Neowin.net

I actually wanted to move out from EU once this **** started + relligion cirticism not allowed anymore... WTF

Time to start working harder so can get the f**k ouf of this hell hole

I think if they are taking Microsoft then they should also take on Apple and Safari?

Apple has an easy excuse to allow them not get put in the same group as MS. We aren't a leader we can do whatever the hell we please.. The ECIS then says, MS is the devil we should be allowed to dictate what it does and does not get bundled. Just because we can..

The true question is.. Say MS does unbundle IE. There is no longer any legal grounds to force MS to put anyone elses browser on there. So someone buys a new computer, wants to get on the internet, can't find actual browser to get on the internet with, complains to MS and all MS has to do is put up a general disclaimer:
"The European Union in its authority has ruled that we no longer have the permission to include our browser with our Operating System that we graciously included for your productivity and convenience. We are truly sorry for any inconvenience that this might cause."

I truly believe that EU will follow any BS complaint they can get their hands on just so they can get more money. I truly wonder what percentage of all these fines ends up in the pockets of the members of the European Commission.

But in reality to all this news it will likely proceed as the WMP bundling did, Microsoft will likely now remove IE (and any other objectionable app) from it's Windows Starter SKU and no one will buy it anyways.

Microsoft will follow through in due dilligence with an army of lawyers to counter this but in the end it's a moot point because people don't want an alternative, and only switch when their techno-literate friends suggest it or do it for them.

This just ends up costing MS more money.

The problem is that they *insist* on bundling crap (=IE) with it.

I wholeheartedly support this anti-trust case. You folks railing against it have no clue about monopolies and the law. IE is a ****** child of Redmond and had no place ever existing on the internet. It broke so many standards and forces web developers to essentially create two sites, one for broken IE, and another for the standards-based browsers.

Thank goodness there are sensible people running the EU.

Yes because it is better everywhere else then the EU.... I am sure with the language you use you will be welcome in many countries.

It is terrible what the EU commissions are doing, maybe some of it has merit, but it is obvious that some commission members have an invested interest. This one I hope MS will come out of on top, but if not it will probably be a serious fine and changes in the way they ship the OS.

Only if you decide to code for those other browsers : )

Back in the origional Browser war Opera was a turd and look what happened, Netscape didn't have a cohesize strategy, ran outta money, and got bought, IE drove innovation (CSS?) and at that time adhered to W3C specs more readily than Netscape did (Layers?). Both of these two had proprietary coding involved so what do you know that I don't.

These sensible people probably don't know anymore about web browsers than you do...

Last edited by basix on 17 Apr 2009 - 08:09

*Sorry this should have been Windows N SKU

Lol.

The anti-trust case is not about how bad IE is, it is about Microsoft and the monopoly it has on the browser market.

Think before you post.



And also the law and about monopolies.

^^ I'm from France and I approve this comment over 9000 times ! **** EU for running out of cash again !

You and me both! EU dont seem to realise that windows is used in companys and that companys only think in IE. Mostly IE6 but whatever
The average home user thinks in IE

The only people who dont think in one browsers are web developers and some tech savy home users.
Honestly i have yet to see anyone use Opera on a desktop, however the bloody opera browser was forced down my throat on my HTC Touch Pro phone, and i was never given the choice to use pocket IE etc. It was just there as the default one.

well the problem is that Microsoft doesn't allow OEMs to bundle browsers with PCs.

I have seen dells shipped with firefox etc........

Yep Im pretty sure browsers are bundled with PCs... but generally why would an OEM install more software for free, when users already complain too much is preinstalled on their machines.

My Packard Bell PC came with Firefox and IE, and Firefox actually came as the default.

Where the F do you buy a Packard Bell these days?

In the EU Packard Bell is huge still. Just not US side.

Yeah, talk about fair right?

Er yeah. That would do Microsoft the world of good. I think you can take it as read that MS needs the EU as much as the EU needs MS. The difference is that the EU could, in time, wean itself off MS wheras I don't see how the reverse is true.

lol.. get a grip! Europe is one of their main markets. They'd shave a fortune off their revenue.

Maybe they should create Win 7 EU edition? Which is like dos, so you can get all yourself without ****ing up laws.

Maybe MS can offer to sell Windows no-WMP-no-IE-1000-free-trial-browsers edition to all EU antitrust regulators and to all employees of Opera and whoever joined this lawsuit? Would this make them happier?

They should quickly make a version to give the EU of Windows which on install has the following steps for every browser that exists:

Would you like to install browser 1? y/n
Are you sure? y/n
browser 1 will not be installed... ok
etc.
Would you like to install browser 25? y/n

All this litigation caused by the EU is shaving their profit margins down. Eventually, it will be to the point where it doesn't make sense to keep the product on the market in the EU. This would really be devastating for both parties. EU has been a good place for profits for Microsoft, and Microsoft employees a lot of people over there. In the end, Microsoft is an American company and follows capitalism. Not this socialist drivel that the EU is trying to shove down companies and the people's throats.

I don't think this is a capitalism vs socialism issue, especially since most european economies are only partially socialist. This is a "the EU's gone mad" issue.

Oh no what they should do is have a version of Windows 7 for the EU that has the whole networking stack ripped out. The EU doesn't want you to get on the internet because they wont allow us to give you our browser, so theres no point in giving you a networking stack you won't be using.

