Slashdot Mirror
EU Accepts Microsoft's Browser Choice Promise
itwbennett writes "Hurrah! The European Commission's antitrust investigation of Microsoft's position in the browser market is over. The EC has accepted Microsoft's commitment to offer users of 'Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 a choice screen through which they can pick the browsers they want to install on their PC,' writes Peter Sayer in an article on ITworld. 'The screen will be offered to users in the European Union and some neighboring countries for the next five years via the Windows Update mechanism. In addition, PC manufacturers will be allowed to ship computers with competing Web browsers, as well as or instead of Internet Explorer.'"
No more IE being forced down our throats... Except when we need to access our corporate intranet.
Good luck with that. IE is still a huge chunk of the shell and is shipped with XP weather you like it or not. (can't comment on win7/vista)
Uberdork: "Now if only we could get them to ship Windows with a choice to use bash."
Congrats Europe!! you'll finally be able to use Firefox and Opera or maybe even Chrome!! ...4:1 = a majority of stick with IE...
This needs more cowbell!!!
sounds great - although, i can hear the customes complaining 'i cant find internet explorer'! i love the alternative browsers , but cant help feel the 'average consumer' doesn't really care that much? i have actually installed firefox on family members computers, and couldnt really answer ( with info that they found useful ) what the difference was... my family dont really care to much about usability compliance and security ( well - until theyre shot down themselves with it! )
This is great! Now all the users that really wanted a different browser finally will be able to get one!
:)
(And all users that don't care or don't understand will pick something at random, from a list of up to 12 (!) different browsers, is going to make life interesting for developers again now that we finally were seeing IE6 starting to disappear
This is yet another instance of the state violating our rights. "Boo", not "hurrah".
Not that I'm a huge fan of Microsoft. Financially it's not like it's going to hurt them or anything (I don't think?). But Windows is Microsoft's OS. Why should anyone have the right to force them to be "fair" and let users decide which browser to install? What's next... should we start forcing Microsoft to include Emacs, Vim, Notepad++, and Notepad2 because it's "unfair" that Notepad is included with such a popular OS?
You don't like that the OS doesn't include other browsers by default? Wipe it and install something else. You want to use a different browser? Fire up IE, and go to Opera.com, Mozilla.com, Google.com/Chrome, Webkit.org... nobody is preventing you from doing so.
But don't violate someone's right to decide whether or not they want to bundle your competing software with *their* software. Don't violate someone's right to sign a contract with someone else that says they agree not to bundle other browsers with the default installation of Windows as long as they sell PCs with Windows on them already.
Last I heard Apple weren't a convicted monopolist.
Since Internet Explorer is integrated into the OS, does this mean they changed the OS significantly or just removed the interface? If you just get rid of the icon and/or executable for IE, the operating system would still use the underlying functionality of IE for Internet access so some exploits would still exist and would require continued patching. This change does protect the user on behavior abuses involving the user when the browser is in use but not other Windows features using the underlying functionality.
As for a car analogy, isn't removing IE like removing a factory stereo CD deck that also does the GPS navigation and diagnostic interface then replacing it with an after-market stereo CD deck to gain the MP3 playing feature but without those other features. If the user expects to use those other features, they cannot replace the factory deck and would be better off to add a portable player (Firefox, Chrome, etc.) via the AUX input and never use the CD player part (IE).
I Cater to the Needs of Stupid People. - from a coffee mug Christmas gift
I hate IE as much as the next guy, and have no love for MS in general, but I don't see what the big deal is? Why wouldn't they integrate their own browser with their own operating system? They don't even charge for IE, so how can it be a monopoly issue? I must be missing something. Are they going to have include the option of installing crimson editor instead of notepad? How about BB4Win instead of explorer.exe? They don't stop you from installing other browsers, so who cares? Grandma's stuck with IE because she doesn't know how to install Firefox herself. Then she probably wouldn't notice the difference either.
Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
Welcome to Windows!
