Microsoft has created a guidance page on the Windows 7 part of their website, detailing how users should go about installing a browser on Windows 7 E – the version of Windows that will ship in the UK, that comes without a browser. Users will be required to install an internet browser from external media, such as a USB pen drive or CD, as there will be no way of browsing the web without one otherwise.
Due to the EU pushing on with its anti-trust case against Microsoft, users buying Windows 7 E will have to find their own browser to use. Whilst users could of course just download their browser of choice, and save it on a pen drive, Microsoft has made Internet Explorer 8 available for order, on disk. The disk costs £3.44, excluding VAT. For many users, this will not be necessary, but Amazon.de is offering the Internet Explorer 8 disk as an extra anyway, for €3.99. Firefox is also available to order, from the Mozilla Store.
Windows N will be the same as Windows 7 E, but without a media player installed by default. Whilst some oppose the decision made by Microsoft (as a response to the EU anti-trust case), others believe it will offer other browsers a chance, such as Firefox and Opera. However, how well this will go down with those who buy Windows 7 E remains to be seen.
Whether or not browsers can be bundled in by computer manufacturers isn't stated on the site, but as it states that media players can be bundled, then it is assumed so. However, for system builders and everyone else, there will be no "browser selection" upon finishing installation, as some speculated. Instead, users will have to go back to basics, and find something to store it on, or, alternatively, order a browser on a disk.
Last edited by xploit1030 on 15 Jul 2009 - 16:25
Yeah cause everyone knows that we didn't have a "true choice" of browser before. Now not only do you need to pay for the internet, you need to pay to get a browser disc too.
LOL, probably use IE anyways, nicee.
This whole thing is a joke, but people her like to take it sooo seriously. Anyone buying a computer will have a browser already installed for them on the machine. Anyone buying W7 at retail sure better be smart enough to install a browser, or they shouldn't be handling the install themselves anyway. Anybody trying to install over there existing setup deserves everything that MS gives them.
thats only for you.. think about ppl who dont know **** about computers!! tsk tsk
I think most users will be savvy enough considering you have to fresh install this version and OEMs will just bundle IE anyway. Users having issues will be few and far between I imagine. It's getting enough press.
I think most users will be savvy enough considering you have to fresh install this version and OEMs will just bundle IE anyway. Users having issues will be few and far between I imagine. It's getting enough press.
It's $5. CDs don't print and mail themselves.
I think most users will be savvy enough considering you have to fresh install this version and OEMs will just bundle IE anyway. Users having issues will be few and far between I imagine. It's getting enough press.
It's $5. CDs don't print and mail themselves.
Yet, my AOL CD's multiplied in the mail like rabbits for free
I think most users will be savvy enough considering you have to fresh install this version and OEMs will just bundle IE anyway. Users having issues will be few and far between I imagine. It's getting enough press.
It's $5. CDs don't print and mail themselves.
Funny, my Ubuntu CD's got here on their own. $0.
From the standpoint of Firefox and Opera, they Want Microsoft to charge for IE.
There comes a point, where it is unfair competition, but Microsoft is the victim.
I think Microsoft is doing everything they can to encourage open market for Internet Browsing. They've been put between a rock and a hard place.
Nice spin, but when has the EU said that MS would be profiting from an IE install CD?
MS isn't anywhere close to being a victim. If IE is a genuinely good product, it will compete well, if it isn't the alternatives will, genuine competition at last thanks to the EU.
If Microsoft is making money, the EU will complain. How is Microsoft not the victim when Apple can continue to sell OS X computers and include a browser?
I think most users will be savvy enough considering you have to fresh install this version and OEMs will just bundle IE anyway. Users having issues will be few and far between I imagine. It's getting enough press.
Funny how you single out Microsoft for charging a small sum for a disk, yet you completely overlook the fact Mozilla is doing the same thing.
Ah, but I forgot: since its Mozilla makes the mighty, coveted Firefox, they can do no wrong, eh?
Microsoft is NOT making money off the discs. IE is still 'free of cost'.
Apple hasn't created a monopoly. They don't try to (Mac OS X is primarily suited for Apple's hardware).
For one, Microsoft hard coded the browser into Windows, Apple's Safari browser has always been removable. It's a big difference.
How can you say that IE is "hardcoded into Windows" it isn't even in the system? Did you actually read the article or just talk out of your ... like other anti-MS fat trolls?
He's right. Internet Explorer components are in all versions of Windows. The only thing being removed is the IE front end for web browsing in Windows 7 EU edition. You can also uninstall iexplore.exe yourself in other versions of Windows 7 but the components will remain.
That isn't quite so true anymore. Safari is just an interface to the Webkit engine which is practically built into the OS. Try and update it with a WebKit nightly (which houses its own core) by replacing the OS files. Might not be so stable
Apple hasn't created a monopoly. They don't try to (Mac OS X is primarily suited for Apple's hardware).
But they are pushing away competing browsers for their platform by including Safari. This form the EU standpoint against IE...
Also then charging people to obtain the IE8 CD is a little bit cheeky.
Also then charging people to obtain the IE8 CD is a little bit cheeky.
Buy a copy then send the bill to the EU and make them pay for their stupidity. LOL
Also then charging people to obtain the IE8 CD is a little bit cheeky.
well microsoft its charging for ie already, want it or not the only thing that this windows N and E its doing its to offer you a windows version at a COMPLETE price without features.
No wonder why windows N fail and this windows E will fail too. If windows E cost less than a normal one im all for it.
No wonder why windows N fail and this windows E will fail too. If windows E cost less than a normal one im all for it.
If Windows costs the same with or without IE, doesn't that make IE free? Also, How could N or E fail? They were created because Microsoft were ordered to remove specific components from their OS? It's unfortunate that the EU forced this course because it doesn't promote browser freedom, it just adds to the confusion.
No wonder why windows N fail and this windows E will fail too. If windows E cost less than a normal one im all for it.