Just follow the Japanese video game business model, but with the USA acting as Japan:

The USA gets every Windows release, and the EU gets occasional new versions of Windows based on whether or not MS feels there's a worthwhile market for them.

So while the US has Windows 7, EU can continue to have XP as their only option. We'll consider giving them Windows 8 a year after it's released stateside, gutting most of the features, and replacing the text-to-speech engine with significantly less convincing voices. We'll also rename it Windows XP 2, to reduce version confusion.

Not possible. Apple has less money.

They went to court didn't they? Because opera had made an opera browser for the iPhone but apple declined it. I'm not sure, off the top of my head..

You could argue that Apple doesn't have enough market share to be looked at as a monopoly compared to windows.

But then it's stupid, OEMs install all this other crap, they can install a browser if they want. But selling a OS without something basic like a browser? That's just silly. Hell in Win7 they let you remove it if you use FF or something else and don't want IE. So where is the problem?

And what does IBM and Adobe have to do with anything related to IE?

Well, Opera Mini is monopoly in mobile and they don't allow to change default search provider.

Is this legal?

Boy, I see this one so much... forgive me, but I'm going to do a rough copy and paste of a response I made to this a few weeks ago:

There's a big difference between Apple bundling Safari on Mac OS X, with its relatively tiny market share, and Microsoft bundling IE with Windows. You and everyone else screaming in support of Microsoft or bashing FireFox/Opera have all too quickly forgotten what it was like to visit webpages that were either totally broken outside of Internet Explorer, or that would say "you're not using a supported browser - please come back to this page when you've upgraded." Do you wonder why Firefox and Opera had "Mask as Internet Explorer" options, yet Internet Explorer never had "mask as Firefox" or "Mask as Opera" options?

It has absolutely nothing to do with which browser is better or which browser sucks, although it certainly is fun to think it is. The simple matter is that, like it or not, Microsoft's operating system is used by the vast majority of computer users. By default, that means that the vast majority of people are using Internet Explorer as their web browser. Of course web sites were designed around Internet Explorer - it barely followed web standards, and the average person wouldn't understand that when a webpage didn't work that it was because their browser was in the wrong. If everyone's driving on the wrong side of the road and they're complaining, then what are you going to do? Make that the right side of the right, of course.

The trouble is that with a situation like that, Microsoft was suddenly in control of web standards. Other browsers may have existed, but even if people cared to use them they would inevitably feel that they were unusable simply because those browsers were trying to support the agreed-upon standards AND Microsoft's standards. Microsoft probably didn't have the intent to rewrite the web standards, but it's what started happening. And since Microsoft wasn't really making it well-known how their standards were supposed to go (or how they would differ from the general standards) it made competition unfair. How can you run in a race when the objectives are constantly changed? Is it fair to have a competitor designing the rules as opposed to a more or less unbiased committee?

That's also the reason why it makes no sense to target Apple. Sure, it seems like the vast majority of Apple users stick with Safari. That's likely a small blip in internet traffic compared to what Internet Explorer used to be; maybe even compared to what it is now. Nobody is going to start designing webpages specifically for Safari. Microsoft, by virtue of having a much greater market share, is in a much greater position of power. As the saying goes, "with great power comes great responsibility" - sorry if this seems unfair to Microsoft, but it's necessary to ensure that things remain fair for everyone else.

It's a pity that I see so many replies that seem to miss that point. I don't know - maybe these are people who joined the internet during the Firefox era and take it for granted, or who have short memories. These days, eeing those messages of "sorry but your browser is not supported" are largely a thing of the past, and you have true freedom of using which ever browser you want. Appreciate it, and respect the factors that make that possible.

Having the most market share does not make a company a monopoly.

Apple has a monopoly on Macintosh computers, with OSX and Safari. Safari the dominant platform for mobile web browsing.

Seems pretty similar to Microsoft having high market share on PCs. Why not apply the same rules, that would be justice.

Anyway, why can it be ok for a company to do something that is normal for its business and good for its customers, and then suddenly not ok when the company is successful to a certain degree.

That doesn't seem like justice to me either. It's also not good economics, if the natural trend is for convergence in technology (which we all know it is), why pick on MS to try to force them not to converge.

It's twisting natural economics to suit political agendas and irratioinal anti-MS crusades if you ask me. It's truly bizarre to force an OS not to include a media player, an internet browser or other basics.

If this happens, will the EC face up to all the angry consumers and say, "blame us"? I doubt it, no they will find a middle ground that deflects the pressure from themselves.

Every little helps... This antitrust stuff against microsoft is getting ridiculous.

Call your EU representative and tell them "no" then.

Using your logic... it should not have a calculator as well but let the user choose between many calculator programs. Oh how about not having an image viewer? There are third party software for viewing images so...

Oh yes, give the casual pc user yet another question they dont know how to answer.
"Well, I just want to check my email, why do they have to make it so hard. Just give me one, i dont care which one it is.."

Exactly the way I feel. I love and have used Opera for years but since this all blew up a year ago, I have set my search box to Live Search so that they do not make a cent off my searches. Love the browser, hate the management.

Your analogy with Adobe reader is flawed. The PDF standard is an open one. Anyone can design a PDF reader/write, and in fact, many have. Brand name recognition isn't the issue here.

