Microsoft Will Ship Windows 7 in Europe With IE Unbundled 578
jimmi_hendrix was one of several people to note CNET's report that 'Microsoft plans to remove Internet Explorer from the versions of Windows 7 that it ships in Europe, CNET News has learned. Reacting to antitrust concerns expressed by European regulators, Microsoft plans to offer a version in Europe that has the browser removed. Computer makers would then have the option to add the browser back in, ship another browser or ship multiple browsers, according to a confidential memo that was sent to PC makers and seen by CNET News." There's also a report at Ars Technica.
Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm jealous - we should be offered the same deal here in good old North America
HugeOrNot (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me or is this huge?
We'll finally be able to measure IE's marketshare in a non-biased market.
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what a governing body demanded. It doesn't have to make sense.
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm confused. So if I get a copy of Windows in Europe and do a full reinstall, how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?
FTP?
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:2, Insightful)
duh... you didn't have the foresight to stick a copy onto your pen drive? Than I don't think you have the competency to re-install an operating system.
Re:HugeOrNot (Score:5, Insightful)
We'll finally be able to measure IE's marketshare in a non-biased market.
Not really. Many years of a broken market have created a huge number of Websites and Web applications broken to only work properly with IE. Unless this is remedied, we'll only have a slightly less broken market. Additionally, this applies only to the EU, so any company doing business anyplace outside the EU or Web developers wanting to target customers outside the EU will still be subject to artificial market incentives caused by MS's bundling elsewhere.
This will be hell (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to guess that this statement applies to most of the people on slashdot.
"I provide tech support to my friends and family."
Doesn't it chill your blood to imagine that you could very suddenly be in a situation where every single person you know who gets a new computer is going to need you to set it up? They will be totally and completely helpless without Internet explorer, they won't be able to burn it to a CD or put it on a flash drive without your detailed instructions.
And then it won't work. And it won't be what they're used to be because FireFox/chrome/IE 8 isn't IE 6. And then you'll have to come over again to explain that the download manager isn't stealing their awful FWD: jokes.
This isn't progress, this is a punishment to each and every one of us.
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm confused. So if I get a copy of Windows in Europe and do a full reinstall, how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?
And thus Microsoft proves it's point to the EU.
Mac ships with Safari and Ubuntu ships with FF (Score:1, Insightful)
Make them stop that practice too.
I'm no fanboy of any software, but if Mac and Ubuntu (or any other distro) can ship with a browser of their choice, Microsoft should be able to ship with a browser of their choice.
They should, however, make it possible to uninstall their browser or have the option to not install it during OS install. Then the computer manufacturer can configure the PC as they see fit.
Re:HugeOrNot (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, so MS lied then (Score:1, Insightful)
Wasn't one of the core arguments that Microsoft made during the US Antitrust trial was that IE could NOT be separated from Windows without fundamentally breaking the OS?
Sooooo...guess, uh, they lied.
Re:Great opportunities (Score:4, Insightful)
Next Step: No Safari in Snow Leopard??? (Score:1, Insightful)
I realize we are supposed to hate MS here, and at the same time ooh and aah over everything Apple does... but how is Apple's bundle of OSX and Safari not different than Microsoft's bundle of Windows/IE?
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:3, Insightful)
God help the internet helpdesk people who have to walk 67-year old customers through command line FTP in Windows 7 to get their sparkly new computer online, and the retail people who get yelled at because the computers they sold "don't work", etc.
Re:i still dont see the logic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:HugeOrNot (Score:5, Insightful)
We'll finally be able to measure IE's marketshare in a non-biased market.
Now browser market share in Europe will be determined by what kickbacks and/or threats the computer makers receive from the companies behind the major browsers.
Is that what you meant by non-biased?
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm confused. So if I get a copy of Windows in Europe and do a full reinstall, how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?
Well if you're compentent enough to do a full re-install surely you're competent enough to make a copy of Firefox on CD/DVD/flash drive before you do it?
Re:Oh, so MS lied then (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, so MS lied then (Score:2, Insightful)
How many versions of Windows have been released since then?
This isn't 1998 anymore..
