adding them to cars (most for free - but I think that is irrelevant). Then, all automakers start installing their own windshield wipers by default. However, one automaker (Microsoft Motors) has most of the market. Are they the only ones not allowed to pre-install their windshield wipers, even though you can't seriously expect a modern car not to come with wipers?
Note that in this example the CPU is not represented by the engine of the car (since the whole car is the OS), there isn't a good analogy but it would be something like roads, gasoline etc, i.e. something not all cars come with (like a CPU does not come with any OS and is not expected to).
A further question so that I can understand fully. Why are we allowing windows to come with firewall, image viewer, wordpad, email client etc? Aren't they destroying the markets of all these (Firewalls, email clients etc existed as a market before MS added them).
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Then, all automakers start installing their own windshield wipers by default. However, one automaker (Microsoft Motors) has most of the market.
All automakers? There basically aren't any other automakers. MS has about 98% of the relevant market. If there were one car company normal people could buy from (not specialty shops that sell only to the military for example and which are not part of this market as Apple is not) then yes, the MS car company would be banned from creating their own windshield wipers and bundling them thus destroying the livelihoods of the innovators who invented and started installing them.
Your main problem is you're mostly ignoring the whole "monopoly" thing. This is understandable since monopolies are uncommon and regulated in our society. Analogies with cars are always going to be awkward because none of us has ever lived in a society where cars were a monopolized market. Try an analogy with a monopoly, like the power distribution monopoly to your house. Imagine if they were not bound by antitrust law and could just start bundling things with the service they provide while at the same time increasing your bill. Do you see how that would undermine the market for whatever they bundled and why we have laws preventing suchlike?
A further question so that I can understand fully. Why are we allowing windows to come with firewall, image viewer, wordpad, email client etc? Aren't they destroying the markets of all these (Firewalls, email clients etc existed as a market before MS added them).
The criteria is if the product constituted a separate pre-existing market at the time of the monopoly. So for most of the items you list, yes they are undermining the markets for those items. If it ever goes to court, MS will probably lose. Any normal company would have taken measures to separate their application and OS divisions and been careful to market both separately to OEMs to avoid any possibility of antitrust issues. MS chose instead to ignore the laws over and over again and they are slowly being convicted over and over again. This is 100% their own fault. They have more lawyers than Disney and certainly can't claim they don't know what the law is. They just made a business decision that breaking the law would be more profitable. They bet the courts are ineffective and slow and bribable and they've been right for the most part.
What saddens be is that 90% of people here don't understand what laws MS is breaking or why those laws exist, but they feel they should voice their opinion that whatever laws they are they must be wrong.
I might mention, you STILL haven't answered my original questions. Should MS be allowed to bundle CPUs with their OS? If not, what quality differentiates CPUs and browsers and how would you write a law that makes bundling one legal and the other illegal while still applying to the general case?
Yeah but doesnt Apple force Ipod users to use Itunes? Doesnt Apple force Itunes installs, Safari, search light installs etc.
What about the explorer.exe itself as a file browser? Sure you can use alternative programs to browse your hard drives but MS comes with only their file browser built in.
Why not force everything to be open? Because its wrong to do so. At some point, its a Microsoft product and so be it.
Sorry but that is a load of crap.
What a persuasive argument.
Your windows version will not be cheaper because all of the suddon, IE is not there anymore...
In a free market it is.
o will we start to sue car companies because they put 'wheels' on cars ?
If one car company gained a monopoly on cars before they started adding wheels to them, yes we would. Don't you think you should know what is illegal before you try making these analogies?
In the and, the commision is messing with things they have too little knowledge of.
The EU is enforcing the fricking law. It's been the law for a hundred years in the US and applies to everyone and all markets. It applies to the oil industry and the telephone market and to the wheat market and the browser market.
When i install ubuntu, evolution, Firefox, etc.. is bundled too..
So? When I go to the range and target practice I'm not arrested for murder. Does that mean it is always legal to fire a handgun regardless of the circumstances?
You don't even understand what's illegal or why it is illegal. Please educate yourself before babbling on and on.
I have answered again and again. A CPU is not part of the OS, while the browser is. As simple as that. I consider the browser as part of the OS, as windshield wipers are part of the car, merely a required enhancement.
And you didn't tell me. If MS should not be bundling IE, how about the other OS's? Can they bundle their own browsers? Because that would seem to me that would mean giving them an edge and I assume the law would just prevent abuse of monopoly, not give competitive advantages to small players.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
You're confusing the iTunes application with the iTunes music store service. This is understandable as the former is used to access the latter, but it is incorrect because they are separate markets as evidenced by competitors that supply only one of them. If either constitutes monopoly influence it would be the service, so a potential remedy would be forcing Apple to open up the interface to their store to other applications.