The trouble arises because Internet Explorer has, for a very long time, contained many flaws in dealing with web standards. In other words, pages designed to meet the standards (which are created by a third party organization) would not render properly in Internet Explorer. The vast majority of people use Internet Explorer, by default. The vast majority of those Internet Explorer users would not say "Internet Explorer must be at fault" - rather, they would complain to the company running the website that their website doesn't work. Due to the sheer volume of complaints (coupled with Microsoft's seeming unwillingness to heed web standards), the webpage designers would begin to tailor their sites to Internet Explorer.

I hope you see a problem with this. It means that now webpages were being designed to Internet Explorer and its quirks, nearly all of which are not documented. Any other web browser, even if they were able to render the agreed upon standards perfectly, would no longer be able to render webpages properly. They wouldn't know what Internet Explorer's own "standards" were, because Microsoft wasn't publishing them.

At that point, who would use anything but Internet Explorer, even if they wanted to? If webpages only work in Internet Explorer, you have no choice. If you're a part of the Firefox generation, you take it for granted that you have a choice. Barely ten years ago you absolutely needed Internet Explorer, because every other webpage you visited would require Internet Explorer to render properly. Web developers eventually started selecting for Internet Explorer, too - there'd be plenty of "sorry, but your browser is unsupported" messages if you weren't using Internet Explorer. Or did you think that Firefox and Opera had "mask as Internet Explorer" as an option because they thought IE was cool?

If people want to use IE, that's their business. The trouble is that so many people use Windows that Microsoft has a special responsibility with what software it bundles. It is arguably more responsible for ensuring that IE plays fair with web standards than any other browser maker, simply because of its ability to change web standards by user volume. Firefox has been breaking down the old, IE-centered internet, but you'd be foolish to think that something like that couldn't happen again (and it wouldn't have to be IE, either; any browser is capable of it).

You can hate the process all you want, but the seemingly simple freedom of being able to use any browser of your choice? You're taking it for granted by claiming that this entire thing is ridiculous.

The word is dominant, not dominate.

But when Microsoft went to include "Save as a PDF" functionality in Office 2007, Adobe threatened to sue.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Adobe-to-S...ture/1149263800

I'm not really sure what that has to do with this scenario. Your cited article is from 2006; did a lawsuit ever occur? I'm not sure what Adobe's grounds for threatening a lawsuit were; it probably had to do with Microsoft's huge marketshare.

It doesn't change the fact that the PDF standard is open, as the article you linked to also mentions, nor that other companies are able to implement it without issue (which the article also mentions).

Either way, it shows that Adobe is pretty whiny and quick to scream wolf at Microsoft for things that they clearly shouldn't be. Not shocking that they're in this group...

Thats because the W3C takes too dam long to release there standards and MS has a idea and there going to run with it. Theres funky stuff that all browers do so its not just MS fault.

PDF didn't become a standard till July 1, 2008 so at the release of Office 2007 it was them going to sue MS.

Do you work for an MS competitor by any chance? You seem incredibly interested in this.

Firefox is bundled with Ubuntu and some other Linux distributions.
But it has had bigger market share increase than those so it is still becoming more popular anyway.

The problem is, Opera didn't increase their market share the same way. In fact, the Opera market share is standing still. So Opera thought it'd be smart to use the EU instead, and rally some MS-competitors (lead by Opera employees) to further their cause.

I'm from Norway, but Opera Software as a company is pathetic. The browser is pretty good, though.

No it's not, that's the problem! Opera can't make a product good enough to go up against IE so they sue Microsoft because the competition is too tough.

Mozilla is in the exact same position but they made a product some people actually wanted so they are competing well with IE.

See the difference?

Exactly! This is just an example of a stupid company that can't write good enough software to compete trying to gain marketshare through the courts. It's stupid and pathetic.

Have you ever used Opera for yourself? If not, I don't think I need to say anything else.

I have, and it sucks compared to other browsers (IE included). So please, say something else

How is that irony?

Uhhh biting the hand that feeds them.

It's a two way street. Windows wouldn't have the dominance it had if software companies were not making the products people used for Windows. If Adobe dropped the Creative Suite on Windows, that'd be a major concern for Microsoft.

Opera the browser exists on Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris, BSD - virtually every platform you can think of. Every other software maker would be developing on something else if Windows weren't around.

Not bundling a browser with the OS these days would be nonsense. Opera and the rest should just shut the hell up and win some marketshare with hardwork, just like Mozilla did. Crying won't get them far in my eyes.

i still think that a stripped down , vulnerability-proof browser is a good idea... for something which would not be updated anymore once it gets on the install disk, and for something which inherently uses the internet anyway, it means that people would always end up with the fully updated copies of the full browser, of their choice...

And include non-MS browsers on MS retail Windows DVDs? Is that what you mean?

It already is modular. Look at the newest Win7 builds. You can remove IE if you don't want it after you've got a different browser installed.

This is all a play for OEM control. The story goes MS doesn't let OEMs put other browsers on PCs installed with windows. Yet this doesn't stop FF from getting something around 20% of the market now. Or Chrome which is growing as well. Both have left Opera back in the dust.

Say OEMs are free to install 3rd party browsers, people are just now finally able to tell Dell, and maybe even HP? Not to install 3rd party bloatware and leave their systems clean.

Lots of people would rather just grab their own stuff later, after the fact, than let the OEM's install god knows what.

