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?

[erroneus]

You're not! Check the pirate bay after the european release is made. Furthermore, look to those Windows - LITE versions that people put together. They are also quite effective.

My question is if they are removing the blue E icon or actually removing the rendering engine? My guess is the former. The way things stand, I imagine many apps would be impossible to run without the rendering engine. A simple test would be to open a file browser and then type in a URL to see if an internet web page can be shown. If it's there, you will see it that way.

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

[EvanED]

A simple test would be to open a file browser and then type in a URL to see if an internet web page can be shown. If it's there, you will see it that way.

MS got rid of the tie between Windows Explorer and IE with Windows Vista; trying to view a local folder in IE opens Windows explorer, and trying to view an internet URL in Windows Explorer opens your default browser.

My question is if they are removing the blue E icon or actually removing the rendering engine?

My reading is that they basically can't remove the rendering engine completely; too much stuff depends on it. HTML is behind the entire Windows Help system for instance, and I can't see them either altering the technology that radically or disabling help. There's also a lot of third party software (e.g. Steam) that uses it.

I don't know how much IE adds to the rendering engine though. It may be the case that MSHTML (what's used for the help system and such) is actually pretty lightweight and IE adds quite a bit, so this split is actually quite meaningful, but I doubt that's the case.

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?

[eosp]

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.

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?

[EvanED]

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

Um, they basically are. They're zipped together somehow because help usually has multiple pages and they want it in one file, but that's what they are behind the scenes.

They point is how do you display that HTML? It's that which we are talking about. Right now Windows uses MSHTML to display them. The APIs under discussion would allow Mozilla to hook up Gecko so that it could render your help files (which would maybe allow you to totally remove IE stuff from the system), or someone to hook up Webkit to display help files, etc.

(Another interpretation of what you say is to just have the web browser itself display help files; this has a number of drawbacks, not the least of which is that without a browser in there by default, you wouldn't be able to read help. And it's exactly that situation which is why I'm postulating that MS isn't going to remove MSHTML.)

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.

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

[Serious Callers Only]

Here's a question: why aren't people angry that Apple bundles Safari with OSX?

Allow me to anticipate the answer: because Apple doesn't hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems. This is true, Apple does not hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems, and arguably Microsoft does.

No, it's because Apple has not abused a monopoly to try to enter other markets. When they start to do that (for example in the iTunes space), you can expect the EU start to go after them. Now I'm sure the EU process can be corrupted, and they're far from perfect, but in this case I don't think they have an illegitimate target.

So why are people fighting to have Microsoft's software unbundled with Microsoft's other software? Why aren't people fighting against the OS monopoly itself, instead of the fringes of the monopoly?

Having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing that monopoly to apply leverage to your partners and customers is. Sometimes the radical solution to a monopoly has been to break up the monopolist, however I think fines and sanctions for abusive behaviour are a better remedy, as they set limits on the kind of thing companies think they'll get away with.

In this case, it seems Microsoft thinks they can do whatever they like, and have decided to thumb their nose at the EU by claiming they'll just unbundle IE from retail versions too (I imagine the focus of the investigation is OEM versions). If instead they decided to stop trying to abuse their monopoly position and just produce better software, this problem (and many others) would go away, but I don't think that's in their corporate DNA.

I mean, what problem is being addressed? Is the problem with Microsoft that they bundle the browser they develop with the operating system they develop? People are free to choose their OS, right?

Wrong. Because of past pressure by Microsoft on OEMs and other dirty tricks, all commercial competitors to them in the open OS market have disappeared (OS2,BeOS). The only competitor left is Linux, which for obvious reasons is more difficult to attack, though that hasn't stopped them trying.

Apple wisely (for now) sticks to producing their own hardware to get round this problem, otherwise I'm sure you'd see Ballmer saying I'm going to fucking kill Apple and putting extreme pressure on the likes of DELL to never bundle Apple products. That would be illegal, but they've done it before, and they'll do it again.

OEM versions of Windows are the real battle-ground here - people do not choose their OS, they choose a computer, and MS has cleverly shut off almost all alternatives to them in that space. Having done that, they bundle IE so that they can control competitors like Google by controlling access to the web - classic abuse of monopoly status to attack competitors.

So the problem is not having a monopoly, the problem is abusing it to try to attack competitors - because of Microsoft's track record in that area, and huge existing power, they are not given the benefit of the doubt when bundled software could extend their monopoly in other fields. Forcing them to level the playing field on browsers is a good first step to stop them trying to control the web and tie it to Windows.

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:HugeOrNot

[KingMotley]

From your own link:

StatCounter's total scores for Europe put IE marketshare at 48 percent and Firefox at 38 percent.