Quicktime and Safari are installed at the same time as Itunes. Itunes is required for Ipods, and the ITMS. Apple are using Itunes's popularity and requirement for Ipods and ITMS to increase the install base of Safari and Quicktime by installing them when they aren't actually needed. This is the exact same type of piggybacking that lands Microsoft in such hot water.
So your claim is Apple is leveraging the iTunes application to increase installations of Safari and Quicktime. But Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the relevant market for the iTunes application. It isn't even the majority music player as WMP is installed bundled with all Windows machines. What Apple has to be careful about are the iTMS and the iPod since they have a lot of market share in both of those markets. So far the EU has ruled Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the relevant market for iPods because in the EU consumers consider cell phones that play media as an alternative, so Apple's market share is too small to constitute monopoly influence. For the iTMS the EU has not ruled on it directly, but have ruled that the RIAA cartel has engaged in price fixing using Apple's iTMS, but with Apple not being the guilty party.
So assuming Apple's iTMS constitutes monopoly influence on music download services, it is tied illegally to the iTunes application which is, in turn tied to Safari and Quicktime. The likely remedy then would be to break the tie between iTMS and the iTunes application (opening up the interface to other applications). severing the link between the iTunes application Safari and Quicktime would not solve the theoretical antitrust issue.
I have answered again and again. A CPU is not part of the OS, while the browser is.
So you think laws should be written that specifically deal with browsers OS's and CPU's?!? A browser and an OS and a CPU are all parts of a computer system I buy at Walmart. So if the difference if it is part of "something" then your definition fails spectacularly.
Antitrust law is not about undefined "somethings". It's about economics and specifically about markets. It doesn't matter if a browser is part of an OS or if an OS is part of a computer system. What matters is if their is a separate, preexisting MARKET for both OS's and browsers or CPUs and browsers or CPUs and computer systems.
s simple as that. I consider the browser as part of the OS, as windshield wipers are part of the car, merely a required enhancement.
So how do you write an antitrust law that defines these "somethings" into which you are grouping items? Why is an OS a something but a computer system is not? How do you write a law that makes it legal for MS to bundle browsers and their monopolized OS's but doesn't make it legal for them to bundle CPUs and their monopolized OS or make it legal for AT&T to bundle telephones and landline service... without going around and defining every single thing in the world as part of arbitrary "somethings"?
If MS should not be bundling IE, how about the other OS's? Can they bundle their own browsers?
Yes they can. Doing so for them is not breaking any law and does not undermine free trade.
Because that would seem to me that would mean giving them an edge and I assume the law would just prevent abuse of monopoly, not give competitive advantages to small players.
What competitive advantage do you think is being conferred? Is Apple gaining an advantage by bundling Safari with OS X with Macs and selling them? How so? Dell can sell Latitudes with Windows and IE. How is Apple gaining a market advantage and what market are they gaining an advantage in? Is Redhat gaining an advantage over Micrososft because they are selling a bundle of Linux and Firefox to Asus while Microsoft has to sell them Windows and IE separately? How is that an advantage to Redhat? Redhat has to be answerable to their customers because they don't have a monopoly on anything. If Asus wants just Linux or just Firefox market pressures force Redhat to give Asus what they want or they can go with another vendor. Only Microsoft is in a position to ignore Asus's desires. For most of their computers, Windows is the only viable option so if Asus needs Windows for a market MS can force them to take IE as well. That's a crime because it breaks competition in the Web browser market.
So please get back to me here. First, describe to me your idea of antitrust law if we're throwing away the concept of markets and defining things in terms of "somethings". Second, how does another vendor bundling a browser and OS give them an advantage in any market and undermine the operation of said market?
Apple does not have 90% of the market.
Neither does microsoft, if you believe Apple fans. So if MS is no longer a monopoly, then antitrust laws no longer apply.
First both economically and in terms of antirust law monopoly influence is usually considered about 70%. Second, MS has about 98% of the relevant market, that being "PC operating systems" which is defined as operating systems used on desktop computers instead of servers or appliances. Apple's install base is irrelevant to market share because Apple does not sell license OS X to OEMs. The fact that Apple sells Macs with OS X pre-installed does nothing to lessen Microsoft's power over Dell or HP because they can't license OS X from Apple and install it as a component of their computer systems.
Yeah but doesnt[sic] Apple force Ipod users to use Itunes?
Apple does bundle iPods and iTunes. The EU commission looked into it and decided iPods don't make up big enough of a chunk of the market to give Apple dominance as of yet.
Doesnt[sic] Apple force Itunes installs, Safari, search light installs etc.
Force installs? It bundles them, but not with anything that is a monopoly.
What about the explorer.exe itself as a file browser?
It was not a pre-existing separate market at the time of monopolization.
Why not force everything to be open?
Because that's not the purpose of the law. It isn't about openness. It's about free markets.
I can make netscape my browser, just like all the people who call me and ask for support...