Chrome is an excellent example of everything Opera is doing wrong. I mean, I really enjoyed Opera for a while, until I finally got tired of taking web browsing so seriously and just went back to IE. But what is Opera doing to make a home on the PC?

Nothing. Google is taking advantage of the fact that EVERYBODY uses their site, and they're pushing it there where an enormous number of people can see it. Opera puts no effort whatsoever into marketing their desktop browser. What do they expect?

I humbly suggest that WMP should also include a list of alternative media players when it loads for the first time. After all, WMP has also been targeted by the EU for being bundled with Windows. Windows Search should probably pop an option for alternative desktop search engine too. Perhaps notepad, wordpad and calc.exe should pop out options for alternative softwares too when loaded for the first time. Heck, Windows should give an option to install an "alternative" OS on first boot up. Now this will surely fight Windows' monopoly!

Anyone agree with me on this?

I'd be tempted to say that Windows does that anyway, every time you insert a CD/DVD/USB Drive, options of play, rip, browse etc

It would be very funny to see the EU sue MS for a waste of time when all the apps have 15 decissions to make to add a few things up or play a CD.

The fact that IE already shows the page to select search provides means that it adds no more time to the first run of IE, gives the average home/work user the option to just click Save Changes without reading or understanding while keeping the EU happy.

So when installing Windows why not offer a screen with OS alternatives like Linux?

Right, because Linux and other OS's are NOT Microsoft's product and it is NOT Microsoft's place to promote them.

Sparky didn't say that Windows had to have the apps ready to install, he meant just telling the user that they have a choice. Because that is one of the reasons this case is going through the EU atm; people aren't as aware that they have a choice - at least not as much as the EU wants them to.

Great idea. Let's be consistent. And of course other software developers need to follow the same rules.

To ensure consumers understand who has brought them this amazing benefit, each of those dialogue boxes should include the words:

The European Commission has required that you make this choice. For support enquiries please call the European Commission.

The ones making the ruling are biased. MS can prove its case to the T and the EU can do whatever the hell they please.

I agree now that Windows 7 has an option to remove IE, a PC vendor can install a different browser. It should be up to the PC manuf, not MS.

Um, no it should not. It should be up to the INDIVIDUAL USER what they want to use. Thus, the very simplistic realization that you can go and freely use another browser, and not use IE if you so CHOOSE to do that.

It's not that hard. Visit the browser's website, download and install.

Your analogy is flawed. Regardless of the car you drive, the road is the same. Imagine if a car were created that didn't quite drive properly on the road. No big deal, right? It's a crummy car. But imagine that a lot of people get that car by default. Because they have it by default, they don't realize that the problem is with the car itself - they assume that it's with the road. Fast-forward by millions of complaints, and now the road has been changed specifically for that car. Other car makers' cars, which worked just fine on the old, standard roads, now do not run nicely.

You don't get any points for guessing the analogy correctly. The problem is that when you have something by default (in this case, Internet Explorer) and you have market share like Windows does (I believe it's still in the 90%'s), you have the ability to change standards very easily. Standards are established so that everyone can compete fairly. Internet Explorer in the past was not standards compliant in the slightest. It's come a long way today, but it's still not quite there. The trouble was that it didn't publish the "standards" that IE was working to. Competitors had no standards to compete on - they were forced to follow and reverse-engineer what Microsoft was doing, which obviously put them at an immediate disadvantage. That isn't "fair" by business standards.

Forcing Microsoft to bundle browsers somewhat lessens the lock that IE has. That way, if a user complains "your website isn't working and I use Internet Explorer" a web developer can reply "try it in Firefox/Opera/other." And because the user will have it already on their computer, it won't seem like such an outrageous request. And because it won't seem like such an outrageous request, web developers will not be forced to develop specifically to Internet Explorer, as they once were.

You take the current internet for granted. You used to have to use Internet Explorer for practically every page you viewed. It wasn't because IE was better. It was because IE didn't render standards nicely, but the millions upon millions of people using it didn't realize that it was IE's fault rather than the webpage's, and thus we ended up with webpages designed for IE.

Think it through carefully, and you'll realize that this is a good thing.

IE has been getting more and more standards compliant. Your information is outdated.

I'm well aware of IE's improvements and its shortcomings. You're correct in saying that it's improving, but it's not quite "there" yet, and it would seem that unless Firefox had provoked an upset in browser market share, Microsoft would not have made any effort to heed web standards.

The point I was trying to make was not to complain specifically about Internet Explorer, but rather to show why it's important important that the standards not be made pointless because of a browser muscling its own standards in via its marketshare. That point still stands, and it always will. I should mention that this isn't something that only Internet Explorer is capable of - any web browser that gains enormous market share and then subverts the standards would be capable of this. The reason why IE is special in this case is because it is the default browser for a huge number of people.

Abuse their position in which way? You're free to buy a Mac or install Linux on your computer if you don't trust Microsoft.

So they have competition now, which is brilliant of course - I'm sure without all the other browsers IE8 wouldn't be as awesome as it is right now. Thats why I like Firefox, just for being there.
I'm sure everyone is able to download Firefox when he installs Windows for the first time. Even a total n00b is able to type in an address in IE.

Have you installed or used IE8?

