The recent shenanigans between the EU and Microsoft have been rather tedious; it's taken a long time for anything to happen, really, and Microsoft has even had to cancel a hearing once. However, with the recent introduction of Windows 7 E, many thought that the trouble would be over... but they were wrong. Nope, according to Ars Technica, the EU is still set on pursuing their anti-trust case with the Redmond company, despite them going out of their way to create a new SKU just for the region.Windows 7 E, if you haven't heard, is a separate version of Microsoft's latest operating system that will not include Internet Explorer 8, due to the European Union complaining that by including the browser, they were being unfair to third party developers. Initially the Union was glad that OEMs could choose to offer multiple browsers, as opposed to just having IE8, however they've declared that they intend to press forward with the case. Apparently, they will be looking for a solution that allows customers to have a "genuine consumer choice". They had this to say:
"The European Commission notes with interest Microsoft's announcement of its plans for Windows 7, and in particular of the apparent separation of Internet Explorer (IE) from Windows in the EEA. The Commission will shortly decide in the pending browser tying antitrust case whether or not Microsoft's conduct from 1996 to date has been abusive and, if so, what remedy would be necessary to create genuine consumer choice and address the anticompetitive effects of Microsoft's long-standing conduct. In terms of potential remedies if the Commission were to find that Microsoft had committed an abuse, the Commission has suggested that consumers should be offered a choice of browser, not that Windows should be supplied without a browser at all."
The third parties who would be potentially affected by this also had something to say. The company Opera, famous for their browser of the same name, sent Ars Technica an email stating the following:
"We note with interest that Microsoft now seems capable of separating IE from Windows. However, we do not believe that Microsoft's move will restore competition for desktop browsers. Most users get their operating systems from the OEM channel and Microsoft will recommend that OEMs pre-install IE8. As such, users are unlikely to be given a genuine choice of browsers. We believe that the idea of a 'ballot screen' is better: when going online, users will be asked which browser(s) they prefer to use. The browser(s) of choice will the painlessly be installed and ready for use."
Despite the work that Microsoft has done to attempt to please the EU, they're still in trouble for it, so the case will continue on. What will really be interesting is seeing whether or not this same case will be filed with other computer suppliers, such as Apple, who bundle their Safari web browser with the Mac OS X. With their latest addition, Snow Leopard, due out in September, keep an eye out about any dust kicked up about this, although going by past trends we're doubtful anything will happen.
And what the frack is a "genuine choice". I don't think a time has evar existed when users didn't have a genuine choice for their browser. What stops anyone from installing a new default???
A monopoly is not illegal per se, however, leveraging that said monopoly to suppress competition or artificially expand into other markets is. And bundling IE is a classic case of monopolistic abuse if I ever saw one. Karma is a bitch eh?
In the context of browsers, 'genuine choice' means instead of IE being forced upon users most of whom have no clue how to install a browser, they have a choice as to which will be installed in the spirit of a la carte.
And what the frack is a "genuine choice". I don't think a time has evar existed when users didn't have a genuine choice for their browser. What stops anyone from installing a new default???
Maybe when google stops giving people a choice. Considering they operate on foundation of people having free alternative choice It's unlikely.
And so is bundling Notepad, I guess? Windows Backup? Windows Defender? WordPad? Paint? Calculator? Gadgets? Where do you draw the line? There are third party boot loaders too, isn't it abusive for Microsoft to bundle their own boot loader? What about Windows Explorer? What if I want a 3rd party file manager? They even bundle the .NET Framework!!! How is Java supposed to compete? And how dare they bundle Solitaire and Checkers?!? How is my version of solitaire ever going to compete with such abuse of monopolistic power??
Obviously the above paragraph is over the top (and is intended to be), but seriously, where do you draw the line here? Since the Internet has become such a core part of computing, doesn't a web browser count as a neccessary core piece of any modern OS?
Obviously the above paragraph is over the top (and is intended to be), but seriously, where do you draw the line here? Since the Internet has become such a core part of computing, doesn't a web browser count as a neccessary core piece of any modern OS?
MS has a vested interest in being the gateway to the internet because of its search provider business. And by bundling IE with the OS, it gives it a competitive advantage; this of itself is classic anti-trust.
Using notepad et al to paint an analogy between these two is inane. What exactly is notepad competing against? Now if they included office initially for free, but charged for some additional functionality, then this could be construed as anti-trust, especially if it is to the detriment of other businesses in the market.
Last edited by Calum on 13 Jun 2009 - 10:40
Umm... no. IE already implements a ballot for its default search.
Someone said MS was forcing its browsar on people. This is nonsensical and has been discussed ad nauseam..
Last edited by Calum on 13 Jun 2009 - 10:40
Many programs - and anyway suggesting it has no competition just reinforces the idea it has prevented development against it.
If they don't know how to install a browser they probably don't know difference in FF, IE, Opera, etc or care either. The people that do care/know can replace it. Idiotic idea.
If you ask me this is all just a bunch of ****. MS is really lucky there is not a large desktop OS vender in Europe or I'm sure the EU would be saying that it isn't fair for Windows to be the default OS on any new computer sold, users must have chose.
But in this case I think the EU is going overboard. The EU has always been jealous of the succes of the US. They often come up with schemes to try to level the playing field. That's part of it. Succesful big US company making money in their back yard.
Microsoft should pull out of Europe. Close all of their offices and all of their sales channels. Try to imagine the pandamonium that would create. Obviously it is a double-edge sword, but in the end, I think MS would win.
In the context of browsers, 'genuine choice' means instead of IE being forced upon users most of whom have no clue how to install a browser, they have a choice as to which will be installed in the spirit of a la carte.
The equivalent idea is GM or Chrysler dealers being forced to also sell Fords due to Ford's miniscule market-share in terms of automobiles (and the government itself being the largest shareholder in GM and/or Chrysler). The onus would be moved from the consumer to the producer.
Great in theory, but lousy (very lousy) in practice. Sounds like an "academic" solution (a solution dreamed up in a lab envioronment in a classroom that does not take the real world into consideration).
Obviously the above paragraph is over the top (and is intended to be), but seriously, where do you draw the line here? Since the Internet has become such a core part of computing, doesn't a web browser count as a neccessary core piece of any modern OS?
MS has a vested interest in being the gateway to the internet because of its search provider business. And by bundling IE with the OS, it gives it a competitive advantage; this of itself is classic anti-trust.
Using notepad et al to paint an analogy between these two is inane. What exactly is notepad competing against? Now if they included office initially for free, but charged for some additional functionality, then this could be construed as anti-trust, especially if it is to the detriment of other businesses in the market.