Sauer
If you're going to say that "PC operating systems" is a separate market than "Mac operating systems" then Apple has 100% marketshare.
If you're going to say that "PC operating systems" is a separate market than "Mac operating systems" then Apple has 100% marketshare.
No. There is no market for Mac operating systems because they don't license their OS for sale. They use it as a component in desktop computer systems and bypass the OS market altogether. OS X would qualify as a "PC operating system" if Apple licensed it. The "PC" part was meant to distinguish it from the "workgroup server" operating system market.
I just don't think many government officials get it. Windows has tons of programs that I do not think need to be in an OS, things like MS Paint and Windows Media Player. But if you ask me one application that should be integrated with the OS, it is the browser. If Windows 95 didn't have that POS IE browser, then I am unsure how I could have downloaded Netscape back in the day. If the argument is people are to stupid to know they have options, what benefit does the government think those people will gain get by getting a PC with IE removed? And if you are a hardware vendor, why would you sell your product with LESS options? They are fixing a non-issue, because Firefox and Chrome and Opera developers already solved it for us.
Respect the Constitution
The only difference between MS bundling IE with Windows and Apple bundling Safari with itunes is that Apple does not constitute a monopoly on MP3 players.
Personally I don't like this kind of cross promotion and it should not be permitted, at the very least an option must be given not to install the optional software (Safari in this case). The Itunes installer does not give you this option. BTW, this is also the condition I make with MS bundling IE with Windows, I don't want it removed in so far as I want it completely removable.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
That's a gross oversimplification, Ipods and Itunes do have enough of a market share to constitute a monopoly but Apple is unable to leverage that to inhibit competition, in other words Sansa, Sony or whoever can continue to compete with Apple no matter what apple does. Apple has enough market share to be a monopoly but the market doesn't have the level of dependency that it does on Microsoft.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
The only difference between MS bundling IE with Windows and Apple bundling Safari with itunes is that Apple does not constitute a monopoly on MP3 players.
Actually, the difference would be between MS bundling IE with Windows and Apple bundling the iTunes application with iPods. Safari is more loosely tied to iTunes via their software update mechanism , but no court with any sense would address Safari and Quicktime and the iTMS, when all they need to address for a remedy is the iTunes application.
Personally I don't like this kind of cross promotion and it should not be permitted...
You may not like it, but we don't pass laws banning things based upon your dislike. You need to present a real case of why the public is being harmed and the rights of people to take an action should be curtailed.
...at the very least an option must be given not to install the optional software (Safari in this case). The Itunes installer does not give you this option.
Umm, you don't have the option to not install Safari when installing iTunes? Since when?
BTW, this is also the condition I make with MS bundling IE with Windows, I don't want it removed in so far as I want it completely removable.
Bundling a product from one market with a product from another market does demonstrable harm. We banned this a hundred years ago because our economy was being destroyed and pretty much every nation on the planet has passed similar laws. It is a fundamental and well understood and absurdly well supported economic theory.
Some countries (and the EU) do place lesser limitations on companies with significant market share (but not enough to constitute monopoly influence). For the most part though, bundling is not a problem. So long as there is no monopoly involved bundling that hurts consumers just drives those consumers to competitors and the market corrects. Mind you monopolies that have not been checked and government granted monopolies run amuck (e.g. improper patents) can make the market unable to effectively do this.
That's a gross oversimplification, Ipods and Itunes do have enough of a market share to constitute a monopoly but Apple is unable to leverage that to inhibit competition...
The EU commission decided Apple did not have large enough market share because media capable cell phones were part of the relevant market. It has nothing to do with Apple somehow being unable to inhibit competition. People who buy iPods are much more likely to use iTunes instead of Realplayer or Songbird because iTunes is bundled with iPods. That's inhibiting competition in the music player application market. It is not significant enough of an influence though because Apple doesn't have enough of the market the iPod competes in. If Apple did have enough market share then their bundling would be illegal, although with the market already so broken by MS's abuse and the RIAA's abuse it is unlikely any practical remedy against Apple would actually benefit the market.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. Windows is not a monopoly. Linux and Apple are the most common competing operating systems.
Ok so lets say Microsoft's integrated HTML engine is keeping mozilla from integrating their html engine into the Windows OS functionality. Ok if that is the issue, then lets look at other system functions of Windows. There are plenty of other system level functions that are microsoft only land. You cant add you're own plug and play system into windows. You cant add you're own kernel to windows so where is the line that we draw? Does MS have a monopoly on the windows kernel? YEs... because they wrote it and dont expect anyone else to change it. If you want a different kernel, buy another operating system. There are 2 others that are quite capable products. One of which is free.
Remember MS doesnt haver a monopoly with windows.Its just a POPULAR OS. Apple and Linux compete on the same intel/pc hardware.