Sure in the past, IE (version 6, specifically) was buggy, obsolete and dangerous as you say. But Microsoft have learned their lessons thanks to additional competition from Mozilla and Google. Also, once you install IE8 it provides you with a wizard on first run that walks you through picking stuff such as your search provider; live search is not the only option.

Get over yourself. The reason "many many" people do not switch from IE is because it is still the better browser. Besides, Microsoft does provide software that you can use to download and install a competing browser in a matter of seconds. It's about as fast as getting a replacement for the dreaded Safari on Mac.

Microsoft won the browser war by having a better product. That's not a shocking revelation. If you want to see a software lock in, fire up OS X and get your shock face because the only included browser is Apple's own Safari.

Get facts correct first, post second.

Better product from who's point of view exactly? I don't know many professional web developers who appreciate Microsofts approach to standards which most of the other browser makers attempt to adhere to. I only ever hear people bitching about how IE just tends to do whatever the hell it wants in terms of rendering pages.

IE has never been the better product, ever. It's always just been the default browser and the majority of home users who don't know any better just click the button that says 'Internet' and that's it. The concept of changing browsers, incompatability between versions / plug-ins, is completely alien.

Better product than Netscape? Which other previous browser war could you be referring to?

Since Netscape, there hasn't been any browser war until Firefox, so naturally, IE stopped progressing. But it is hard to deny that IE was the better product during Netscape's great decline. And that is probably the browser war C-Guy was referring to, and not the recent IE vs Firefox issue. Apparently you are claiming that Netscape in its latter years is better than IE, which I think is amusing. But of course, you are entitled to your opinions.

It is not about you or me who are quite tech savvy, it is about all the many many others who are not so comfortable with computers and not very adventurous. It is about informed choice.

I've been using Maxthon for the places that Ffx cannot go.

Answer this. How long do you think that IE8 security will remain solid? It is still baked in to the OS in a way that vulnerabilities in the browser make it an open door into the OS and risks my data.

Ffx may well be considered the least safe browser (according to the most recent article here on NW), but they roll out security updates sharpish.

MS is still sloppy in putting out security updates. Do you consider it reasonable to wait a month or several weeks with and unpatched browser considering the considerable sophisitication of those who can exploit such breaches much more rapidly?

Again, If I use IE X, my data is at risk because of sloppy, lazy MS behavior which is due to their dominance in the OS field. At least I and most of the people who post here have the savvy to protect themselves, but many, many people don't.

Guys, don't question C_Guy. If he doesn't apply simple logic to his own posts, what makes you think for a second that he'll consider yours?

Such short memories:

Judge orders Microsoft broken in two
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,2079404,00.htm

U-turn on Microsoft break-up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1529036.stm

No, no abuse, just the evil euros (even it it is led by an american).

Or maybe MS providing only 98% compatibility for its ubiquitous .doc format, enough to make you .doc saved in open source to have messed up graphics, pagination etc. One of MS' many tricks. Dominate the market, keep proprietary information on the most common format 98% secret but enough no torpedo the competitors.

Or do I need to mention MS' behavior over OOXML or its 'open source' behavior. It has all the instincts of a dinosaur that will abuse its position in its favor even when supposedly working on open standards with others.

It is clearly crazy to regulate such a massive money making machine. What on earth could possibly go wrong? The markets regulate themselves don't they? /SARCASM

It's a pity MS wasn't in mortgages....

I'm glad I'm not the only person who finds his posts infuriating to read. Fed up of trying to make well reasoned and fairly balanced points onto to have them arrogantly dismissed with an uninformed and frankly WRONG opinion.

but how are you supposed to get to it without a browser in the first place?

Brilliant idea, and leave the OS with no Browser at all.
I think it would be funny seeing every n00b-computer magazine posting stories about "How to download IE/FFX/... via the Windows Command Prompt"

Doesn't Windows Live Essentials download the products for you??

The main problem would be those who are still stuck on 56K

Live Essentials can be downloaded via Microsoft Update now.

That's the EU's problem not Microsoft's.

Apple isn't a threat to them due to the small marketshare.

That's irrelevant. The principle is exactly the same.

Search revenues.

When I use IE, I'm still using Google along with 90% of the world.

I think Microsoft might be the only software company to be sued for including additional free software in their own products It doesn't seem to matter that there is absolutely no hindrance to install alternative products if one wish to.

Maybe one fine day, we will be seeing Windows slowly getting stripped down to command-line while OSX and Linux (and Android?) continue to grow in various software offerings. That would be interesting!

It's worse than that. It's like saying the car manufacturer has to include the option to install aftermarket transmissions, and that they can't include their own transmission. IE is more than just an interface, it is also a rendering engine. Without internet explorer, a LOT of software would quit working.

I think this case might also have something to do with trying to make sure that Microsoft doesn't get into a position/situation where they can abuse their 'monopoly'/large market share again.

It started because a company, which I shall not name here for fear of fanboys' flaming, whined to the EU antitrust regulators. The EU antitrust regulators then made some absurd recommendations. Other companies hopped on the bandwagon hoping to grab some of the pennies about to fall from heaven (theory mine).


Why would these corporations fight over who's free software is used? Probably financial in nature. The larger the marketshare one company has, the more the investments it can probably attract, and the more recognition it would receive. Moreover, with greater importance now attached to browsers recently with cloud computing and so on, browsers = control as these companies would be able to influence how you view the web and so on. Finally, searching with the default search provider provided by the browser has a role in search revenues from advertising companies.