Excuse me; just how much is the market share of Microsoft in terms of search? Even with IE (which has been my browser of choice in Windows since IE 3), I don't use Microsoft's search engines (either as default or as an option) often; I'd more likely use Yahoo or Google (which *is* still the default in Firefo
This sounds like nobody (from the EU) trusts the consumer, who has proven to be a LOT smarter than anyone (be it from Microsoft, or the EU) has given them credit for. The EU-imposed-on-customers N Editions were avoided in droves (I wonder; just how much did it cost to destroy all that packaging and manufactured media from unsold copies? Not very green, that.); now, despite Microsoft shipping an edition of 7 (again, EU-specific) sans IE, the EU is saying that they cannot stop the castigation process against Microsoft, despite their own insistence that it is IE that is the root of the whole problem.
Please; how in the world am I supposed to believe that?
Obviously the above paragraph is over the top (and is intended to be), but seriously, where do you draw the line here? Since the Internet has become such a core part of computing, doesn't a web browser count as a neccessary core piece of any modern OS?
You have a good point.
But In the case of Paint, Wordpad and Notepad those programs are so basic that i don't think they compete with anything on the market.
I don't know one single programmer who use notepad to quickly open a source file for viewing. All have Ultra-Edit, Notepad++ and such installed. Same with Paint.
Can't say the boot loader of Windows is great either. Does the job to boot Windows but i don't know lot of people who dual boot using it.
If IE would be a basic, entry level browser (like Notepad and Paint) there would not be any problem imo.
Oh and Apple should be sued for including their headphones with iPods! I don't have a genuine choice of headphones when buying an iPod! (This is all sooooo stupid. Please, EU, shut up already, you're making yourselfs look incredibly stupid)
Oh and I'm uninstalling Opera now. I don't want that software on my computer when the company behind it is so terrible. My genuine choice is for Microsoft to have the freedom that they deserve.
Last edited by andrewbares on 13 Jun 2009 - 02:47
lol r u serious? "steal"?
Allowing monopolistic abuses to go unchecked to the detriment of competition, the consumer, and the economy is 'leagues better'[sic] ? Where did you learn economics?
If a company wants to do business in the EU, then it has to play by the rules. If they don't like it they are welcome to leave us
Oh and Apple should be sued for including their headphones with iPods! I don't have a genuine choice of headphones when buying an iPod! (This is all sooooo stupid. Please, EU, shut up already, you're making yourselfs look incredibly stupid)
Oh and I'm uninstalling Opera now. I don't want that software on my computer when the company behind it is so terrible. My genuine choice is for Microsoft to have the freedom that they deserve.
Hopefully intel boycott it too if it's that bad too then hey?.
The solution is to simply get the EU to approve every product prior to release internally. They are so stupid they would never see things like this they are just riding the backs of Opera etc. moans and groans about no-one wanting to install their browser.
Opera have wobbles along with little increase in share now fr 13 years, whereas firefox has clearly gained a huge market share in a few years. Maybe Opera should change how they do things rather than just moaning its because IE - it is clearly not the case.
Of course this post made you look incredibly intelligent...
If a company wants to do business in the EU, then it has to play by the rules. If they don't like it they are welcome to leave us
A company should not be forced to advertise other companies products. Imagine this: Anheuser-Busch forced to advertise for Leffe or Heineken because they don't give a "fair" choice as to which beer you should be able to drink. It is the same thing, but a different market, a company that specializes in software should NOT be forced to advertise for other software companies despite their share of the market. And yes, this is what the EU is doing, they are not just giving the consumer other choices of the web browsers [and if people are too stupid to know how to install Firefox or Opera, then the shouldn't be concerned with what they are using] they are FORCING Microsoft to advertise for another company.
And, I am tired of getting MACS bundled with OS X. Put this on your list EU. No OS X bundled MACS. I need a genuine choice for MAC.
And, I am tired of getting MACS bundled with OS X. Put this on your list EU. No OS X bundled MACS. I need a genuine choice for MAC.
Yeah. Macs should come with every single Linux distro, all versions of OS X, and all versions above Windows 2000 preinstalled for genuine choice.
It's only ensuring a fair market..
They are the same laws as the US and virtually every other nation in the world. The difference is the EU wants to promote competition and stimulate the economy which is precisely what it's doing.
What economy, last time I checked all browsers were free. If MS wants to give a software free with there proprietary product then what's the harm. It's not MS's job to promote other browsers.
Jeezz what a dumb ass way to horde money, EU is like a bitchy hore who will squeeze the life outta you and still not satisfied.
The harm is the search portal market in which it used the bundling of IE as a vehicle to artificially establish and gain share in. There is a reason the EU and the US have anti-trust laws; they are there to protect the economy and the consumer against companies such as MS.
Last edited by Calum on 13 Jun 2009 - 11:37
Don't see your logic, buddy. Upon first run of IE, you have the option to choose your search engine.
Last edited by Calum on 13 Jun 2009 - 11:37
Seriously.
I have yet to try IE 8 but i don't remember IE 6 and 7 to ask me which search engine i wanted to use. In fact i remember clearly that under Windows 2000 changing the default search engine of IE 6 was a pain in the ass. You almost needed a phd to do it.
If a company fears competing on a level playing field, it shouldn't be in business.
North Korea uses linux, so why would they be interested in a capitalistic monopoly?
Sounds good, ... except that they make a fortune here and I doubt the shareholders would approve.
Or intel based systems
Or all hardware. If the EU can't deal with choice, then they should be happy with not having to deal with choice.
from now on... IE is ALL i use. i'm tired of the internet turning big business into little crybabies.
microsoft is the only entity on the web that has a set of balls.
from now on... IE is ALL i use. i'm tired of the internet turning big business into little crybabies.
microsoft is the only entity on the web that has a set of balls.
They are certainly strange that's for sure. Perhaps they are institutionally delusional? See for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc
That's why it is called EU. It is all about someone else deciding what's good for everyone else. I am so happy I am not leaving in EU anymore...
The EU is a democratic institution and one of its roles is to promote competition. Abusing a monopoly is called anti-trust, and MS is convicted of that crime on two continents. Need any more evidence?
Last edited by Calum on 13 Jun 2009 - 11:38
And they've paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for all of that and it's all in the far past.
Now the EU is going to tell Microsoft to include options over excluding IE... how the **** does that make sense? Microsoft, we want you to do it this way... blah blah blah
I know Microsoft is making a semi-****-you move to EU by doing this, not installing IE (I hope they do it in the absolute sense and include no browser whatsoever)... see how many companies/business want that edition
Microsoft is getting blasted by the EU, while we have some very big software/internet giants who are just prancing around.