Apple ships OSX with itunes and prevents me from using a different companies DRM, or file formats such as flac within itunes. Safari ships with OSX. OSX has better integrated graphic format viewers and video codecs than windows does.
To some extent an OS has to function based on how the producer of the OS intends. Windows is not linux. Windows doesnt contain code written by various contributors around the globe. IT is a MICROSOFT PRODUCT and it should function as they see it.
Telling MS to change their html engine is like saying "Ford is anti competitive because they refuse to make plug and play engines in their cars" Can you take a Toyota engine and hook it right up into a Ford? Not easily no. Do most people want to even do that? No. Shouldnt you just buy a Toyota then?
Oh but you REALLY want that toyota engine in that Ford Focus.... Ok... well you're a unique case and quite stubborn frankly because its really not a big deal to the rest of the planet.
Somethings cant be your way.
Now i understand that there is concern that MS may squeeze other browsers out o fthe market by further integration of html etc but what if Google makes an entire OS that does something similar? Will Google allow you to plug and play any kind of html engine into their ficticious os? Will Apple? Will anyone?
Personally i've yet to really see the issue with the html engine being linked to explorer because I NEVER USE IE to view html. But i do think the OS should be capable of Html rendering without going into firefox.
How about the Iphone OS? All i can run on it is Safari. They wont even allow Opera on the phone. It was an issue made publically by opera in the news. All Iphone apps can use Safari's html rendering engine to enable browsing within apps...
Shouldnt that be split from the iphone OS as well?
There are lots of situations where This kind of thinking can apply, and i'm not sure we're being fair by just going after microsoft. There are MANY instances where Apple does the very same thing but they get away with it because "they're not as popular".... Or i should say "Not as hated as much"
"It was not a pre-existing separate market at the time of monopolization."
There were plenty of file browsers sold by various people long before explorer.exe ever existed. Long before windows existed...
That market was alive and well.
I ran norton commander in dos for a long time. Windows 1 - 3.1 had plenty of browsers for file management.
There is still a market for file managers. Directory Opus is a great one, and there are many clones of norton commander, and all kinds of other file managers. Should MS remove the file explorer from windows????
shipping Windows without any HTML rendering engine would be foolhardy on MS's part and stupid on the part of any regulators to require. And requiring MS to ship competitors' renderers opens a whole can of worms
Not necessarily as impossible as it sounds. /. geeks, few people actually install their own Windows from scratch.
Nowadays, beside
Joe 6-Pack get his Windows pre-installed in a pre-built machine. If something goes wrong, he simply give the PC to a repair shop and don't re-fromats the thing himself (Well, actually no. Most of the time Joe 6-pack will simply buy a new computer because "the previous one has gotten too slow" - even if its only due to virus/adware and other cruft).
So Microsoft could indeed ship a MSHTML-less version which : /. Geeks :
- For
the geek will be happy to install whatever HTML renderer she/he chooses out of her/his USB memory key. For security reasons, most will install a browser, a firewall and an antivirus from a media before ever plugging the computer to the net anyway. So if the browser comes with binding to use the rendering engine in place of MSHTML (and Gecko already has such bindings, thanks to Wine&ReactOS), it won't pose any problem if the install media is MSHTML-free.
- For Joe 6-pack :
He doesn't give a damn. He just want his machine to work, and buys a pre-built one.
- For builder of machine sold to Joe 6-pack :
No builder ships straight vanilla Windows installs anymore. Most of the time, builder customize the installation, usually packing together promotional material (Screen saver playing ads), couple of additional software, such as demo version of expensive antivirus software and a few crappy adware which earn the builder a few money on each sold machine.
Shipping an alternative stack instead of IE8+MSHTML is nothing unusual for them. (And I sens opportunity to monetize the thing if computer sold with Chrome and Webkit-MSHTML-bindings)
The buyer will either get a special customized re-installation CD (like Dell's or HP's) which will re-install the customized Windows (along with additional software and specific drivers) or get 2 CDs : vanilla Windows and a CD which installs all the additional components (several builders do this).
The whole thing is somewhat remotely reminiscent of the choice made by makers of Linux distributions.
As I said nobody who's inapt to use a MSHTML-less will ever be exposed to. /. geeks will ever install something else.
And this is actually a step in the directions that regulators do want. Because lazy Joe 6-packers are the reason the current monopoly exist. By forcing MS to create MSHTML-less versions of Windows, regulators give more opportunity to builders to select a different version to ship to Joe 6-pack.
Otherwise alternative solution will never get a chance, because builder will only ship microsoft's default and nobody except
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
"You have asked to use a non-Microsoft rendering engine for windows. Not all help pages may be completely readable if you choose this option.
Are you really, really, really, really sure you want to do this? (y/N)."
I think the Windows Vista "Allow or deny ?" fiasco proved that throwing pop-ups to the user IS NOT a way to solve a problem.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]