They want to milk cash cow. Whiners like Opera don't have enough market share which means less revenues are produced from search, ebay affiliate ,etc... They want more.

Kudos to you for openly thinking that there may be something wrong and yet, not knowing what it could be, openly asking what the deal is. Many people here probably think the exact same thing and yet, rather than asking why this is important, immediately begin to flame away.

I've type similar responses dozens of times, so please forgive me for copying and pasting a relevant section of one of those replies:

It has absolutely nothing to do with which browser is better or which browser sucks, although it certainly is fun to think it is. The simple matter is that, like it or not, Microsoft's operating system is used by the vast majority of computer users. By default, that means that the vast majority of people are using Internet Explorer as their web browser. Of course web sites were designed around Internet Explorer - it barely followed web standards, and the average person wouldn't understand that when a webpage didn't work that it was because their browser was in the wrong. If everyone's driving on the wrong side of the road and they're complaining, then what are you going to do? Make that the right side of the right, of course.

The trouble is that with a situation like that, Microsoft was suddenly in control of web standards. Other browsers may have existed, but even if people cared to use them they would inevitably feel that they were unusable simply because those browsers were trying to support the agreed-upon standards AND Microsoft's standards. Microsoft probably didn't have the intent to rewrite the web standards, but it's what started happening. And since Microsoft wasn't really making it well-known how their standards were supposed to go (or how they would differ from the general standards) it made competition unfair. How can you run in a race when the objectives are constantly changed? Is it fair to have a competitor designing the rules as opposed to a more or less unbiased committee?

And that is why this all matters. Other browsers may be free, but your average person will use IE, see that a page doesn't work, and then complain to the webpage maintainer. "Download this other piece of software to make it work right" would not go over well with many people, I'd imagine. They wouldn't realize that IE was having issues, and being told to use something else would likely make the webpage maintainer seem incompetent to them. After all, it's Microsoft Internet Explorer - that's a name you can trust, right? It probably has more credibility than some dinky company's website, anyway. If it doesn't work right in IE, then it must be the webpage. Or so the average line of thinking would go. On the other hand, if other web browsers come with Windows then it doesn't seem like as much of an unreasonable request to try something different.

What people are taking for granted today is the fact that browsers like Firefox, Safari, and Chrome are widely known, and it is known that Internet Explorer isn't the end-all, be-all of web browsers. The bringing about of those web browsers was difficult and took a lot of time, largely because they had to crack that perception that IE was the only choice while simultaneously providing a browser experience (based by reverse-engineering Microsoft's unspoken "standards") to back up that claim.

And that's what this is all about - making sure that the standards remain credible. Microsoft has a special responsibility to safeguard those standards purely because it has such a massive userbase. If it decided to completely stop trying to support web standards it could rewrite the entire internet's standards within a very short period of time, if it really wanted to. With that sort of power comes a lot of responsibility indeed, and there are rules against companies abusing that sort of power - and rightfully so.

I'll end by saying that even though Internet Explorer is what's at the center of the debate here, it could be any web browser. If Firefox, Opera, Safari, Chrome, or any other browser was used by 90% of internet users, and they decided to stop following web standards in place of their own, unpublished standards, they could also "rewrite the internet" to their browser. It is in your and my best interests to make sure that these companies can compete freely with one another. What's happening right now is a good thing, although the Microsoft fanboys see it as an attack on their favorite company and don't quite realize the implications involved.

Before IE8, this was a valid concern, and definitely a headache if you were trying to do any web development. However, with the release of IE8, Microsoft is finally offering better support for some internet standards like CSS. Granted, it will take some time for all of the IE7 users to upgrade, but after that point, this should become a non-issue (assuming of course, that Microsoft has learned its lesson and will continue to support standards).

I don't think the real issue here revolves around support of internet standards though. The ECIS and these other companies appear to have their own pocketbooks, not the needs of end-users in mind. What are they going to make Microsoft do? Release another Windows N without IE in it? There will still be no demand for it, because customers want and expect to have IE on their computers. I've been a die-hard Firefox user for the past several years. I hate IE6 and IE7 with a passion, but in my opinion, Microsoft has really turned things around with version 8.

The whole point of forcing Microsoft to bundle other browsers with its operating system would be to prevent a scenario like the "before IE8" from occurring again. Many people are seemingly very complacent about this issue because Firefox is going strong and because IE8 is improving. If Firefox were to go the way of Netscape, who's to say that IE9 wouldn't be a repeat of IE5? That's why this is important.

Granted, I do agree with your skepticism over the motives of the companies that are signing on to this. For now, the currently proposed bundling would seemingly have the potential to work in the best interests of the end users and not do any harm.

You must love to hear yourself talk. Or watch yourself type. The argument you just gave is not the reason that opera is concerned. Why would opera care about standards any more than microsoft? the only reason they do is because it suits their interests. this is about what others have said, search revenue. opera wants more search revenue, and they won't get it if people use internet explorer.

Microsoft cannot simply bundle other browsers with their OS, and for many good reasons.