If Windows costs the same with or without IE, doesn't that make IE free? Also, How could N or E fail? They were created because Microsoft were ordered to remove specific components from their OS? It's unfortunate that the EU forced this course because it doesn't promote browser freedom, it just adds to the confusion.
Windows Vista N has failed seeing as how no one buys it and OEMs install WMP for you anyways. The same will happen with Win7 E. In the end, the bulk of sales is through OEMs and OEMs will just install IE8 anyways, or IE8 and FF together.
I think it'll be interesting to see how many people just start ordering through MS's online store and download the full Win7 version with a spoofed US adress to bypass the EU versions.
you are forgetting that this is not something that EU instructed Microsoft to do! this is on Microsoft's own accord.
seeing as the other option (a browser select? does MS really want additional antitrust heat and have the responsibility to support Firefox and Opera?) was pants-on-head stupid, I think this was the next less painful alternative
out of 3 choices: Don't bundle IE, advertise IE and every other browser, or keep on bundling IE and get arrested/chucked out of the EU market
2 and 3 aren't really feasible so #1 it is. If EU had just shut up none of us would be in this mess - so it is the EU's fault. It's called playing hard ball when the EU have ****ed off Microsoft one too many times.
EU? MS are doing this not the EU. The EC hasn't even made a decision yet. Most likely they will force MS to present a selection screen anyway, so the question of 'how do I install a browser' is already irrelevant .
Microsoft didn't do this just because they felt like it. The EU's position was that bundling IE was anticompetitive and they were looking at requiring MS to bundle competing browsers. Rather than that, MS simply decided they would address the EU's complaint directly and remove IE altogether.
This may have not been required by the EU but it was 100% in direct response to the EU.
... because the last time they didn't do this, they ended up with a $2 billion fine... so how can you blame them?
http://mashable.com/2008/02/27/microsoft-eu-fine/
They're deciding whether or not bundling IE is anticompetitive. If MS isn't bundling IE anymore, then how can they force them to do anything? If they stay course it just goes to show they were pushing an agenda to begin with.
So you think FORCE is what we need? The browser is not the part of the OS, it is just an application... imagine that the EU force Microsoft to include well, why not other software too, or maybe some media or a few links to some porn sites... why not? All that is a legitimate business... isn't it? Ger a ****ing real will you.
There was no force, MS chose to do this.
As IE is an application, it should never have been concreted into the OS in order to kill competition in the first place. Like all applications, it should have been optional and removable from the start.
They also stated that this is insufficient because MS are notorious for coercing OEM's into doing what they want. And in this case that would be bundling IE. The solution hasn't changed. A ballot screen is still the best way to resolve this problem.
Absolutely. MS are notorious for their intransigent stance on competition enforcement.
The CPU is just a component of a computer, but should Intel be allowed to run wild and break competition law?
Can you repeat that in english please?
+1
Wow, what are you doing here? Somebody who actually understand logic, and doesn't worship everything the MS does...
This may have not been required by the EU but it was 100% in direct response to the EU.
The EU should force them to bundle a CD with firefox on it. Everyone wins, users get a superior browser, little kids in the US who keep going on about this can shut up.. see, perfect solution.
http://mashable.com/2008/02/27/microsoft-eu-fine/
I know, how can you blame them. It is not as if they should stop BREAKING THE LAW, that would be ridiculous. Much better to pull a stupid publicity stunt like this.
http://mashable.com/2008/02/27/microsoft-eu-fine/
I know, how can you blame them. It is not as if they should stop BREAKING THE LAW, that would be ridiculous. Much better to pull a stupid publicity stunt like this.
As IE is an application, it should never have been concreted into the OS in order to kill competition in the first place. Like all applications, it should have been optional and removable from the start.
Let's have MS remove the Notepad because it is killing companies that sell text editors.
That's what you just said.
If they make such basic things like a browser optional, many people won't even realize that there are choices to choose from in the first place.
IE should stay. Anyway, people that feels the need for things that IE can offer, then search for browsers and download the one you want.
http://mashable.com/2008/02/27/microsoft-eu-fine/
I know, how can you blame them. It is not as if they should stop BREAKING THE LAW, that would be ridiculous. Much better to pull a stupid publicity stunt like this.
Since when is adding apps for specific tasks into a OS breaking the law? Does the law change when you have +50% of a market only and not apply to those with less market share? Since when is the law double sided? Since when does the law pick sides before hand?
If putting a browser in the OS is illegal before hand then so is everything else right? Lets take out Notepad, Wordpad, paint and so on. But if "bundling apps" is illegal itself period as you make it sound, then every OS that does this is also "breaking the law" right?
Bundling isn't the issue per se, and has the fact IE is in Windows actually hurt anyone? Last I checked FF's market is growing, and they have a big chunk of the EU market as well, bigger than in the US. So hold on then, how can the two contradict each other if the first (IE in windows) isn't infact hurting competition?
If anyone looks at it logically and sees how other browsers are infact growing their market just fine, then the argument that IE is killing them holds no marit at all.
And this is not a "stupid publicity stund" it's a direct reaction to the EU case. MS wants to get Win7 out the door later this year, and not to have to wait for whenever the EU finally decides to pull it's finger out of it's ass and act. Because you know, governments move so blasingly fast on such things don't they?
I was thinking just the same thing. They would get stuck without the internets if they don't have a second computer around to download IE...
I think MS may include a download link for IE just like they did with the Live Essentials Suite, but I don't know if the EU would jump onto them for that too.
You're going to be installing your apps over anyways, so this just adds one thing to the list you have to think about, unless it's already installed by the OEM, which it probably will be anyways.
That's exactly what Microsoft don't want to do and why they just removed IE. They should never be forced to put competitors browsers in the OS. It's just a can of worms. Who is responsible for the work, support, updating etc. Just wouldn't work.