Now the EU is going to tell Microsoft to include options over excluding IE... how the **** does that make sense? Microsoft, we want you to do it this way... blah blah blah
I know Microsoft is making a semi-****-you move to EU by doing this, not installing IE (I hope they do it in the absolute sense and include no browser whatsoever)... see how many companies/business want that edition
Microsoft is getting blasted by the EU, while we have some very big software/internet giants who are just prancing around.
They are trying to play the 'N' version game again, but it's not fooling anyone this time. Party time is over in the EU I'm a afraid, and they may have to actually compete on a level playing field. Go EU
Now the EU is going to tell Microsoft to include options over excluding IE... how the **** does that make sense? Microsoft, we want you to do it this way... blah blah blah
I know Microsoft is making a semi-****-you move to EU by doing this, not installing IE (I hope they do it in the absolute sense and include no browser whatsoever)... see how many companies/business want that edition
Microsoft is getting blasted by the EU, while we have some very big software/internet giants who are just prancing around.
They are trying to play the 'N' version game again, but it's not fooling anyone this time. Party time is over in the EU I'm a afraid, and they may have to actually compete on a level playing field. Go EU
I don't understand the "N" version game hate. The EU asked for a version without media player..MS did it..nobody bought it, but that should have satisfied their criticism at that point. If the EU forces MS to bundle or even make a special installer for other people's browsers..then why not one I develop? what criteria does a browswer have to meet to be included in this installer? If it only includes the top 5 browsers then how is that encouraging competition?
Perhaps because the EU isn't interested in just posturing like the DOJ in the US. Their agenda is to cultivate a healthy economy in order that the consumer may benefit from the increased competitiveness. Version 'N' failed in that objective, so instead of sitting on their laurels they decided to take a different approach. If only all governments around the world took this view it would doubtless be a better place.
Concerning the question of which browsers, in truth I don't know how the selection process will work, but I imagine for it to be practical, the inclusion of five or six is a maximum.
Concerning the question of which browsers, in truth I don't know how the selection process will work, but I imagine for it to be practical, the inclusion of five or six is a maximum.
but version N meet the requirements of what the EU asked for didn't it? is it really Microsoft's fault nobody bought it? and to be fair everybody said nobody was going to buy that version..suprise suprise that turned out to be the truth.
A few months ago.... I've tested Opera, but they control over IE, so I uninstalled Opera. I choose IE over others browsers.
Gameboy
I've heard this same fallacious argument from MS shills time and time again. Lets get the facts straight shall we?
(1) By separating IE and creating another version, they are merely repeating the version 'N' gambit which was ineffectual at promoting competition because of the illegal coercion of OEMs.
(2) The OS X operating system does not have a monopoly share of the operating system market, so bundling safari does not constitute an anti-trust (it's shocking how many shills completely ignore this fact). But I suppose people only hear what they want to hear eh?
Personally, I feel this has been a long time coming. And when the EU is finished, I'm pretty sure the US will implement a similar policy.
Last edited by Calum on 13 Jun 2009 - 11:39
I've heard this same fallacious argument from MS shills time and time again. Lets get the facts straight shall we?
(1) By separating IE and creating another version, they are merely repeating the version 'N' gambit which was ineffectual at promoting competition because of the illegal coercion of OEMs.
(2) The OS X operating system does not have a monopoly share of the operating system market, so bundling safari does not constitute an anti-trust (it's shocking how many shills completely ignore this fact). But I suppose people only hear what they want to hear eh?
Personally, I feel this has been a long time coming. And when the EU is finished, I'm pretty sure the US will implement a similar policy.
EU must force MS to spend ad money on behalf of its competitors. how about that? would that be satisfactory?
Last edited by Calum on 13 Jun 2009 - 11:40
Windows 7 Home Basic E
Windows 7 Professional E
Windows 7 Enterprise E
Windows 7 Ultimate E
and
Windows 7 Home Basic EN
Windows 7 Professional EN
Windows 7 Enterprise EN
Windows 7 Ultimate EN
(2) Fine. But since iPods are bundled with there own dock connector and they all come with headphones, its a monopoly! iPods should have USB, Firewire, etc, and Apple should bundle every company's headphones with it!
Now your iPod costs $3000! Have fun!
Last edited by Calum on 13 Jun 2009 - 11:42
true but apple does have a monopoly in the mp3 market, which they bundle with iTunes and then weasel safari, quicktime, etc, onto the users systems with the updater.
Windows 7 Home Basic E
Windows 7 Professional E
Windows 7 Enterprise E
Windows 7 Ultimate E
and
Windows 7 Home Basic EN
Windows 7 Professional EN
Windows 7 Enterprise EN
Windows 7 Ultimate EN
(2) Fine. But since iPods are bundled with there own dock connector and they all come with headphones, its a monopoly! iPods should have USB, Firewire, etc, and Apple should bundle every company's headphones with it!
Now your iPod costs $3000! Have fun!
You made one fatal error. Apple hasn't used its portable music player position to dominate the headphone market. It provides only basic headphones which are essential for operation of the device. Non solum sed etiam they don't sell them separately, and other manufacturers can distribute alternate headphones with it without fear of retribution.
Last edited by Calum on 13 Jun 2009 - 11:47
The problem with this argument is this:
Say Apple now has 10% market share (a generous estimate), and currently bundles Safari. Safari is one of the features of the OS - as touted by Apple's own web site. Say Apple's marketshare went to 90% over the next year, partly because of Safari (it is one of the features of the OS, afterall). At that point, should Apple then be forced to remove Safari from OSX simply because they have now reached monopoly status? Is it good for the consumer to force a company to remove one of the features that made their product something that consumers liked enough to buy in the first place?
You say the EU is trying to promote fair competition, but aren't you really saying that they just can't let one company have the best product? That once a company's product is good enough that it becomes the standard choice, the company should be forced to cripple their product to allow for competition? Does that sound fair? Does that sound good for the consumer?
A web browser is essential for the operation of a computer. Many would argue that IE is basic compared to other browsers (though that is debatable). MS doesn't sell IE either, and unlike Windows, no other manufacturers distribute iPods, so that point is invalid.
Also, if you'll remember, the new iPod shuffle requires either Apple-supplied headphones, or an over-priced Apple-supplied adapter due to the buttons being on the headphone wire. Is this not anti-competitive monopolistic abuse that is bad for competition and ultimately bad for the consumer?
Off-topic: does using phrases from an archaic language make you feel smarter or something?
(1) But now, its the only version, they will have :
Windows 7 Home Basic E
Windows 7 Professional E
Windows 7 Enterprise E
Windows 7 Ultimate E
and
Windows 7 Home Basic EN
Windows 7 Professional EN
Windows 7 Enterprise EN
Windows 7 Ultimate EN
(2) Fine. But since iPods are bundled with there own dock connector and they all come with headphones, its a monopoly! iPods should have USB, Firewire, etc, and Apple should bundle every company's headphones with it!