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Total protectionism by the EU (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even in the US....
That's very true. Our agricultural protectionism is something my right wing friends tend to overlook as they ballyhoo free trade.
Microsoft is NOT removing IE (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft is not removing anything, they are hiding one of the shell applications around the HTML control. All the same dangerous and insecure code will still be there, as part of Windows Explorer and Control Panel and Windows Media Player and Windows Update. Stil rendering websites for you, still displaying untrusted content.
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's assuming the PC manufacturer doesn't include a CD with the browser on it.
Re:Downloadability (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it is going a step-to-far to force MS to not include a browser as a part of it's OS offering given almost all their competitors do.
Do you think it is going to far to stop James Wenneker von Brunn from shooting guns at people given that the US Olympic shooting team fires guns all the time? Maybe your first step should be understanding what law it was MS has violated and why that law exists. There's no law that says you can't bundle an OS and a browser. There's a law that says you can't undermine the free market by leveraging monopoly influence on another market.
No matter how much you love FF or hate all things Microsoft it seems extremely unreasonable.
It only seems unreasonable if you're ignorant of what antitrust law is all about. Is it too much to ask that you educate yourself before burdening us with your opinions?
It also sets a bad precident[sic]...
Okay, assuming for the sake of argument antitrust law is all wrong and fundamentally flawed, you think it sets a bad precedent to enforce the law instead of letting MS get away with breaking it while enforcing it against everyone else? How does this make sense? Even if the laws were completely wrong, MS as a corporation should obey them while trying to get them changed, just like everyone else.
now someone can complain and get other builtin software removed because of the competition issue... think WinZIP, WS_FTP, util you've stripped down the OS (Windows or otherwise) that does next to nothing out of the box and won't lower Windows' cost.
Yes, they could get some other software removed, but we have only your assertion it won't lower costs. As for doing nothing out of the box, it does nothing out of the box now because MS doesn't bundle it with a CPU and hard drive and display. That's why we have OEMs, to assemble components into sellable products.
...and if Linux ever does get a foothold, regulators could start demanding what packages end up in the "default" install rather than the market, which really sucks.
Again, this shows your complete failure to understand antitrust law. Please, find out what the laws say before making absurd assertions like this.
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I recall correctly, the API:s that expose browser components (e.g. to Windows Help) were designed with the intention of making rendering engines pluggable. Thus, Windows Help could at some point in the future use Mozilla to render if Mozilla wrote a bit of code and Microsoft finishes this API.
The API to host IE is COM-based, so it consists of a bunch of interfaces [microsoft.com], all of which are documented. Technically, anyone can reimplement those interfaces to the spec, replace IE's CLSID [microsoft.com] in the registry with its own, and everything on the system will start using the new code. We do actually have the first part of it done already [www.iol.ie], though the coverage is not 100%.
The tricky part is that most applications that host IE also assume IE-specific behavior when rendering pages, running scripts, ability to host ActiveX controls inside, and so on. That's what's hard to duplicate.
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:3, Insightful)
how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?
The same way we did back in the days before bundling; from third party media. Remember when every magazine cover CD and ISP setup CD came with a copy of netscape and IE installers? Or if you're just reinstalling from your custom OEM media/restore partition, you'll get their setup, including browser.
Of course, it's not like they're actually *removing* IE; they're just flipping the switch in the registry that says to hide the shortcut. Go into control panel and re-enable it, and there it is again.
I have to admit, it'd be a stroke of genius by microsoft; they can tell the monpolies regulator that IE is off by default, and that it's just coincidence that all OEMs* choose to turn it back on as part of their sysprep image cos it's a lot simpler than explaining to users what opera or firefox are. So nothing changes in the end at all, but it gets Microsoft nicely off the hook of having to actually compete on a level playing field.
And since no doubt somebody in this thread is getting upmodded for muttering the words 'free market' and it's 'just anti-US bias against microsoft' and 'everyone needs a browser, like KDE or apple supply' I'll take the opportunity to explain - again - why this matters.