It's not that they CAN'T come with that option, it's just that Microsoft doesn't want to carry an other company's browser on their disc themselves.
Honestly i tend to differ a little bit on that.
Microsoft sells Windows so Microsoft should promote apps made for Microsoft Windows as much as Microsoft promotes 3rd party games for the Xbox 360.
The fact that MS makes and publish games for the 360 itself doesn't prevent it from promoting other big 3rd party games like GTA or Madden. Nintendo not promoting 3rd party games as much as MS and Sony hurts it a lot actually.
Generally when you make a product like a game console or an operating system you actually WANT people to know what cool apps they can use on it. But of course this is true in a competitive market only.
Last edited by LaP on 15 Jul 2009 - 16:45
Microsoft sells Windows so Microsoft should promote apps made for Microsoft Windows as much as Microsoft promotes 3rd party games for the Xbox 360.
The fact that MS makes and publish games for the 360 itself doesn't prevent it from promoting other big 3rd party games like GTA or Madden. Nintendo not promoting 3rd party games as much as MS and Sony hurts it a lot actually.
Generally when you make a product like a game console or an operating system you actually WANT people to know what cool apps they can use on it. But of course this is true in a competitive market only.
But that's not really the same thing though. These are just "shout outs" to other games which are still the responsibility of someone else.
If Microsoft bundled other 3rd party software with their operating system, they'd be 100% responsible for any damages that may happen (and lord knows there are enough flaws in every web browser). It's just yet another lawsuit waiting to happen. They'd also be responsible for making sure the browser they send out is 100% update all the time, etc.
That's too much work just because Opera started crying like the whiny bitch it is.
They probably will have to in the end. Either that or provide a ballot screen which downloads the setup files on demand. But you can expect MS to fight this tooth and nail like they do all semblances of competition.
Microsoft sells Windows so Microsoft should promote apps made for Microsoft Windows as much as Microsoft promotes 3rd party games for the Xbox 360.
The fact that MS makes and publish games for the 360 itself doesn't prevent it from promoting other big 3rd party games like GTA or Madden. Nintendo not promoting 3rd party games as much as MS and Sony hurts it a lot actually.
Generally when you make a product like a game console or an operating system you actually WANT people to know what cool apps they can use on it. But of course this is true in a competitive market only.
Microsoft are not getting a dime by promoting 3rd-party software on Windows, unlike 3rd party games for their console.
Plus console game follows the console standard and doesn't mess with the OS much(at all?) unlike 3rd party Windows software, which, even a well coded one, could potentially mess up the OS as a whole.
Guess who customer gonna call when that happens?
It is when they use their monopoly to give them an unfair advantage. And it wouldn't be promotion, but only creating a level playing field where all browsers can compete equally. Of course this is a monopolist's worse nightmare! And you can be sure the US will follow suit xD.
Sure, and while you're doing that, would you like to be able to choose your Explorer shell? Since we know there are plenty of alternatives to that and who knows who MS is competing out of the market by integrating its own explorer.exe
Then we get all the mad users that call Microsoft because they clicked the wrong button during setup (or their support guy wanted to push an agenda) and now can't find where the "internet" is, or in my example, the explorer shell actually has a bug and now Microsoft gets the heat for the computer turning into a brick.
Fair? Only in a perfect world.
In case you didn't notice, we have a level playing field right now. How else do you explain Mozilla's browser marketshare? Safari? Opera?
Forcing a comapny to include competing products isn't just beyond any sort of logical reasoning it's about as far from a free marketplace as you can get.
Microsoft sells Windows so Microsoft should promote apps made for Microsoft Windows as much as Microsoft promotes 3rd party games for the Xbox 360.
The fact that MS makes and publish games for the 360 itself doesn't prevent it from promoting other big 3rd party games like GTA or Madden. Nintendo not promoting 3rd party games as much as MS and Sony hurts it a lot actually.
Generally when you make a product like a game console or an operating system you actually WANT people to know what cool apps they can use on it. But of course this is true in a competitive market only.
But that's not really the same thing though. These are just "shout outs" to other games which are still the responsibility of someone else.
If Microsoft bundled other 3rd party software with their operating system, they'd be 100% responsible for any damages that may happen (and lord knows there are enough flaws in every web browser). It's just yet another lawsuit waiting to happen. They'd also be responsible for making sure the browser they send out is 100% update all the time, etc.
That's too much work just because Opera started crying like the whiny bitch it is.
MS does actually bundle 3rd party games with the system here and there.
LIke that Sega bundle they did for the original XBox with Jet Set Radio Future and a racing game can't recall the name.
I'm not a MS haters or anything like that. I actually pre-ordered Windows 7 upgrade this weekend and i proudly own a 360. But let's be honest for a minute and imagine Mac does a PC version of OSX, gradually market shares rise, Mac OSX gets to around 40% market shares and Apple stop beeing an *** and promote exclusive 3rd party apps for Mac OS PC version. The the OS market would all of a sudden becomes competitive and you can be sure MS would completely changes the way it acts in this new competitive market by promoting cool 3rd party apps avalaible for Windows and speciallt those not avalaible for Mac OSX PC
MS doesn't promote games for 360 because the market is any different. MS promotes them because they don't have any other choice. Without all this FREE marketing provided my MS 3rd party comapnies would probably stop supporting the 360 as much as they do right now like it happened with NIntendo which lately is self centered and promote their games only. And without 3rd party support it's hard to sell console in the long run (unless it's different like the Wii) because 1st party apps are not enough when you have a competitor who promotes 3rd party apps like GTA, MGS and Madden.
Last edited by LaP on 15 Jul 2009 - 17:57
Superior software?
Microsoft sells Windows so Microsoft should promote apps made for Microsoft Windows as much as Microsoft promotes 3rd party games for the Xbox 360.
The fact that MS makes and publish games for the 360 itself doesn't prevent it from promoting other big 3rd party games like GTA or Madden. Nintendo not promoting 3rd party games as much as MS and Sony hurts it a lot actually.