Now your iPod costs $3000! Have fun!
You made one fatal error. Apple hasn't used its portable music player position to dominate the headphone market. It provides only basic headphones which are essential for operation of the device. Non solum sed etiam they don't sell them separately, and other manufacturers can distribute alternate headphones with it without fear of retribution.
Ah, but one thing. They do sell them separately, albeit expensive.
I know it was a shocking example, but most people I know use the default headphones.
Also, if you'll remember, the new iPod shuffle requires either Apple-supplied headphones, or an over-priced Apple-supplied adapter due to the buttons being on the headphone wire. Is this not anti-competitive monopolistic abuse that is bad for competition and ultimately bad for the consumer?
+1
Last edited by Calum on 13 Jun 2009 - 11:54
Say Apple now has 10% market share (a generous estimate), and currently bundles Safari. Safari is one of the features of the OS - as touted by Apple's own web site. Say Apple's marketshare went to 90% over the next year, partly because of Safari (it is one of the features of the OS, afterall). At that point, should Apple then be forced to remove Safari from OSX simply because they have now reached monopoly status? Is it good for the consumer to force a company to remove one of the features that made their product something that consumers liked enough to buy in the first place?
You say the EU is trying to promote fair competition, but aren't you really saying that they just can't let one company have the best product? That once a company's product is good enough that it becomes the standard choice, the company should be forced to cripple their product to allow for competition? Does that sound fair? Does that sound good for the consumer?
This is a fair question. And difficult to answer, but I think the biggest factor in the IE situation is the fact that MS also benefits from the inclusion of IE because of its search provider business. Apple currently has no search / ad portal to speak of. I firmly believe this is a bigger danger than the browser itself. Only the virtue of low market share in the search portal market protects them at the moment.
I also don't think Apple will ever attain a market share of that magnitude; not because of an inopia of potential, but the reality of increased competition in the OS sector with the emergence of net / smart books and especially arm cpus.
Last edited by Calum on 13 Jun 2009 - 11:57
You may be right, but until another competing company makes a formal complaint, I doubt any action will be taken.
Latin is an integral part of english and its phrases are as common place as french, greek, spanish and other languages the menagerie that is english borrows from.
I can use a computer without a browser, but I can't listen to my ipod without headphones. The former is optional, the latter is essential.
Now your iPod costs $3000! Have fun!
That iPod example is an awful example.
The purpose of an operating system is to run software, not to contain software. Any company bundling software with an operating system harms competition.
No company should be allowed to do it and users should be educated on the choice of essential programs which are available, so they know they can download a web browser, media player etc from any source they choose.
No company should be allowed to do it and users should be educated on the choice of essential programs which are available, so they know they can download a web browser, media player etc from any source they choose.
You guys must be kidding me. No modern operating system (heck, even the ancient ones) is provided empty without including software.The purpose of an operating system is to get stuff done.
The browser IS the computer. If I can't use the Internet, my PC is almost worthless. I'd really like to see liberatus follow up on that whole owning a computer without ever using the browser thing.
The apple comparisons are certainly valid. OSX has a monopoly on Macs, but I won't go there. The iPod/iTunes/iPhone have pretty much monopoly status on their field. They do bundle headphones, and people made a big deal out of being seen in those trademark white headphones.
I would not call IE basic.
Notepad is basic. Paint is basic. Windows boot leader is extremely basic.
IE 8 is up to date with the market.
Microsoft could have avoided this with a modular install system but no they went down the path they did and here they are. Can't blame anyone but themselves.
Microsoft could have avoided this with a modular install system but no they went down the path they did and here they are. Can't blame anyone but themselves.
I don't know..but enlighten me..who else has a modular install system?
Microsoft could have avoided this with a modular install system but no they went down the path they did and here they are. Can't blame anyone but themselves.
I don't know..but enlighten me..who else has a modular install system?
Linux uses it for clean installs I believe fedora had it the install system or did dunno if they've changed it where you can select packages/configurations etc and customize the install. Microsoft would be wise using a similar system.
Pretty much every OS. Integrating IE into the system so as to be inseparable was contrived.
Microsoft could have avoided this with a modular install system but no they went down the path they did and here they are. Can't blame anyone but themselves.
I don't know..but enlighten me..who else has a modular install system?
Linux is highly modular.
Sigh. Microsoft is the target because their OS is on like 90%+ of the worlds computers and IE being installed by default has resulted in people thinking that IE = the Internet.
-1
Please research what qualifies as a monopoly...
Please research what qualifies as a monopoly...
Please research the actual issue...
The EU wants to give users a "genuine choice" of browsers. If they buy a Mac then they won't be ensured that "genuine choice", so your argument fails. It doesn't matter about a monopoly anymore, as proved by the EU taking further action than just removing IE.
Stop comparing this situation to a OS X, it has a market share of like 1% and is there for irrelevant. The reason the EU is taking further action is because removing IE isn't in the best interest of customers either.
Please research what qualifies as a monopoly...
Please research the actual issue...
The EU wants to give users a "genuine choice" of browsers. If they buy a Mac then they won't be ensured that "genuine choice", so your argument fails. It doesn't matter about a monopoly anymore, as proved by the EU taking further action than just removing IE.
I thought you could install whatever browser you wanted on OS X, just the same as on Windows? It does still matter about a monopoly, because the number of ppl being 'denied' a choice of browser on OS X, is miniscule compared to the numbers of people being 'denied' a choice on Windows.
So what, those people don't matter? Microsoft was already issued their monopoly fines years ago, so the issue now is about consumer choice -- that's what Opera's complaining about. If purchasers of a new computer should receive choice in their browsing, then the 10% who buy Macs deserve that choice too.
Not as far as the EU are concerned, no.
while this is true..is it a suprise that the only browser that wants you to pay for it is the only one that's not having an increased market share?
To which browser are you refering pray tell? I know of none which require payment. Please enlighten us.
i stand corrected.. opera doesn't require payment any longer it seems.
Opera Mobile does! But only for the official releases of it, the beta's are free and wayy better.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=112834785863
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=112834785863
Doubtlessly comprised of mostly MS employees
Last edited by Calum on 13 Jun 2009 - 12:02
That was precisely their contrivance, and the premise for the anti-trust cases. Unless you attempt sarcasm?
The EU is not after money, they have plenty (infact, more than the US). They're interested in competition and making sure that its fair. They went after Intel because they were forcing companies to sell Intel CPU's instead of AMD's. This is illegal. And they got fined for it. The US is looking into the same issues in a court case and will probably fine them again as well. Now the EU is saying that IE being installed by default results in it being the most widely used browser, harming competition. And it does. Most general computer users don't know that there are (arguably) better web browsers out there.