Yes, every user needs a browser, so isn't it convenient if nearly every computer in the world shipped with IE, then third parties don't need to support the standards, they just need to support IE. They write to some extension specific to IE - like say activeX - and that's the same as supporting everyone by an open standard, and it's easier to just write to one specific browser than test it in a bunch of them. Eventually, when so many websites are written this way, it becomes nigh impossible to use the web without using IE - and then microsoft have a new defacto monopoly with IE, because everyone writes to it because everyone uses it. That makes it extremely hard for any browser, or any OS that doesn't ship with IE to compete - because they don't work on the web without IE. So Mirosoft have leveraged a monpoly in one market, windows, into a monopoly in another market, the web, and that just reinforces their original monopoly and makes windows even harder to compete with. We've seen this in actually happen Korea for example, where virtually all banking websites use activex, making IE - and thus windows - a near mandatory requirement.
The way to break that cycle is to ensure that third party developers can't take the shortcut of assuming that because 95% of users are windows users, that 95% of people will have IE, by taking IE off the desktop by default, and giving the alternatives an equal platform. The only reason firefox has the market share it does is because IE won, and was left to rot for so very long indeed that users and developers switched to a project with a pulse.to get new features. The only reason we have IE8 at all is because of firefox forcing microsoft to have to compete again.
Without competition, there is no choice in the market, and with no choice in the market consumers lose their own weapon to force improvements of service - to switch to somebody else. When existing monopolies step into new markets, and compete purely on their existing domination rather than any merit, governments are duty bound to protect the long term interests of the public be ensuring competition is kept fair, even if letting the monopoly do what it wants is easier in the short term.
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:5, Insightful)
My question is if they are removing the blue E icon or actually removing the rendering engine? My guess is the former. The way things stand, I imagine many apps would be impossible to run without the rendering engine. A simple test would be to open a file browser and then type in a URL to see if an internet web page can be shown. If it's there, you will see it that way.
Who cares if the rendering engine is still there? The *browser*, the thing that Microsoft uses to leverage one illegal monopoly into another, is gone, and that's what counts. The rendering engine can sit amidst the countless gigabytes of crap that is already there, and serve local help pages, steam, and other crap, and it really doesn't matter at all.
Arguably this fight is over anyway. Microsoft has already lost the leveraging power it had in that space.
Re:I don't understand you guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean I really don't understand you...
Yup, that's pretty obvious.
Why is this a good thing?
It helps to restore the free market so we can have innovation in Web technologies.
The fact that you need a browser in order to get a browser (no, a bundled wget would certainly not do for Windows users), for me means that the browser should be part of the operating system... However isn't the fact that you REALLY need to bundle a browser an indication that it should be part of the OS?
You really need a display to get a browser too, should it be bundled with the OS? You really need a CPU to use an OS, should it be bundled with the OS? If Microsoft were to come out with their own brand of CPU tomorrow and required all PC makers to buy a bundle of Windows with their CPU, instead of just Windows would you support that? After all, a OS won't work without a CPU. And PC makers can always throw away the MS brand CPU and buy one from Intel or AMD right? And if you wanted to run Windows on a PC you were building you could just throw away the CPU too right? And just because MS pays to create that CPU and deliver it does not mean the price of Windows was raised to include it, does it? After all, it comes "free" with the OS.
Perhaps we should have Apple remove Safari next. The DO have a monopoly on pretentious/cool-wannabe devices, don't they? ;)
They don't have a monopoly on desktop OS's or on Web browsers, so it does not undermine the market. MS does have an effective monopoly on desktop OS's so anything they bundle with it does undermine the free market.
Re:Streisand Effect for Opera (Score:3, Insightful)
Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh.
Re:Only Half the Story (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be hard for the EU to make a case that Microsoft's proposed remedy doesn't address the complaint. After all, if they're no longer bundling the browser with the OS, it can't be considered "illegal tying of a different product to a monopoly." It shifts that part of the regulatory burden onto the OEMs, who aren't nearly the kind of deep-pockets attractive target for a fine that Microsoft is.
It's not hard to see why MS would prefer to ship "no browser" than a competitor's browser.