Looks like you need to install a browser. Would you like:
A) Internet Explorer, the latest and most secure browser from Microsoft
B) Firefox, a browser made by terrorists that want access to your computer.
Seems to me if MS has to comply with this, Apple should be held to the same standard.
Apple is not in a monopoly position, MS is. Different rules apply when you are, specifically about abusing your monopoly power in one area (e.g. operating systems) to muscle your way into another (e.g. web browsers).
It's official. Most of you are morons.
There has been genuine competition for years now. The problem is, most people are 1) too stupid to learn about other browsers, even when you tell them flat out or 2) just don't care because it would require a minuscule amount of effort to install a new browser and adjust to it's layout. I even know people who've been in IT for decades who say "Why would I use anything other than IE?" even after you repeatedly explain all the superior features of other browsers plus IE's security problems. The main problem probably won't go away for a few decades, then it'll be the people who grew up using Firefox, Chrome, etc running the show and we won't have the old dinosaurs who can't comprehend installing a new browser dragging people down.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Anti-competitive behaviour is not like murder. That's an unfair comparison.
MS was fined 1.3 billion for past behaviour. This promise is needed for them not to get future fines:
http://slashdot.org/yro/08/02/27/1152208.shtml?tid=98
You mean an engine using 60 year old technology?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
First of all, the engine of Safari is open source, portable. See it at http://webkit.org/ . It is so platform neutral that Gnome camp, KDE Camp (Qt 4) and Apple's toughest smart phone competitor (Nokia) uses it.
Do you see anything like mshtml.org ? Please tell me if you see one. Even Apple is not a convicted monopoly, by offering their Webkit openly, for free to dozens (including competitors) and enabling even MS IE to use it, if they wish, the situation changes instantly.
Stop comparing Apple Safari to Windows IE, they are really, really irrelevant. BTW; where is MS IE 8 for OS X? For what exact reason it is not shipped? Because MS wants to "punish" OS X users for not choosing Windows. Same can be said about Linux/BSD. EU and US Judicial system is dealing with a company like that. A total spoiled 6 year old rich kid.
Microsoft has been convicted of violating anti-trust laws. To force a browser down someone's throats for them is bad because they have 90% of the computing world at their fingertips.
THAT'S the difference between Apple and MS. Apple does not. They have, what 8%? That is not a monopoly. Therefore, it is an inane comparison to make. Microsoft is severly limited by what they can and can't do because they are so large and powerful, NOT because of the morals of the issue.
Just because you don't like Apple and their way of business doesn't mean you have to go around every story posting about how Apple should be procecuted for violating anti-trust laws too. They do not have a monopoly on computer hardware and therefore cannot violate these laws - they merely do not allow anyone but themselves (and chosen others) to sell their software and hardware. As for the iPod, that may be a different story, though the MP3 player market is so random and shifting that it's hard to punish anyone for what happened a year ago when it's already irrelivant.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. They have lots of power (90% of computers) that triggers a group of laws that limits what they can do. Are you getting this in your brain?
Apple is under no legal obligation to sell anything on their hardware, nor is any other hardware vendor. They are not powerful enough to trigger the laws Microsoft has triggered, and therefore do not have any limitations on what they can ship their computers with.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. They have lots of power (90% of computers) that triggers a group of laws that limits what they can do. Apple is under no legal obligation to sell or offer anything on their hardware, nor is any other hardware vendor. They are not powerful enough to trigger the laws Microsoft has triggered, and therefore do not have any limitations on what they can ship their computers with.
No, IE became powerful because it shipped on Windows by default. For perhaps one release, most considered it better than the competition. However, competition meant little once IE was used by pretty much everyone because it was default. Microsoft made sure that most users never had a choice between more than one browser, and because of this, they more or less shoved IE into the face of most Windows users, making competition a thing of the past.
This EU ruling came about a decade too late, but that doesn't mean it's groundless.