I don't think any of the Browser companies who back this want IE removed, and no, its not just Opera, its Google and Mozilla (thats the maker of Firefox for the not so bright) as well, so stop picking on Opera. What they want is choice. If IE really is the peoples choice (and it probably will be, people consider the IE logo to = the Internet), so be it. But no-one is going to go and try one of the other browsers until someone tells them that there is another choice out there. Advertisements and me hitting you over the back of the head when I hear your using IE will only go so far. :p
And just so were clear, I actually like IE 8 as a web developer although I still prefer Firefox for general use.
As I've said about 50 times now, the perfect solution to this problem is for MS to include a screen in the Windows installer (when its copying files would be a perfect time as the user is bored out of their brains) which will automatically download the file from the companies website and run the installer in the background (or straight after install perhaps if its complicated). You can do the same thing with Media Player / Instant Messaging / Email / Anything else. Saves the user time installing their most commonly used apps and you give users choice which EU and other companies are after, and MS comes off looking great for taking OS installations to the next level. And you can release it all regions to make everyone happy.
The fact that MS choose to simply remove IE says that they don't give a crap and would rather cause trouble for EU customers / OEM's than actually tackle the problem and do it properly. Its not like the above solution takes a degree in rocket science to figure out either. Its a pity, as MS has done everything right with Windows 7 thus far.
Thats just my opinion anyway.
The EU is not after money, they have plenty (infact, more than the US). They're interested in competition and making sure that its fair. They went after Intel because they were forcing companies to sell Intel CPU's instead of AMD's. This is illegal. And they got fined for it. The US is looking into the same issues in a court case and will probably fine them again as well. Now the EU is saying that IE being installed by default results in it being the most widely used browser, harming competition. And it does. Most general computer users don't know that there are (arguably) better web browsers out there.
I don't think any of the Browser companies who back this want IE removed, and no, its not just Opera, its Google and Mozilla (thats the maker of Firefox for the not so bright) as well, so stop picking on Opera. What they want is choice. If IE really is the peoples choice (and it probably will be, people consider the IE logo to = the Internet), so be it. But no-one is going to go and try one of the other browsers until someone tells them that there is another choice out there. Advertisements and me hitting you over the back of the head when I hear your using IE will only go so far. :p
And just so were clear, I actually like IE 8 as a web developer although I still prefer Firefox for general use.
As I've said about 50 times now, the perfect solution to this problem is for MS to include a screen in the Windows installer (when its copying files would be a perfect time as the user is bored out of their brains) which will automatically download the file from the companies website and run the installer in the background (or straight after install perhaps if its complicated). You can do the same thing with Media Player / Instant Messaging / Email / Anything else. Saves the user time installing their most commonly used apps and you give users choice which EU and other companies are after, and MS comes off looking great for taking OS installations to the next level. And you can release it all regions to make everyone happy.
The fact that MS choose to simply remove IE says that they don't give a crap and would rather cause trouble for EU customers / OEM's than actually tackle the problem and do it properly. Its not like the above solution takes a degree in rocket science to figure out either. Its a pity, as MS has done everything right with Windows 7 thus far.
Thats just my opinion anyway.
Well said. Balanced and concise.
I feel that if it just stops at the Windows 7 E edition then users will just automatically install IE from the supplied CD and won't even realise why it's separate or that there are alternatives out there.
And why should it stop at web browsers then? Should other apps that come with Windows be examined too? Maybe Windows should be stripped of Paint, Notepad, Calc, and perhaps even Windows Explorer? I am sure the first 3 are NOT essential in an OS and the last would not be essential for command-line lovers i.e. Linux users. Should all these be stripped too?
Again, forcing MS to promote other companies' browsers in their own product is utterly ridiculous, and the antitrust regulators in EU have certainly gone off the deep end.
Because they decide to include their software by default in a market where there is a lot more involved than simply having the highest % to brag over. A web browser is an OS inside of itself, and people are constantly thinking up new ideas and technologies that can take advantage of that (and make money off of it). With IE as the default browser, it puts MS in a position to control the future of the web (like it tried to do with IE 6 and ActiveX and various other technologies), which in case you didn't learn the lesson last time, is a bad thing.
If Flash had never existed and Silverlight had become the popular tool for making websites, MS could simply not release plugin support for the other browsers, and they're dead? How do you encourage someone to use another browser when they can't view the majority of websites on the web? Its just a hypothetical situation, but its the kind of position MS has put itself in.
Then I would say the definition of sanity is relative, as including more Browsers inside of an OS is not decreasing choice but increasing it and certainly not insane.
Notepad / Calc / Wordpad are so basic that eventually the user is going to want to seek out a more advanced version and should never cause any problems in terms of anti-competitiveness. Although I still think it could be an awesome addition to my above idea to include Graphic editing programs, I know I'd much rather use Paint.Net than Paint for example. I'm pretty sure MS knows this already which is why those programs are so basic, to avoid it getting into trouble.
As for Explorer, one could argue its an essential Windows component for which there is no real competitors.
Hopefully that makes sense, I am quite le tired. :yawn:
Last edited by Manish on 13 Jun 2009 - 14:05
Yes and removing the bundling solves the problem. Forcing MS to promote other competing browsers in their own product is another thing altogether.
And please don't try relativism here. There is such things as sanity and insanity. Not everything is grey (and no, I did not say everything is black and white). I believe this belongs firmly in the insane part.
One could argue IE is so basic and useless that users will be seeking a more advanced version of a web browser. IE can only do basic web surfing and didn't support a tabbed interface, had lower performance, poor extension support, weak theming support, and missing other features, at least until IE7. So your point is that these basic programs should never be improved upon and given out for free for customers? Is this law for or against customers? And before one starts complaining about IE being non-web-standard-compliant, note that IE8 has compliance issues largely fixed and moreover, as I mentioned before, these problems should be dealt with directly and the EC should have requested MS with the threat of a fine to make IE standards-compliant.
In fact, probably more people have a non-MS web browser than an alternate image editing program. So should Paint be made illegal? Should Adobe demand the removal of Paint for "illegal bundling of an image editing program" to compete with their paid product, ie Photoshop? Adobe may actually have a case here as it would have cost them potential sales, in other words $$$. If you wish for a free alternative, GIMP could complain to the EU too that Paint is reducing their marketshare in the image editing software market! Why should Paint be allowed to rule the roost while GIMP can only skulk in the background and few knows of alternatives to image-editing software?