That said, it does appear that some IE users are switching to firefox at a slow pace (2% every 1/4 year, or 8% a year). At that rate, in a year and some, firefox may overtake IE share.

Re:HugeOrNot

[nametaken]

I've been saying this same thing for a long time now, but the odd part is, I've been using firefox and chrome between work and home and I almost never happen on an obviously broken site anymore.

To a certain degree I probably have a higher tolerance for things that don't line up, etc., but I'm pretty sure the web is a LOT cleaner than it used to be... in that regard.

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?

[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?

Re:Getting Firefox?

[icebike]

Wait till the EU finds out they are shipping an FTP client!!!

Yes, command line ftp has been in every version of windows since 95. Directions? It has directions that are equivalent to the directions shipped with IE. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a microsoft OS ship with Directions? Dos 6.0?

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:Getting Firefox?

[bunratty]

You don't even need to RTFA. RTFS:

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

Re:Getting Firefox?

[miggyb]

My understanding was that windows would ship with a "browser download tool" that would let you select a browser during the OS install. Kind of how they let you choose a search engine for IE now.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:i still dont see the logic

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Can someone explain to me why bundling IE with windows is considered to be a trust?

No, because it isn't considered a trust. You don't even seem to know what a trust is, so one can only assume your ignorance of this topic is extreme. Have you considered a dictionary?

An antitrust law is a law against undermining the operation of a free market by using overwhelming influence in a market. A trust is a group of companies or organizations that collude to use their market power to this end. A monopoly is a company with enough influence to do it my themselves. MS has been ruled to have such influence in the "PC Operating System" market (differentiating it from the workgroup server OS market.). As such, they are forbidden from using that influence to disrupt other, pre-existing markets. The Web browser market qualifies as such a market.

MS doesn't charge any money for it

Irrelevant.

... and it was better than Netscape when it came out...

Irrelevant.

...why is it all of the sudden a trust and not a trust 15 years ago?

They had a monopoly then too, and it was a crime then, the US charged them with it. Since then other countries have tried them for it over the years. The EU finally charged them in response to complaints from their victims.

Re:i still dont see the logic

[Ironica]

If someone wants a new browser they should get it themselves. Can someone explain to me why bundling IE with windows is considered to be a trust? MS doesn't charge any money for it, and it was better than Netscape when it came out, why is it all of the sudden a trust and not a trust 15 years ago?

It was antitrust 15 years ago. The DOJ found for Netscape. Then we elected Bush, and the enforcement of the ruling went out the window.

(BTW, it's antitrust because MS leveraged their OS monopoly to gain market share for their browser, after Netscape turned down their purchase offer.)

Re:i still dont see the logic

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Is there really a "web browser market" when only one of the four major players are actually trying to charge for their product?

Yes. AT&T was forced to stop bundling telephones with their telephone service, despite the fact that no one was selling telephones at the time. Immediately thereafter there was en explosion of innovation including push buttons, autodial, answering machines, wireless sets, etc. Why do you think that is? Why do you think we have antitrust laws?

IE, FF and Chrome are free.

IE is Windows only and every time you buy Windows you're paying for it. The cost is bundled into the price of Windows. "Free" is just marketing. The others make money in ways other than directly charging for the browser.

The only company out there trying to make money by selling a web browser is Opera.

Opera's regular browser is free too.

When I was using a WinCE phone, Opera Mobile was absolutely the best browser for that platform.

Guess what, you paid more for that phone than you should have. The phone maker paid Opera. Opera spent millions working around broken Web pages. Broken Web pages exist because IE is broken and was artificially granted huge market share despite being inferior. MS's actions, thus, cost Opera money and they pass that on to you, which hurts their business by making their product more expensive and less useful because of MS's illegal act.

Despite whatever technical merits their browser might have, I think Opera is looking to the government to create a market for them that in a truly free market, wouldn't exist.

Yeah, expecting the government to enforce the laws and MS to obey them the same as everyone else sure is unfair. Let's cut to the chase then. Do you feel antitrust law is wrong in principal or do you feel it should not apply to MS in this case. Why?

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.

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.

Only Half the Story

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

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.

Re:What next EU:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:MS Updates

[zonky]

Updates in Vista uses a seperate contral panel applet, presumably its the same in 7.

Re:What next EU:

[int69h]

Big difference that you seem to be willfully ignoring. Neither Apple or any Linux vendor strong armed OEMs into exclusively installing their browser.

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.

Does that mean I can install ANY browser I want?

[Klistvud]

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!

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:Total protectionism by the EU

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

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?

thanks a lot

[bitt3n]

great, now I have to go find IE6 and download it myself. thanks a lot jerks

I can see the commercials now.

[Deathlizard]

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)

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.