To clarify then.. I was referring to the interface, not the automatic update that only a fool would use. Sure updates can be downloaded and installed manually as well, but that's a pain in the ass for most users. It's funny regarding the comment about being able to get the updates using Firefox 1.5... Whenever I would use it to go tot he update site to get the updates, the site would tell me I needed to use IE. Experience shapes how you see things. Your experience was obviously different than mine. So I use IE to get updates and Firefox for everything else. Time to go to Windows update and try it again with FF I guess.
Thank you for your interest in obtaining updates from our site.
To use this site, you must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 or later.
To upgrade to the latest version of the browser, go to the Internet Explorer Downloads website.
If you prefer to use a different web browser, you can obtain updates from the Microsoft Download Center or you can stay up to date with the latest critical and security updates by using Automatic Updates. To turn on Automatic Updates: 1. Click Start, and then click Control Panel.
2. Depending on which Control Panel view you use, Classic or Category, do one of the following:
* Click System, and then click the Automatic Updates tab.
* Click Performance and Maintenance, click System, and then click the Automatic Updates tab.
3. Click the option that you want. Make sure Automatic Updates is not turned off.
I've never installed a Mac OS, so I'm curious: are you given the option to chose your web browser on installation of a Mac OS?
Your view is poorly informed. There is no law that says you can't bundle an OS and a Web browser. You can, however, break a law by taking that action. For example, if I ship Firefox with my OS of choice but don't comply with the license, I'm committing copyright infringement. Does that mean the only fair thing is for all Linux distributions to be banned from shipping Firefox with their OS, even if they obey the law?
...this issue isn't about browser quality but rather about MS "forcing" users into using IE.
You're wrong. This is mostly about MS forcing IE onto OEMs by bundling it with the OS, pressuring them using their desktop OS monopoly, and making it incompatible in ways they crafted to intentionally make the Web itself reliant on their browser (as revealed by the famous embrace, extend memos in the US case). In short, MS has monopoly influence on the desktop OS market and they've used that to push into the Web browser market by using their leverage over their customers (OEMs and large site licensees). If you buy your OS (as an OEM) from MS you rarely have other viable options so MS has a lot of power over you, power they are forbidden by law to use in certain, uncompetitive ways.
So where does Apple fit in? Apple doesn't license their OS to OEMs at all. They compete in the computer system market against Dell and HP and Lenovo. If you buy your systems from Apple, Apple does not have the same leverage over you. They have about 10% of the market and there are lots of competitors willing to sell you something else. Apple famously started bundling displays and computers making the iMac all-in-one. A lot of people did not want the two bundled. They wanted a different monitor, so they stopped buying Apple systems and bought from someone else. Such bundling is perfectly legal so long as they don't have monopoly influence on one of the markets involved. Some day soon, Apple may have enough share of the digital music download market or the digital music player market, or even the cell phone market for antitrust law to restrict what they can bundle with their products in those markets. The EU has already looked into one of them. It's the same law applied equally to everyone. You just have to know what the law is in order to understand that everyone is being held to the same standard.
Unfortunately, this is how the system works and it is just one reason why people who've noticed this stuff dislike the company so much. Add too it how they continually drag their feet working out a solution just like they did here. It took them 12 months to get to this "solution" after Microsoft proposed having Internet Explorer already installed and used as the method to display the selection. I don't doubt that this "solution" is also going to take over a year to implement and test so don't hold your breath that any change is going to happen soon.
IMO, the OS war still rages on and Microsoft knows the legal system can do little to contain their battle techniques.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Microsoft did more than just supply a browser for their own OS. They forbade OEMS from installing any other browser. They programmed it into the system so that end users couldn't easily remove it. They did everything they could to KILL competing browsers. In short they used their OS monopoly to force a browser monopoly and that was and is illegal. Now attempts are being made to rebuild competition in the browser field.
General Motors have a 90% share in car sales worldwide? I'm shocked and awed!
"...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
When has General Motors been declared a monopoly? Do you really not understand the conversation? Are you so thick you can't understand what being a convicted monopoly means? Wow.
A legal monopoly is far less than even 90%.