Why is explorer an essential Windows component? Apparently, the EC has the power to rule that the web browser isn't, the EC could use that "power" to rule similarly that Explorer isn't essential to an OS. There are command-line Linux distributions around, DOS didn't always come with a Windows manager, the OS need not come with Explorer! Explorer should be ruled illegal too I guess, since it occupies virtually 90% of the file management software market! And for free! No real competition is virtual proof that MS has illegally occupied that market and suppressed all potential competition. Look at all these little alternatives:http://www.simplehelp.net/2006/10/11/10-windows-explorer-alternatives-compared-and-reviewed/. Perhaps they should complain about the bundling of Windows Explorer together with Windows?
Last edited by Shokus on 13 Jun 2009 - 14:13
It solves the problem but it screws over the end user, which is what this is all about, finding a solution that keeps the EU happy, MS happy and the end user happy.
I never said that IE is basic, so it seems kind of strange to attack my points by saying that its basic. : Its generally as feature complete as its competitors.
My point regarding basic programs not being improved is that there is an invisible line. In Windows 7, Paint got an upgrade. Did it put it into the 'professional' category? No, then its not a problem is it? Its upgrade isn't going to put any companies out of business. If MS included a Photoshop clone with Windows 8, then it would be a problem. If MS upgraded Wordpad to a full copy of Word, then that would be a problem. As the commercial software advances, so does the bundled software, but its always going to be a few steps behind.
Adobe did something before I think? MS included the ability to save a Word document directly PDF inside of Word, which basically crushed Adobes sales of their PDF writer thing and were forced to remove it. They stepped across the line.
And its not a law, its a rule of thumb which I suggested might have been MS's line of thinking. Regardless, ultimately its a 'law' for consumers, since if MS includes Office inside of every Windows install, then what reason is there to create a free alternative? Office is what everyone wants, but OpenOffice manages to exist because its free and does the job just as well, and will continue to get better because people want free software. Since Wordpad is lacking in alot of features, people are left wanting more. Competition, in short.
I'm afraid my time machine is broken, but I'm pretty sure I had no intentions of discussing IE8's current compliance issues, which I happen to think are pretty damn good compared to the horrors of IE 6 / 7, which I said so in my first post.
Are you suggesting that Paint is a piece of software that is equivalent to Photoshop? Are you saying you would pay $500 or whatever it is for Paint and the features it provides?
Because its required in order to use the OS. Internet Explorer isn't required in order to use the OS as you probably realised when MS decided to remove it for the EU.
Last edited by Pc_Madness on 13 Jun 2009 - 14:56
What about GIMP or Pain.NET? Both of them are better than Paint.
What about Windows Media Player?
What about Calculator? There are much more advanced calculators out there. One could say the Windows Calc fulfills the basic needs but IE DOES THE SAME THING and more.
What about Windows Defragmenter. There is Piriform Defrag that is much better.
What about the Sound Recorder?
Stop being ridiculous. A web browser is just as needed as those tools I mentioned.
Oh and Google should include links to Bing and Yahoo becuase most people don't know there are alternatives and GOOGLE IS A MONOPOLY.
You know what, more and more I'm convinced this is pure BS. We're in 2009 now, can we begin to give the consumer some credit for their intelligence? There's a difference between not knowing their are other choices, and being satisfied with the tools that the OS provides. And guess what: I want Microsoft to be able to provide their tools hassle free, with the OS I'm paying money for. They coded it, so they can support it. If I want something else, I really should be on my own.
[quote=Pc_solution to this problem is for MS to include a screen in the Windows installer which will automatically download the file from the companies website.[/quote]
This "solution" of the EU is STUPID STUPID STUPID RETARDED. First there's the logistics of figuring out who gets on that screen (it has to be fair. Does Flock get a spot?). Next, Microsoft has to bear the hassle of somehow keeping up with the latest versions from a static install disk.
Here's the bigger issue though. If a user is SO uninformed that they didn't know other browsers exist, what are they going to do when they hit that screen? PICK THE FIRST ONE IN THE LIST. If you don't know you want an alternative browser, there can't possibly be enough information on that screen to help you make a fair choice.
If they are going to this ballot screen thing, a much better way would be *after* the OS is installed, to include in the 'First Run' process a message about alternate browsers and link to a search/list about other vendors. The user can then read (in the browser) about alternatives, and make an informed choice. The OS would still include a tool that they can support and update, while the user was still prompted to download a replacement browser if they so wish.
You really can't. :p I remember I had so much trouble moving my parents over to Firefox that I had to resort to changing the icon to IE so that they would get it. :p I think if you go and ask a non-computer literate friend of yours who only uses it for Facebook what they think of Firefox they'll just be like "what?".
Here's the bigger issue though. If a user is SO uninformed that they didn't know other browsers exist, what are they going to do when they hit that screen? PICK THE FIRST ONE IN THE LIST.
Well, the browsers would be Safari / IE / Firefox / Opera and perhaps Chrome and it would be based off marketshare I imagine. They're the oldest browsers. If Flock suddenly makes a surge in popularity, add it in or remove one of them. If you do it as a web page inside of the installer you can update it with ease.
As for how the ballot screen would look have the product logo, title, download size, and then a brief description about the browser provided by the companies (which is going to be a pain, your going to have to give MS the final say in order to avoid lots of "OMGZ DOWNLOADZ MEZ IAM WINZ" in the text. :p) discussing the features that their Browser provides.
This could all be delivered from a web page hosted by Microsoft which could then download the installer from a certain URL provided by the browser companies. Its really quite simple to do.
It means MS doesn't have to bundle any web browsers (although it probably should incase your not connected to the net), since unlike IE, these companies update their browsers regularly. I'd also like to be able to install all of the web browsers and then set the default, as a web developer I need all of them on my system, but I'd personally settle for just being able to install Firefox first. :p
But I agree, the user may want to research before they make a final decision, so perhaps include the Browser installer in the control panel as well. Good suggestion.
Even if Microsoft listens to EU and the other baboons, people getting a list of Internet Browsers to choose from. They'll go with "MICROSOFT" Internet Explorer, and no, not because its a great choice but because they know the OS is "MICROSOFT" Windows, they'll go with "MICROSOFT" Internet Explorer, talking about noobs that is.
And then you'll have other problems as well. How the hell are they going to 'advertise' and 'make it clear' for noobs which Browser should they choose and which is best. Should they go through all available browsers? OR Let me see, there should be quick text for each browser and haha, I am sure those Companies will have problem with what's written in short description of the Browsers as well or even if it goes to their home pages for the details. Since every one would call their Browser the "No. 1, fast, best, bla bla bla". It will turn into something else then.
Good that [< snipped > - Calum] decided to just get rid of IE for the so called "competition thoughtful" EU.
Last edited by Calum on 13 Jun 2009 - 10:37
They can bundle what they like, but they can't sell it in the EU. I'm sure their shareholders would love that idea. [/sarcasm]
'Listen' Implies they have an option. If they wish to conduct business in the EU, then they have to comply.