Generally when you make a product like a game console or an operating system you actually WANT people to know what cool apps they can use on it. But of course this is true in a competitive market only.
Microsoft are not getting a dime by promoting 3rd-party software on Windows, unlike 3rd party games for their console.
Plus console game follows the console standard and doesn't mess with the OS much(at all?) unlike 3rd party Windows software, which, even a well coded one, could potentially mess up the OS as a whole.
Guess who customer gonna call when that happens?
Not entirely true... Operating Systems become natural monopolies primarily due to the high switching cost that is created by the number of applications created for that operating system. In short, Microsoft is ensured a monopolistic dominance on the OS market as log as more applications continue to be developed for Windows.
The majority of users and businesses don't "pick" Windows, Mac OS, Linux, or any other operating system on some merit used to measure operating systems. The only people who get wrapped about in caring about how an OS works is us geeks. The rest fo the world picks an OS because it can run the software they need to do whatever they want to get done.
So, in that accord, Microsoft does make money from applications written on Windows. As without them they wouldn't be certain to sell any Windows licenses at all...
Oh ffs, YOU as a user, or any other user for that matter has always had a choice whether you want to use IE or not.
This may have been about unfair practices 10 years ago, but all it's about now is that Opera can't afford to advertise their software so they are looking to have Microsoft made to do it for them.
Microsoft should not have to include anything in the OS that they didn't develop or license for the OS.
What if I start to develop a new browser after Windows 7 E start to ship? I would need to demand MS to put my browser on new releases too...
If they don't, I can sue MS along with the others in the disc you said because it isn't fair competition.
Oh, nice argument there. So then, since you know it all it seems, did fireforx and safari and opera become "superior" if infact as you say, MS by having IE in windows gave them an "advantage"? If you infact do have an "advantage" wouldn't you infact have the "superior software"?
You're reply is contradicting things. MS doesn't have an advantage, as we've seen FF, safari, chrome are all gaining market share just fine. How then is MS able to control and or "kill off" the competition simply by IE being there already? Because, lets me honest, it's not. I don't see FF or Chrome etc dying, do you?
Or, you know, just use the ftp command?
Or, you know, just use the ftp command?
Most current PC users can barely find the "Start" button on XP, what makes you think they will be able to use FTP without any issues?
Yes working in Tech Support has made me even more jaded towards Humanity as a whole
you beat me to it.
Start > cmd (right-click run as admin) > ftp
When i installed IE 7 under XP i downloaded and installed it from Windows Update. I don't see why not having any copy of IE on the system would actually prevent the download and installation of IE 8 from Windows Update unless MS wants to act like it's not their fault if it is now complicated but it's EU fault.
Seriously there's no reason user could not download and install IE 8 from Windows Update.
Windows update is the obvious solution, this is no big deal
Ok, I did, and now?
expect the standard response "BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A MONOPOLOY DUH!!!!!!!!!!"... personly I don't care if they are not a monopoly. If one has to do it, they should all have to do it
Monopoly is an overused and misused term in this tech world sadly. Price competition? Err.... All other MS competitiors are basically giving away their OS free... Market share? MS is there because people choose their product. It is like coup really. People voted a president and just because president won by 99% by folk, it is monopoly.
Because Apple aren't a monopoly, so it's okay.
I mean, one could argue that Apple has an OSX monopoly over all Macs, but I think we should keep that hush hush.
Apple doesn't have pockets as deep as Microsoft so why would the EU concentrate its efforts on them?
Standard Response:
Because they don't have an OS monopoly!
Fortunately you don't write the laws, and only monopolistic abuses are punished (MS, Intel).
Er.. Because they don't have an OS monopoly?
Misunderstood absolutely. Overused? Not really. Misused? Sometimes yes. But there is one certainty here, and that is: MS has a desktop OS monopoly, and not only that, but it uses this monopoly to wipe out competition (netscape), and get a foothold in other markets artificially (browser, search engine).
OS X? Red Hat Linux? SuSE Linux? ...
Heard of the MS tax? When someone buys a new PC from an OEM, the user is rarely asked what OS they would like. Very few get to make a real choice. Things however are changing for the better in this regard; especially with the example set by Dell which offers Ubuntu on virtually every system now.
Is that even classified as an analogy? As previously stated, few actually get to choose an OS. OEM's are often threatened not to offer competing operating systems lest they may be punished. Punishments usually involve the loss of discounts.
Do you have evidence of this, or are you blowing hot air?
Wipe out competition? Did he wiped out Netscape or Netscape is wiped out by its own slugginess. Mozilla is still there, alive and kicking...
OS X prohibits their users to be installed in any other computer than Apple products (aka Hackintosh cases, monopoly if you call is that), Red Hat and SuSE are free to end-users...
Define better...
Are you the only one that is smart enough to claim such thing without any proof? That, my friend is classified as CRIME ACT. Anyone feel such threatening should file a report and sue MS and earn billions if they can proove such thing. But obviously it is nothing more than a empty hoax...
The law demands monopolies act in a manner that makes them more open to harsh competition than if the laws didn't exist. Without the laws forcing the competitor an upper hand the monopoly laws would have no effect.
So it seems unfair because it should be unfair and has to be unfair.
If the market was competitive then it would be no reason for the government to intervine and to force any special rules on any of them individually.
It wasn't an empty hoax. It was a major component of the Department of Justice case against Microsoft in the 90s. For instance, back when Microsoft forced IE to be installed on Macs by threatening to discontinue Office development on the Mac otherwise. It was only after the courts ruled against Microsoft did these practices draw to an end and you now have IE not being shipped on Macs...
I like Microsoft, but the fact is they did abuse their market position. It isn't anything to be surprised about. All companies will do it and that is why we have regulations in place regarding it.
I mean, one could argue that Apple has an OSX monopoly over all Macs, but I think we should keep that hush hush.