Re:Only Half the Story (Score:1, Insightful)
It would be hard for the EU to make a case that Microsoft's proposed remedy doesn't address the complaint. After all, if they're no longer bundling the browser with the OS, it can't be considered "illegal tying of a different product to a monopoly."
If you stop extorting money from the guy down the street it's hard to argue your stopping didn't address the complaint. That doesn't mean they don't toss your butt in jail for a few years then garnish your wages until the money is repaid. MS committed a criminal offense. Stopping committing that offense doesn't get you off the hook, especially when there are still damages to others that have not been remedied.
It shifts that part of the regulatory burden onto the OEMs, who aren't nearly the kind of deep-pockets attractive target for a fine that Microsoft is.
OEMs can do whatever they want because none of them has monopoly influence to abuse. It doesn't matter how much money they have since they are incapable of committing this crime if they wanted to (well unless they band together and form a trust).
t's not hard to see why MS would prefer to ship "no browser" than a competitor's browser.
True. It remains to be seen if the EU will let it go at that and a fine or if they'll continue to push for a more significant remedy that will do more to reverse the damage to the market. MS is a repeat offender here and as of yesterday the EU was in talks with PC makers about a different remedy.
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:2, Insightful)
(Irony is not hot anymore)
I think it sucks that they won't package IE, and the EU needs to stop meddling with these things. If they want to support open source software by doing something useful or donating money, that would be great, but to cripple a OS over it is weak. What if they forced everyone to include every alternative software bundled with the product, and what decides which alternative programs will get the special treatment?
Sure, it would be cool to have a Windows install DVD with a special installer that lets you choose exactly what browser, media player, IM etc you want. Perhaps get the latest install files from the internet automatically. But it seems more like something for The Pirate Bay. :)
Re:This will be hell (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeh yeh because an OEM is going to provide a PC without a web browser. God dammit why does this ludicrously moronic argument come up time and again. I pity the people who rely on you for tech support.
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:3, Insightful)
While I think the OEMs will handle the majority of this set up for you. For the retail stores, I suspect there will be a stack of free or nearly free Windows IE8 CDs next to the boxes of Windows 7.
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft did not allow any *other* browser to be installed in OEM copies.
I think it is Microsoft shenanigans that got it changed to "remove IE". What should be allowed is that an OEM can sell the system preset to use a different browser by default, and remove the 'e' from the desktop and menus. It should not really matter if IE is there.
Re:i still dont see the logic (Score:3, Insightful)
But back to anti-trust law and Microsoft browsers. The market has pressured Microsoft to incorporate better standards compliance into their browser. That's the end goal, right? To make sure that the monopolist supports what the people say that they want.
The point of antitrust law is to ensure every player in continually pressured by the market to make the best product. Right now MS is feeling pressure to make the worst browser slightly less terrible, but still not as good or better than every other browser out there. Therein lies the problem. Unless the laws are enforced, there is no reason to expect the type of rapid innovation and improvement we see in other markets because the financial incentive is not there. We're a decade behind where we should be already. We need to make sure MS is subject to the same pressures as everyone else. That means when they have absolutely the worst product on the market they don't have 60-70% market share, like they do now. The only think keeping IE in the game is bundling. We don't want that changed because we want IE to fail, but because we want IE to be a decent browser.
Just because MS has monopolized the desktop OS market that doesn't mean they should be given a free pass to push crap on us in other markets. Every time in history that has happened we see innovation in that second market slow to a crawl. That's one of the big reasons we passed those laws. MS is breaking those laws.
You write, "I'm all for anti-trust law." Okay, but you don't think it should be enforced in this instance for some reason? Why? What they're doing is illegal. Are you proposing we change the laws and if so, what changes do you propose that would make what MS is doing legal, but not make antitrust law ineffective?
So the batteground will evolve, and it will come down to what vendor gives the developers the tools that they need to construct the applications that do what the users want to do.
But the battleground hasn't been evolving. We're still trying to present Web pages using half implemented decade old standards because we haven't been able to move forward with anything new because MS uses their illegally gained dominance in the Web browser market to stop it. Further, other companies have no financial incentive to move forward either, since they know IE won;t implement anything new so Web developers won't target anything new they create.