As long as they offer a choice that is fine with me. Even if most people choose IE, they will at the very least now be aware of the existence of alternate web browsers which is a good thing.
How is that supposed to happen if there's no browser installed yet?
To your MEP's expenses
What, all £40 million of it?
Not to mention the amount of immigrants we have in the UK, how about the other EU countries keep them for a change.
Britain gets a lot in return for being an EU member. Millions of pounds in grants and funds for various organisations and initiatives are made available by the EU.
Not to mention the amount of immigrants we have in the UK, how about the other EU countries keep them for a change.
Out of a population of around 60 million, Britain has less than 10 million non-white nationals and the number for immigrants is far less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
Or as it is known in the US, anti-trust. It is NOT illegal to be a monopoly. Perfect competition in economic terms is different from fair competition. Seriously, wth is up with all these smart asses that has no idea what they are talking about.
What is with this posting of "Monopoly"? You're basically agreeing that this is just punishing the successful competitor.
You know what, I don't want to see one more "Install Chrome" link on my Google result page until I see an identical link for every other browser.
They are not trying to keep other companies from competeing. These comapnies just don't bother advertising and think people will just flock to them. Or they could take the easy route and complain till MS is forced to package someone elses software with their own. IDK about anyone else but when I first booted up IE on my new PC it didn't say "hey here is our search engine you have to use it" in fact it was pretty dam easy to change it to google, infact its one of the defaults along with I believe yahoo. But if were gonna make it fair then everyone plays by the same rules. No matter how big or small its the same. Do you think colleges that don't do well in football get to break the rules to try and compete against schools like OU UT or USC just because they are smaller? No, rules are rules and everyone should have to be forced to play by them.
I haven't laughed that hard for a long time. Thanks
Windows 7 has IE8
No doubt that when MS release their antivirus product MCAfee and Symantec and the likes of Avast, Microtrend, Fprot and Kapersky will be jumping straight to the EU to complain.
All of this is not fair competition, when a so-called monopoly has to subject to all rules and regulations other companies can enforce by simply complaining about their own marketshare instead of fully promoting a superior product there's something wrong at the core of it all.
Whilst IE8 is okay at rendering webpages and has some solid features, IE6 and IE7 are awful at rendering webpages and many many people still use them. This makes it very painful for web developers to create good websites.
With the EU's decision, more and more people will realise there are alternatives to IE and hopefully they will try them out.
Web Developers (I'm one), I'm sorry you had to suffer through so many years coding differently for IE6, but blind hate is unproductive. The past is the past. IE6's differences from the "standards" should not have any impact on Windows' ability to provide their browser with their OS.
Now, for a second, just for a second, think about how the regular pc user thinks about browsers. They don't know the diffrence between IE and Firefox; and they will use whatever comes pre-installed. Now, the inclusion of a ballot screen, as the article mentions, (some of your should seriously read the article first) should really open up the eyes of the users and actually 'educate' them a little.
I live in Europe, and I actually know what Europe does for my country; Heck! 70% of the laws in each state of the EU was decided upon by the European Union. Saying that you're against the EU is saying exactly the same thing as 'I hate France, Germany, UK, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, ... (goes on until you reach 27 countries)'.
Most of you guys are liberal, so am I. But there just are some things that have to be decided by the government. And besides, how can you call yourselfs 'liberal' if your government pumps millions and millions of cash to save & favour one company. (and I'm speaking about GM, if you didn't realised that)
Last time I checked, that's not so liberal at all.
TOTALLY FAIR.
Last edited by Juski814 on 13 Jun 2009 - 11:22
People should be free to us their resources and knowledge as long as they don't use it as a force against others. Of course I am a Firefox user in the last 4 years, but this still doesn't mean that politicians should screw up the market because my subjective valuation of browsers. Don't forget Bill Gates said once every Microsoft product will be obsolete in a year or two, the only question is who will made it obsolete... Microsoft or the competition. Well there are a bunch of great browsers FOR FREE out there, the situation was never better, we have IE8 which is much better then previous IE's we have Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera and some others all better then ever, so how it is a problem on the market? Think about it.
And one more thing neither Microsoft nor Google IS NOT A MONOPOLY (monopoly means exclusive it means just 1 provider) they are OLIGOPOLIES (oligopoly means a few providers only and some of them or one of them has major or super-major market share (like 50+%).
Do you know anything about Ferrari and supercars? Ferrari are not the only supercar manufacturer and there are plenty of supercar manufacturers who have started long after Ferrari who create faster, more power and more expensive cars and there are other manufacturers who have money and technology which dwarf Ferrari. Supercars are luxury and exclusive products made in limited numbers. Software is not. Stupid analogy.
People can't realistically expect Microsoft to include third party browsers with their product. For example, look at Windows XP. A Windows XP SP3 disc direct from Microsoft still contains Internet Explorer 6 -- they don't even upgrade their OWN browser in an "up to date" install disc! (Same applies to Vista, the discs include Internet Explorer 7 only.) So when Windows 7 comes out, are users going to be perpetually greeted with old installers for every other browser that was considered relevant when 7 was released? That's still not particularly fair after all. What about the percentage of internet users that still browse with Lynx? Can't leave them out! Those browsers aren't Microsoft products, and they are in no way obligated to spend a single dime promoting them. It's not their responsibility. Period. Mozilla could go bust tomorrow, as could Opera. Google could kaibosh Chrome. Those aren't things that Microsoft should have to be worrying about. Those companies need to promote their products, and any advantages they may have over Internet Explorer. Whether or not users respond is not Microsoft's fault.
Windows is put together like OSX -- a complete out of the box experience for a wide variety of users. Those users who want an alt browser will go and get one. Those users who don't care, and just want their computer to work, will use what they're given. Most of the browser evangelists on the web would probably be shocked to find out that Joe Average user DOESN'T CARE about choice, they just care that it works. Joe Average isn't going to be customizing his web experience with GreaseMonkey. Joe Average is going to check his mail and update his Facebook. If his computer can do that, what does he care? Seriously. Internet Explorer already provides a wizard at first run that allows you to change your default search provider, so that renders moot any past arguments about Microsoft attempting to push users towards their own search channels. They've simply provided an easy way to access the internet for that average user.