Yeah, genius. And Sony have a monopoly on all sony produces goods. And HP have a monopoly on all the stuff they make. When will the monopoly ends??
Why stop there when making up your own definition of words. Why not say that everybody but MS is a monopoly, and have to pay them a fine.
Yeah, I don't care if they murdered someone, if they should have to go to prison, we all should have go to prision.
Your comment makes as much sense as this.
Your comment makes as much sense as this.
Nice way to try and spin it. Apple does in-fact have a virtual monopoly, just as MS does on the PC. And I say virtual because you CAN use other software if YOU WANT TO. I'm not forced to use windows or IE or word am I? Usng the OEM bit as an excuse doesn't fly, lots of OEMs have tried to sell linux systems, and have backtracked on it because sales aren't there on the desktop.
Netbooks with linux are doing fine, so then, again, if MS has this crazy control on OEMs and can stop them from using anything other than windows, how is it that a large chunk of netbooks have some linux varient with them? This is why MS has nothing more than a virtual monopoly and not a true monopoly, since you still have a choice in the end.
If this was a true monopoly you'd never be able to install FF, or you'd never be able to erase windows off of your system and install linux. But that's not the case at all. Now on the Mac side, sure you can dual boot now but can you fully get rid of OSX? I don't think so. Can you run OSX on any old PC? Nope! Saying it's ok because apple has a small market share with OSX, and they own and make macs is a tired excuse.
Lets go over to what apple does have a monopoly on, iPods and iTunes. Why is it that I have to use iTunes with my iPod? (Though 3rd party apps are out there you still have to use iTunes that first time.) And why is it that iTunes won't work with other players if I buy music from it? Why does that protected AAC content only work on a iPod?
But don't worry, it's fine, because in the end that's just a "vitrual" monopoly. I can infact buy other mp3 players, and use other software, so it's not a true monopoly either.
Er.. Apple doesn't have a monopoly. Perhaps you would prefer to live in the US then where monopolistic abuses are left to run wild?
Run wild? Microsoft got owned by the US govt and many many state governments around 10 years ago, and is incredibly closely monitored to ensure that products like Windows 7 comply with the consent decree.
That was a long time ago though, and Microsoft has really reinvented the way it works and bent over backward to ensure compliance with those regulations.
Then explain why others are not allowed to produce Mac compatible machines, or for those that do, they are sued?
Apple are a "monopoly" in their market as they 100% control it.
However, you might have an easier time arguing that Apple is a monopoly in either portable media devices or in online music + video stores for said devices...
MS has a monopoly of what exactly? The PC sector? Since I can a number of different OSes as I like whats their monopoly?
People need to understand that MS only has a "virtual monopoly" since you have other choices and are free to use those.
If this was a true monopoly we wouldn't have linux period or the ability to run anything other than windows and MS apps for windows. But this is not the case at all.
The real problem I see is that you're calling these businesses "stuck" - like they don't want to be on IE but have no choice. That's ludicrous. They use IE because they want to. Because that's what they've invested in supporting, and they don't want to give up those investments and spend a bunch of money to switch to something else.
If they did want to do that, they would!
I guess you don't work in the business world. Business are stuck using IE 6, because they made a lot of foolish decisions when designing their internal structures to only work on that dodgy browser. Not even Microsoft supports the rubbish that went on in ie6, so they can't use ie7 or ie8.
So they made a lot of foolish decision early on, and are now stuck using the browser. You might like ie6, congratulations, the rest of us prefer web standards, tab browsing, spell checking and the million of things a decent browser like firefox gives you.
So they made a lot of foolish decision early on, and are now stuck using the browser. You might like ie6, congratulations, the rest of us prefer web standards, tab browsing, spell checking and the million of things a decent browser like firefox gives you.
Wait, what?
Are you suggesting that these companies build a time machine? They didn't make bad decisions by going with IE6 - IE6 was by far the best choice at the time! If there's a better choice now, great. But there's a cost to moving to new technology... there almost always is. And some businesses want to delay those expenses as much as possible. After all, if they designed something for Netscape Navigator or even Firefox 1.0, they'd still have the same hesitation moving forward to something new.
IE 6 was very standards-compliant for the time. IE 5.5 was the first browser with real CSS support! How quickly some people forget... It was Netscape that used to mess with the standards (leading to "quirks" mode and all the ridiculous proprietary tags like marquee and other crap). Hell we still have moz-opacity and other garbage to deal with. If someone could have made a better browser at the time then they should have!
But wait, they didn't... and Mozilla didn't finally get its act together until a few years ago with Firefox.
So they made a lot of foolish decision early on, and are now stuck using the browser. You might like ie6, congratulations, the rest of us prefer web standards, tab browsing, spell checking and the million of things a decent browser like firefox gives you.
Wait, what?
Are you suggesting that these companies build a time machine? They didn't make bad decisions by going with IE6 - IE6 was by far the best choice at the time! If there's a better choice now, great. But there's a cost to moving to new technology... there almost always is. And some businesses want to delay those expenses as much as possible. After all, if they designed something for Netscape Navigator or even Firefox 1.0, they'd still have the same hesitation moving forward to something new.
IE 6 was very standards-compliant for the time. IE 5.5 was the first browser with real CSS support! How quickly some people forget... It was Netscape that used to mess with the standards (leading to "quirks" mode and all the ridiculous proprietary tags like marquee and other crap). Hell we still have moz-opacity and other garbage to deal with. If someone could have made a better browser at the time then they should have!
But wait, they didn't... and Mozilla didn't finally get its act together until a few years ago with Firefox.
+1
People here have short memories.
Netscape was a huge mess and that's why it failed so badly. Firefox, once it got going has never had any problems even with IE being in Windows.