IE 7 and 8 are far too little far too late and offer no promises for the future. Putting MS in the same position as everyone else, where if their browser sucks they rapidly lose market share, does offer that guarantee. That's a big part of the reason we have such a strong capitalist component to our economy. Rather than trust MS will keep improving, what's you objection to giving them direct financial incentive to keep improving at the same time as enforcing our current laws and giving every other browser developer a fair shake?
Re:Total protectionism by the EU (Score:2, Insightful)
It's just excuses. If Microsoft were a European company, there would be no fine. Of that, there is no doubt. You guys just want European PC makers that are selling Windows to bundle them with European browsers. It's just protectionism to benefit Opera.
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
If my readings on Neowin are anything, I think it's a bit simpler than that:
* People either don't KNOW about Microsoft's history with the law, or
* People don't care, or don't see it as being particularly important
The first is simple ignorance. Keep in mind a lot of younger folk won't remember or will have heard about past issues with MS. Furthermore, Slashdot seems to be the only site that has a fixation about Microsoft's anti-trust issues, and since we keep going on about it in comments, people from the outside see us as IRRATIONAL Microsoft haters instead of wondering WHY.
The second is simple - unless it affects them, people don't care about what Microsoft does. The EU are seen as money-grabbing corrupt bastards, and everyone's trying to get a piece of the Microsoft pie. Poor Microsoft.
So don't act surprised.
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't it just make more sense to leave IE in, and let people use whatever browser they want?
Not if you understand why antitrust abuse is illegal. If you don't understand, find out. I'm tired of explaining it.
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it sucks that they won't package IE
Your opinion is noted.
and the EU needs to stop meddling with these things.
No they don't. The US needs to start enforcing their laws so businesses don't go to the EU to get the same laws actually enforced.
If they want to support open source software by doing something ...
They don't this has nothing to do with OSS.
...but to cripple a OS over it is weak.
Is Windows crippled because MS doesn't get to pick which CPU it is run on or which video card it is run on? Why would it be crippled if OEMs pick the browser it runs with?
What if they forced everyone to include every alternative software bundled with the product, and what decides which alternative programs will get the special treatment?
What if? What if they stab all blonde people or make fire illegal? Do you even know what this article is about?
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's still sitting there making Windows less secure, because you'll still be able to embed it as a component and feed it data
Well, it's up to developers to do or not do that, isn't it? And you as a user to affect their choice by those means you have available (namely, your wallet). With QtWebKit available, you may be able to make a strong case.
And EU actions weren't about security anyway, they were about monopoly abuse.
Re:How many idiots are there here on Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
For that matter, OEMs themselves were free to take the hassle/cost of installing a different browser if they so desired.
You blew it there. That is a LIE.
I've seen people argue both for and against it several times on /. - i.e., that OEMs are strong-armed into leaving IE in place (some even say that agreements they sign legally require that, some say it's just behind-the-scene), or that OEMs are free to do whatever they want. However, neither side has so far produced any references backing up their claims. I would be curious to see either.
Note however that I'm talking about the present-day situation, not what was going on 10 years ago...
Re: Microsoft are dealing with the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
looks like Microsoft are dealing with the problem
With all due respect, I disagree. This is window(s) dressing, and I think MS knows this. They still appear to think that trying to game the EU Commission will work like it has with the US DoJ (which, as a result, has lost a HUGE amount of credibility), and I think (and hope) they're in for a very rude awakening.
MS appears to forget that it's now under extreme scrutiny because the EU Commission fines to change behaviour, not posturing. The Commission hasn't exactly reached the end of what it can do with MS if it doesn't play ball properly. MS is playing a very dangerous and irresponsible game, and if the EU decides to call hem on it it will *really* hurt.
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is trivial for MS or an OEM to create a BAT file that will run ftp / wget / etc to fetch an installer from a well known URL. Do this for each browser and create a simple GUI with simple controls to allow the user to select a browser. Then the user just points the mousey thing at the buttoney thing on the screeney thing and does a clicky thing.