As far as I'm concerned, they should be allowed to ship their product however they want. You don't like it? Don't buy it! Don't go to an OEM hardware vendor and buy a Windows machine. Or, ask for them not to include Windows. Vote with your wallet. The only thing any large company understands is profit, and if enough people didn't like the way Windows was shipped, the bottom line would reflect that. Unfortunately for those that go down that path, I've already mentioned that Joe Average user DOESN'T CARE, which is why voting with your wallet will never have any effect. Joe Average HATES choice. He doesn't want to have to decide between multiple options that do the same thing. He just wants to take it home, plug it in, and have it WORK. Period. Why do you think the installers for Vista and 7 only ask for your key, and then don't present another dialog box? Joe Average user doesn't want to pick or choose, Joe Average user just needs it to get on there and work. Joe "so techy he's superior to everyone else" will customize it to his preferences because he cares. I think the majority of Joe Techies are so out of touch with the average user they might as well be on different planets. Ever paid attention to Joe Average user in a tech store? He buys an iPod because it's top of mind. Sure there's a Zen and Sansa and all sorts of other choices, but choices bother him. Don't they all just do the same thing?
Try thinking about it from that perspective for a change, rather than "x brower is so much better, I simply can't comprehend why you don't think the way that I think".
OEMs will install a browser on the PCs they sell. Those who buy and install the retail versions of 7 will, I'm sure, be able to work out how to solve the unbelievably difficult task of getting a browser installed on their IE-less installation.
Couldn't have said it better. A lot of Windows 7's design was about providing the best Out-Of-Box-Experience. If there really are consumers left (who buy/install their own stuff, i.e. under 60 yrs old) who don't know you can browse with something besides the blue E, then those people will hate this popup screen trying to explain to them what a browser is. They'll HATE it. It will not benefit any consumer whatsoever. Opera's not looking out for the consumer's interest, they're only after their own. Microsoft has no responsibility to help them, they're not Netscape and it was their own choice to make a browser.
OEMs will get to remove IE8 and preinstall whatever browser they choose, which should take care of this whole thing. Anyone who buys a retail disc of 7 should be able to download their own browser.
Exactly right. And exactly what people have always done and will continue to do.
Big deal. Nobody knows exactly how microsoft is going to let users download/install a webbrowser when IE is not there, but you are all complaining. Perhaps microsoft will include a big fat INSTALL a browser shortcut in the desktop, opening a window that redirects the user to some microsoft page with big fat links to the most common browsers, making it all easier than before. IE might not be there,b ut they sure can display a page since those DLLs with the renderer and such, are probably still going to be there.
It's crossed the border already. Way, way beyond the border.
If no internet browser is installed - how are users expected to download Firefox / Chrome / Opera / IE, that will required them to use a web browser to get to the installer for these!!!
If no internet browser is installed - how are users expected to download Firefox / Chrome / Opera / IE, that will required them to use a web browser to get to the installer for these!!!
This gets repeatedly asked, so I'll clear it up. The proposal by the EU is to have a ballot / menu screen when you first run windows (or something of that kind) that enables the user to choose which browser they wish to install / set as default.
The ballot screen program will simply connect to (assuming the installations are not present on the install media) the browser's home site using http or possibly ftp (yes the same protocol a browser uses), issues a GET request, then receives the installation program and runs it. Its pretty simple really, and can be entirely opaque to the user in the same way as the browser uses http. So to summarise, a browser is not required to download installation files using web protocols such as http and ftp.
In my opinion they have no intention to draw the line anywhere. Web browsers are just the tup of the ice berg and isn't it strange that Apple hasn't been impacted at all despite following the exact same principles of bundling software, particularly a web browser. Hhhmmmm....
i'm ashamed that my country is a part of eu
If the EU screw them enough, they may just do that (if they start effectively making a loss) though I'd imagine even the EU would be hard-pressed to find reasons to do that.
Good thing there's still a chance for the UK to still gtfo from the EU (depending upon the election results).
EDIT: A quick question which I've been ondering for ages now: what difference does it make who has their browser at the top?? Is it all to do with ad revenue from searches (the defaults of which are set by browser makers) or just a bigger e-penis for the company? Especially as they are free to download, and the last time someone (Opera) tried to charge for theirs, it failed miserably.
And I have to repeat for the gazillionth time: Opera already has a huge share of the mobile browser market; their whining to the EU which started all this (or fanned the flames at least) is down to plain greed.
Last edited by smooth_criminal1990 on 13 Jun 2009 - 18:09
MS has complied with the EU's decision and now the EU doesn't think it's good enough? This is more like harassment than anything else.
You know how when you load up IE 7 or 8 for the first time it asks you to customize in (home page, default search, etc). I see this being the only way to satisfy the EU in this case being bundled apps. That when you load Windows for the first time it will ask What browser, What email client, What photo Client, What Media Player you want to use etc.
I understand the EU is about fair competition, but stripping an OS down to Pre 1998 is down right ridiculous. If their solution for fair competition is to make Microsoft Promote other companies apps, those companies should also be forced to promote other companies apps. Or a damn survey online to see what the people really want
What do you expect them to suggest? A competitor's product? Get a clue Opera. OEMs are free to install whatever browser they want, no one is forcing them to take Microsoft's suggestions.
Again, Windows users are freely choosing Firefox, Chrome, or in rare cases, Safari. Those browsers all won marketshare without this EU garbage so why can't you? Dig a little deeper.
Saying "this portion of the software we are including with the OS has no support" won't exactly float with many businesses nor should it be a disclaimer that comes with a product costing as much as Windows does. Removing all browsers should be adequate to give people a "fair" chance of installing what they want.
The big joke but is that this isn't helping consumers anyway. They always had the choice of what they wanted to install whether IE was there or not by default. In what way was the consumer EVER denied a "genuine choice"???
Sure it helps other companies but the EU statements seem to suggest it is the end user that is suffering. I think the past decade has shown that other browsers can survive in a market that is dominated by IE so how are users being hurt? The only noteworthy loss to consumers was Netscape and that lead to Mozilla and now firefox anyway and you could argue AOL's mismanagement played as big a if not larger part in that as MS's tactics anyway.
the Commission has suggested that consumers should be offered a choice of browser, not that Windows should be supplied without a browser at all."
This does not mean the commission will require MS to bundle a competitor's browser.
I think the EU Commission would have a hard time proving that customers have no choice when it comes
to using one browser or another as they are all freely available via the internet.
This case is making alot of noise, noise is just a distraction. Since "OPERA" ARE SO CONCERNED WITH CHOICE"
its only fitting that they include every other browser available as part of the install process for their browser.
This would offer the end user "Choice" and even the playing field.
MaxMax
It's ridiculous and I am sick and tired of hearing about the EU being infantile and greedy over this. I wonder if they've been introduced to the kettle yet...
IMHO most people will WANT the bundled experience. The idea that people want choice (read - have to decide) is incorrect as far as i'm concerned. Someone mentioned that MS got in trouble for bundling pdf support into office (at the detriment of an adobe product), well, as a user, I had been crying out for that feature for a long time, so if that was removed I'd be unhappy, not happy that I now have "choice".
Bill, meet them in the underground carpark with a few briefcases full of cash and you'll hear no more about 'competition'....
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.