This has always been true. Microsoft never dis-allowed an OEM from installing any other browser along with Windows.
others believe it will offer other browsers a chance, such as Firefox and Opera
No matter what one "believes", FF has taken a huge chunk of marketshare away from IE without having Windows shipping in 'E' edition. Mozilla doesn't really need this special edition to gain marketshare. Neither does Opera but they aren't gaining marketshare for other reasons.
Which makes one wonder why it has never happened even once? Perhaps because MS frequently threatens OEM's with the retraction of heavily discounted software if they do include competing browsers? Some have even come forward and openly talked of their fear of the software giant.
What does that say about the quality of IE given that it has such a huge advantage (bundled with OS) and still loses market share? But just because FF has done it, it certainly doesn't mean that it's a level playing field. Why should other browsers have a disadvantage over IE? I say make it equal and let the users decide. If IE still dominates after that then so be it, but things as they are at the moment are not fair or equal.
That may be your opinion, but it's not one shared by the people of europe.
Well that's just BS. Lots of OEMs ship machines with other browsers. Most don't because their customers use IE. But more and more are being incentivized to ship browsers like Chrome (which Google pays them to do).
Microsoft is bound to not "punish" OEMs that want to install competing browsers or other software. You just made all of that up to support your biased view of the world.
Microsoft is bound to not "punish" OEMs that want to install competing browsers or other software. You just made all of that up to support your biased view of the world.
Really, can you name one, just one?. No, that would be introducing some facts into the argument, might upset your MS aura or something.
I just wish they would sell this version in the US as well, so we can get a decent OS without there dodgy browser. Makes things a lot safer for us all. If the US government actually cared about there people, they would do the same.
Dell.
Next question?
How the hell would removing IE "make things safer?" IE and Chrome are the safest browsers you can use right now...
from what I know is that MOST of people will really have a problem if their OEMs didn't install a browser AND media player with their systems.
If MS will really do that, then do the same for Mac (Safari) and for Linux too, this is really unfair and against the COMMON USER.
from what I know is that MOST of people will really have a problem if their OEMs didn't install a browser AND media player with their systems.
It's MS's choice to do this, not the EU's.
Why? Only monopolies would be in that position, and neither OS X nor Linux has a desktop OS monopoly.
from what I know is that MOST of people will really have a problem if their OEMs didn't install a browser AND media player with their systems.
It's MS's choice to do this, not the EU's.
Why? Only monopolies would be in that position, and neither OS X nor Linux has a desktop OS monopoly.
Obviously you don't really know what a real monopoly is. If MS had a desktop monopoly then I wouldn't be able to install Linux or any other of the unix-derived OSes out there. Since I have a choice there's no monopoly.
So, todays lesson, massive market share != monopoly.
Got it?
windows = OS monopoly, OSX != OS monopoly. Need me to draw a picture?
Why should that matter? Windows 7 is NOT an OS Monopoly, so why does it have to be "nerfed" when the competition does not?
It is the basic foundation of anti-monopoly laws. They aim to level the playing field by imposing restrictions on the monopoly. To put this in simpler terms let us see it in a different manner...
If you were playing a fighting game on XBOX 360, like Tekken (I don't know what games are on what Console as I haven't owned one since the PS1 so don't get lost arguing names), against the world champion and you're relatively new to the game. The world champion would usually penalize themselves using a "handicap" which is aimed at making the playing field closer to even. That handicap can be seen in the same way anti-monopoly laws aim to work.
Hopefully that helped to make this clearer for you.
You can consider OS X is a monopoly, in the sense that the OS is only available to one company.
If you were playing a fighting game on XBOX 360, like Tekken (I don't know what games are on what Console as I haven't owned one since the PS1 so don't get lost arguing names), against the world champion and you're relatively new to the game. The world champion would usually penalize themselves using a "handicap" which is aimed at making the playing field closer to even. That handicap can be seen in the same way anti-monopoly laws aim to work.
Hopefully that helped to make this clearer for you.
Yeah... god forbid the person who worked hard to be number 1, be able to dominate in a game he is the best at. This reminds me of my 5yo nieces tee ball games where no one loses. They all go out there and bat, and at the end, they both "win".
I'm the last person to defend a huge corporation, but asking them to supply and support the competitions applications is extremely absurd. I will even go as far to say that anyone who thinks there should be a ballot during installation knows nothing about business or computer technology.
The decision by Microsoft to not include IE8 was the only choice the EU government gave them. Next on the list... media players, explorer shells, resource monitors... etc.
If you were playing a fighting game on XBOX 360, like Tekken (I don't know what games are on what Console as I haven't owned one since the PS1 so don't get lost arguing names), against the world champion and you're relatively new to the game. The world champion would usually penalize themselves using a "handicap" which is aimed at making the playing field closer to even. That handicap can be seen in the same way anti-monopoly laws aim to work.
Hopefully that helped to make this clearer for you.
Yeah... god forbid the person who worked hard to be number 1, be able to dominate in a game he is the best at. This reminds me of my 5yo nieces tee ball games where no one loses. They all go out there and bat, and at the end, they both "win".
I'm the last person to defend a huge corporation, but asking them to supply and support the competitions applications is extremely absurd. I will even go as far to say that anyone who thinks there should be a ballot during installation knows nothing about business or computer technology.
The decision by Microsoft to not include IE8 was the only choice the EU government gave them. Next on the list... media players, explorer shells, resource monitors... etc.
I'm not sure you read my post at all. The video game example was the easiest one I could draw that I think most people could understand. It doesn't matter that the guy worked hard and is the best player in the world. It wouldn't be any fun for the new guy if he beat him in two seconds flat every time...
Also, the anti-monopoly laws exist because it is understood by anyone who has taken even the most basic education in business that a monopoly isn't good for consumers. The only way monopolies work for consumers is with heavy government regulation (hence the large regulatory commissions governing utilities for instance). Otherwise there is nothing keeping the monopolist from stifling innovation and charging consumers prices far beyond what they would pay in a competitive market.