For one, Microsoft Windows is a supported product. That means you can call up Microsoft and obtain tech support for the product. For Microsoft to provide adequate technical support, they must have knowledge of all software components in the OS. This is where the problem comes in: Microsoft does not make Opera, or Firefox, or Chrome, or . They have no control over the release cycle for those applications, and they also have no control over the distribution of hotfixes/updates. This creates a problem for support, as MS would not be able to provide adequate support for software they are not involved with. For open source applications, it becomes easier to support, as the code is available, but Opera is not open source. Do you think the Opera developers are willing to open up some of their code implementation to MS? Then there is the problem of MS needing to divert some of their resources to make sure that these bundled browsers play nice with the OS.

There then comes the problem of which browsers to bundle. Sure, they can bundle Firefox, but then Google, Opera, and Apple would complain. Sure, they can bundle all four, but then lesser known browsers would complain as well. It's a very slippery slope, and one that has no resolution.

If these companies want their browsers bundled, then they should go to computer manufacturers, which already bundle tons of crap anyway.

The last thing I would want is to install Windows and have a bunch of outdated web browsers installed on my desktop. The whole point of doing a clean install is to have a clean image without anything on it.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just not thinking this one through.

Why should Opera care about standards? Because they're a company who designs web browsers. Their success depends on their browsers working properly and people using them. Do you remember what happened when Internet Explorer 5 was king? You couldn't use another web browser even if you wanted to. Websites didn't support standards, they supported Internet Explorer 5. Internet Explorer 5 wasn't exactly publishing the specifications for other competing web browsers to follow, either.

Now, put the two together. If the entire internet is catering to a single browser, and that browser isn't bothering to compete according to the "rules" that the others are, then what chance do the others have? At the end of the day, a web browser is there to render webpages, and if it can't do that properly then people won't use it. Yet if websites aren't coding according to standards, but rather to only one browser, then how do you propose that the other browsers should compete? They can't.

If you want to argue that the fault isn't on IE, then please read some of my other posts. I don't "love to hear myself talk" enough to repeat that point.


Isn't that obvious? They're a web browser company!

Opera's raising of this issue is really a few years too late to make maximum impact. Today we're all using what ever browsers we like with minimal issue. Internet Explorer-only webpages are largely a thing of the past (although a few still exist). The issue of Internet Explorer being able to shut out competitors as it did in the past is, at present, a non-issue, and that's very clear given the hostility toward Opera's moves that you can read here at Neowin. However, it doesn't mean that it couldn't happen again. I'm repeating myself here, but any browser is capable of doing what IE5 did. Microsoft has an enormous market share, and thus they're the most able to pull it off (and thus they rightly deserve the most scrutiny). It's IE that we're discussing today, but it could very easily be Firefox tomorrow. Don't lose sight of that.

Your quite full of yourself arnt you? Please spare me from another cut and paste reply.

This is quite simple, you do not have the one true answer here. In fact, most people here think you are dead wrong. This is not about standards, this is about money plain and simple.

You rail against MS for breaking standards, yet if they didnt where would Ajax be? Ajax as it is known today was invented by MS, why? because they wanted to do something more, should they not have? How about wait years for someone to make it a standard, na, I would rather have it now. This whole standards rant is annoying. Breaking standards is often the sole reason things advance, just as DirectX pushed OpenGL forward. Here is a clue, standards bodies do not set standards, PEOPLE do by their choices. Things become the Defacto Standard because of people. 30 geeks in a room will get trumpted by millions of people doing something else. You know what, thats life, deal with it. Again, this is true in ANY industry, this one is just relatively younger.

Here is what most people like you do not understand, A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE USING IE. I am one of those people, I switched to it when NS was falling apart. Competition works, and we do not need the EU to come in and help it. You just said that the only reason MS is working on IE again is that Firefox caught on. Yep, thats why. We didnt need some big monopoly trial to get things going, SOMEONE JUST NEEDED TO MAKE A BETTER PRODUCT. Period. It threatened marketshare, MS responded. This is the same in every industry.

The only bone I have to pick with MS is preventing OEMs from installing other software. I want MS to include everything they can in the OS, I want a word processor, a browser, a photo editor, a calculator, and so on. They should be allowed to make their product better. Does the better product always win out? No, (VC1 vs H264, VC1 is better), does it matter? Not really, they are close enough. That is the problem with the browser war going one, None of them are really stand outs, more so the latest generation of each. Perhapes if one of the NON MS competitors did something amazing, they would gain more marketshare.

Last edited by Ryanlm on 17 Apr 2009 - 16:20

It's a good thing then that IE8 has much better support of web standards now, possibly even the best adherence to CSS 2.1 of any browser.

If you say the problem is that MS might not adhere to web standards, then the solution should be to make them adhere to web standards.

With Firefox having higher market share in Europe now than IE, an evenhanded approach would require the same solution to be applied that they must also equally comply with standards.

Then the EC can set up an oversight body to decide what standards must be supported by Firefox and IE and in what timeframe, and then they can control the web standards instead of MS if that is what their hearts desire.

The suggestion of requiring MS to bundle other browsers is just the greed of those other browser companies. There's nothing to stop other browser makers bundling their software into Windows through deals with the computer makers today, they are just too cheapskate and want that for free.

Firefox seems to have succeeded in Europe, surpassing IE marketshare, despite any supposed advantages that MS gets from bundling IE which does call into question the merits of the "power" you argue MS has.

As for personal preference, IE and Firefox and Chrome are all quite nice to use, but Opera and Safari are unpleasant and slow to use.
Says something about the real reasons Opera is failing.