In the normal course of business it is the natural desire of every company to be a monopoly. You can charge higher prices (and thus make more profit) without having to spend as much fighting competitors (lower cost also leading to increased profits). The only thing putting a damper on that is the realization that becoming so would lead to increased government regulation.
I would recommend you read this page for more information on monopolies and what it really means: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Monopoly
In the case of Microsoft they hold a natural monopoly primarily because of the high switching costs associated with customers leaving their products. So you could argue that there are a variety of Operating Systems in the market (Linux and Mac OS just to name two). Software Developers won't target competing platforms because they lack the market share of the monopoly and the customers won't use the other operating systems because their programs aren't available on them.
So like it or not Microsoft, at least Windows is, a monopoly. That reality would be the same for any OS on the market if it got a dominant market share for some of the reasons I noted above.
Yeah, brilliant, then every thing is a monopoly. If you people really can't understand this simple concept, then you probably shouldn't be using a computer at all.
Please do, I want to see a picture that proves that that Windows is a monopoly. And before you do something idiotic, having massive market share doesn't translate into a monopoly.
So there, educate us on what a monopoly is and how MS hold a monopoly over the PC sector. Maybe in your cave free OSes (all those linux distros) don't exist.
So there, educate us on what a monopoly is and how MS hold a monopoly over the PC sector. Maybe in your cave free OSes (all those linux distros) don't exist.
Reading my posts on this page would explain it all very clear to you
simple as pie
all browsers can be downloaded from their companies via ftp and command console
for example firefox:
ftp releases.mozilla.org (enter username and password anonymous)
cd /pub/mozilla.org/releases/firefox/latest/win32/en_GB/
binary
get "Firefox Setup 3.5.exe"
easy....
complete!
although if only i could find a IE8 ftp from microsoft, but hey you have ff installed you can browse for IE8
The correct thing I was thinking is that MS offer something like a browser selecting tool, which will be like a simple program which opens once user finish installing windows and updates with a list of browsers and user choose what he want.
The correct thing I was thinking is that MS offer something like a browser selecting tool, which will be like a simple program which opens once user finish installing windows and updates with a list of browsers and user choose what he want.
A common user won't be clean installing a Windows OS without having some technical knowledge.
Common users will buy an OEM PC with it already installed and IE either on a CD or installed already.
It really not a big issue
simple as pie
all browsers can be downloaded from their companies via ftp and command console
for example firefox:
ftp releases.mozilla.org (enter username and password anonymous)
cd /pub/mozilla.org/releases/firefox/latest/win32/en_GB/
binary
get "Firefox Setup 3.5.exe"
easy....
complete!
although if only i could find a IE8 ftp from microsoft, but hey you have ff installed you can browse for IE8
Microsoft can do a simple bat files that with a single click of the user is enough to install a browser.
But MS decided to use a way to p** off customer.
The correct thing I was thinking is that MS offer something like a browser selecting tool, which will be like a simple program which opens once user finish installing windows and updates with a list of browsers and user choose what he want.
A common user won't be clean installing a Windows OS without having some technical knowledge.
Common users will buy an OEM PC with it already installed and IE either on a CD or installed already.
It really not a big issue
I know plenty of common users capable of installing a fresh, clean version of windows, but that wouldn't have a clue who to do anything with a command line.
But MS decided to use a way to p** off customer.
Agree, this would be the best option
The correct thing I was thinking is that MS offer something like a browser selecting tool, which will be like a simple program which opens once user finish installing windows and updates with a list of browsers and user choose what he want.
Honestly someone who is able to install windows by himself should be able to deal with this issue easily.
Others will just buy an OEM PC coming with Windows pre-installed with a browser.
If only there was some way to PRINT out these instructions, so all you have do is type them into a computer. Nobody has invented PRINT yet, because it would be really convenient to PRINT stuff.
nope, i logged onto ftp.mozilla.org
it then told me that all public downlaod are at releases.mozilla.org
then i just used the dir command to navigate the ftp server, searching for FF
for opera, its
ftp get.opera.com
cd /pub/opera/win/
use dir command to search for latest version folder and download the same way as my post above.
try it, go to CMD and type tree, it'll list out all directories on your pc
ctrl+c to cancel....
Home users will buy a PC from the shop with windows already on it.
90% of the time, anyone upgrading an old PC, or buying an OS, will have the knowledge to easily put a browser on there.
LOL
Yea, specially that most people use the pc now as a client to the Internet, they use msn, facebook, youtube, neowin more than they use any "os based" programs.
Wont they just select Firefox in the ballot screen then open their home page?
because they don't read instructions. insert the dvd and start installing, after everything's done. they don't have a browser, AND can't research on the net how to get one installed. hahahahahaha
It wont be a problem because the EC will either force MS or the OEM's to include a ballot screen. Job done bish bash bosh!
Worst idea I've heard in my life.
Couldn't they at least put a download manager style thing on that could fetch IE8?
You know - one of things like Adobe reader uses that's only a few k and isn't actually an installer but you click on it and it fetches the installer and then runs it?
Surely the EU couldn't argue with that? They wouldn't be shipping Windows with even an IE installer onboard, just a way to get the installer if people wanted it.
Who decides who should be on the list?
Who keeps the list/downloads up to date? and at whose expense??
That way they are not bundling and users HAVE a simple way of downloading one (and ie) if they wish.
Forcing MS to bundle other browsers will possibly result in fail when a security flaw crops up with the version on the image and MS is allowed to sue the pants of Mozilla, Firefox or whatever for compromising their customers security.
The common user won't know which one to pick.
as with sp2 genuine CDs, msft could give them for free and still ship them, although I'm sure opera would still find a way to complain.
I'm in the camp that we had a choice before, I no longer use IE, even here at the government/school and I don't feel I'm obligated to use IE (except for testing purpose)... but hey I'm in the EU
Google needs to make sure there's a Safari link on all the ads that they force down the users' throats for chrome. Google has a near advertising monopoly that users can't avoid seeing, so it should promote all advertised products equally... and also show Microsoft's web ads alongside it's own for free too!
all MS has to do is make a shortcut that will call a browser via a FTP site using nothing more than the DOS command 'FTP'
Firefox has not got a large share of the browser market thanks to the old folks at the european commision who probably react against a browser and a media player since that is at least something they understand what it is used for
Seems a bit pathetic of them really. The EC, not MS.
Something goes wrong and they have to reinstall Windows.
They don't have a whole archive of USB sticks with browsers on.
Now what? Not much use if you have to get someone else to download you a browser and then get it to you - that could take days even - you kinda wanna be able to use your internet when you've installed an OS.
Installing an OS is not hard these days, Windows has had a GUI since XP days at least. I wouldn't expect that someone could use ftp or has the foresight to make back ups and copies of browser installers just because they can install an OS.
ANTI-TRUST? of what?
Since when does the EU get the choice of deciding what FREE programs microsoft giveaway?
What a Load of CRAP
Just answer me a simple question
WHY must microsoft or any company advertise it competitiors and open it self up for issues by bundling software it did not write.
Especially to liberatus_sum, you seem to be hell bent against microsoft, in your warped sense of how reality and business works why the hell would a company include products of it competitiors and on top of that be liable for problems that product may cause with its own products.
There is NO WAY you can justify something like this.
Second problem with the ballot screen; why only limit it to ff,opera,safar? why not the porn browsers that have incorprated dialers ,virus, trojans etc? they want some marketshare and a fair playing field too!
Your plain hatred for microsoft is blinding you, worst is people that liek may know they have a weak/wrong argument yet will continue to push it.
There is NO WAY you can justify something like this.
Sure I can. Our Union, Our Laws.
Have a cookie.
If EU continues with legal action then we know thsi is not about competition but rathr EU running out of money and finding ways to fine MS fro a few bucks to sustain them until the next edition of Windows.
And instead of giving me a circualr answer answer the question properly.
MS is a BUSINESS its main concern is making money and keeping investors happy maybe in your land of rainbows and magic fairies people work for free and promote their competitiors.
I REALLY wish the news writers on Neowin would get their facts right before spreading more FUD.
The EU are not the ones making a decision here. The EU are still deliberating as to whether there's any action to take. It's Microsoft alone who have decided to pre-empt any possible EU decision and do this.
I'm not going to bother arguing the rightness or wrongness of the decision, I just want a little ACCURACY in the articles, please.
Because it's stupid. MS had to be sued for blocking other vendors. But not for spreading own products
These punative rulings about Microsoft (a US company) has not been put to the people who voted in European Elections. In Fact most decisions in the EU are taken by the individual National Governments without so much as a referendum, and it is a very contenscious issue, especially in the UK who a vast group want out of the EU.
The EU listened to comapnies who brought this issue to them (I am singling out Opera here) and they felt they had a point, so the EU slaps on a threat of fines and punishment on Microsoft, and are not so willing to discuss ways to sort things out, and do not take into account the views of the citizens, who have proven their views.
Vista sold Tens of Millions! Vista N - less than 100
But the EU rarely thinks about the public in these decisions, as long as they feel companies are following the rules, than the world is all happy and rainbows with smiling childrens faces blah blah blah...
As a UK (proud Londoner, not european) Citizen, I am annoyed I will have to go through a simple but irritating task of getting IE8 on some usb media, and installing everytime I decide to reformat my windows drive, but I am happy to do it, as Microsoft has finally taken action against the EU and their rediculous punitive actions against them.
The EU complained about Windows Media Player coming with Windows, and so Windows N editions came about, which no-one wants or buys.
The EU took on the whiney complaints of Opera - who were the last to charge for a Web Browser, and still sell it to owners of Nintendo Wii, and Nintendo DS and probably other devices when other browsers are free! - They took on their complaints and decided to hold a threat over Microsoft. Then as Windows 7 was approaching the final stages of development, the EU hold off on ruling and allowing Microsoft to put their legal arguments forward, which would have led to a delay in European Release and would have cost Microsoft millions of Euros.
So realising the way the wind was blowing, they decided to take appropriate steps to answer any possible complaints the FU sorry EU may have. The EU claimed bundeling IE was anti-competative, so they remove it!
Now all those millions of users who are going to have problems, know that the EU has what they wanted, and it is left to the public to deal with the aftermath. If the EU finally decide that they would like IE back in, then Windows E will vanish, and Windows Update will magically show IE8, but if the EU dont rule that way, they can't put any requirements on Microsoft, as they are no longer anti-competative.
So my comments to the European Union Parliament, as one of your imposed citizens...
It is not Microsofts duty or responsibility to promote the sotware of others if it does not equate to sales for them!
Personally I think a much better move would be to create a repository type program similar to what you find in most Linux installs these days. By default it could contain links to the major browser vendors, but other software as well, with a big fat disclaimer at the top about third party software etc etc.
skip ftp and everything just wget and then its the job of browser to promote its url ie firefox.com/install.exe...
EU may want motor manufacturers to sell cars without tyres so buyer can select from other tyre brands...
P.S. How does exactly one access the Installation guide without a browser ;-) I hope this at least made it as part of the on-line help, then again it also probably means you can't have on-line help now...
SOURCE
(their info generally seems to be correct.)
Microsoft are not harming the competition that much, as their browser, IE has fallen in popularity recently and Firefox/Chrome have risen in popularity.
The EU are after the money. Have they even done a poll and asked their own Citizens about this matter? It seems most people are in favour of keeping IE bundled in windows. They can always download another browser if they wish.
Now the EU is red-faced, as MS have rightly done the only thing they can do at this time- remove their browser. The EU must now know how much of a stink they have caused for consumers, companies and Microsoft. They should have though things through more.
From an angry UK resident.
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.