Would you like to install shell32.dll? Y/N
Would you like to install explorer.exe? Y/N
Would you like for EU to shut up? Y/Y

1. If a user (an average one) decides not to install any web browser, how will they go about getting a web browser on their computer?

2. Which web browser(s) should MS bundle with Windows? Opera? Lets say MS bundles Opera 9 with Windows7 . Opera then goes under, and no longer can support updating their web browser. Is it then Microsoft's responsibility to respond to security issues with the Opera browser? One could argue that, yes, MS would then be responsible for keeping Opera's web browser secure. That would be ****ing bull****.

My thought was for a default and custom install (like any other game/program) ... thus if a novice/average user does not know what they want then go default and windows installs IE/WMP and whatever MS decides to bundle) .... FOr an expert user (one which goes into types of format/partition just to name a few) will obviously go custom thus choosing what programs to install and what not. Shell32 and other gimmicky dll's are of no concern since a custom install will take into consideration all the necessary stepts and will configure as such all the files ...
And also, note, MS does not need to bundle anything at all since any web browser will not work without a configured nic, as such for the advanced user he/she will configure the nic therefore having access through the custom installation of the internet thus fetching a web browser. (the average user will use preconfigured settings and even if the nic is not configured;(he/she) has a default browser to use for whatever they see fit.

And you don't think bundling their browser with the OS gives them a slight advantage? Are you delusional? It would give any browser an advantage because most users unfortunately have neither the knowledge nor propensity to change browsers.

I'm sure you'll be first in line to cheer when Apple is found to monopolize the portable music player market. Right?

Just that you already have that. Every OEM is free to bundle whatever he wants with the PC. Be it a different web browser or not.

Guess what, They don't because most users don't want that ("no bloat on my machine please!") or don't care ("Well, i use this big E icon to get online and browse, right?").

The .fla format is irrelevant. I can make flash animations with both free and paid applications other than Flash. Even if that wasn't the case, there's no monopoly there because the flash format is irrelevant anyway.

You are evidently missing the point, which is that windoze has a monopoly in the OS market. Not only do they have a monopoly, but they simultaneously abuse it to gain market share in other areas. OS X simply isn't in that position and thus doesn't require the same regulation.

M$ intentionally built I.E into the system in this way to make it virtually impossible to remove.

In the end, they are a convicted monopolistic corporation that abuses its position. No amount of fanboism will change that fact.

Mac has monopoly on Mac PCs

Very True

Macs are realistically as much as a PC as a PS3 you cant do anything other than what Sony wants or if you hack it (Sony let owners install Windows, Apple let owners install Windows but if they didnt users would have been forced to hack it to make it work)

Fanboyism? uh huh... don't make people into what they arn't... I was just saying Microsoft has changed how IE is in windows, it is no longer integerated like it was yet they are still running all over them... windows components no longer depend on IE being there.... and who cares if MS is a monopoly, that once again is making the argument one person cant do something but everyone else can break a law that was put into place... the whole argument is bundling a browser is anti-competative, no mater your size, and Apple is doing that also with their own browser... heck how many browsers are out there now for the iPod touch / iPhone that arn't bundled with it? Apple has a majority market on MP3 players and yet they are now bundling their Browser in the more advanced version, how is it any different? and before you say it is, how do I uninstall Safari on the iPhone/iPod touch?

Nothing wrong with having built i.e into the system. They can ****ing do whatever they want with their property. Other browsers aren't doing bad because of Microsoft but because they make utter crap software. It's simply as that.

Amen!!!

There is no OS called "Windoze".

Yeah. Or what if 90% of the world would drive a Toyota. Then Toyota would have a monopoly position, and then if people want to buy a Toyota, Toyota has to offer Honda or BMW engines in their cars. Really its the same thing, it is absolutely ridiculous.

I would rather use Opera than IE, but this is ridiculous, and the only reason Opera is doing this is for their own goods, and not for web standards.

Jon32, Honda and BMW sell cars, trucks, etc... also. Toyota would not have to offer other companies engines.

They absolutely cannot if they wish to do business in Europe. We have rules regarding competition and monopolies, and M$ have been flouting them for years.

I wouldn't consider Firefox or Safari immediate second choices.

Yeah, they should take out their boot loader because it's unfairly competing with mine.

Wait what, "because I need to push ctrl+shift to open link in a new tab by default." Where does that come from? You open links in new tabs just like any other browser: middle click. -_-

I have a notebook...

Since IE8 does pass the Acid2 test properly now, does it "do its job"? Or what is your definition of proper support of web standards?

IE8 will be bundled with Win7 and pushed via Windows Update, so will this case be a moot one?

To "give people a choice who had no idea another browser exists" - wouldn't it be easier and sensible to make Microsoft display some alternative browser page on the first IE run, than making it bundle other browsers which is as good as OEM junk if the same people don't even know that Firefox/Opera is a browser and never double-click on their icons?

Or better yet, make Windows free in the EU, with nothing but a command prompt bundled with the OS. Users could then "opt in" for an upgrade to the functional OS at regular price. Then they would be agreeing to use Windows the way it was designed to be used. If they click the "disagree" button, then they don't get the function OS, just the command prompt.

The f*%^ing EU will never be satisfied with anything. They are too used to government being their daddy. (Unfortunately, it looks like Barack Hussein Osama and his cabinet of morons are trying to lead the US down that same slippery slope.)