Filed under: Microsoft, Browsers
EC gives two fingers to Microsoft's browser-free Windows 7
Hey, Microsoft! The EC heard you wanted to make a concession yesterday and were considering stripping IE8 from Windows 7 in Europe. Well, they've got two words for you: Nice try.
The Commission's press release this morning states "As for retail sales...the Commission had suggested to Microsoft that consumers be provided with a choice of web browsers. Instead Microsoft has apparently decided to supply retail consumers with a version of Windows without a web browser at all. Rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less."
Oddly, though, they also minimize the importance of the retail channel, noting that it accounts for a paltry 5% of sales.
On the OEM front, it's a another story: "As for sales to computer manufacturers, Microsoft's proposal may potentially be more positive. It is noted that computer manufacturers would appear to be able to choose to install Internet Explorer – which Microsoft will supply free of charge - another browser or multiple browsers."
Would appear to be able to choose? How would they not be able to choose which browser to load on an OS that ships browser-free? They choose to load plenty of other bloat right now, so dumping a browser or four on their PCs really shouldn't be too tough.
As for the beef with retail, Microsoft can't win that one. If they ship no browser, users have no way of downloading an alternative. If they choose to list some browsers, the companies who are passed over will cry foul - and there are a lot of people developing web browsers (see Wikipedia). The EC, of course, is pushing a 'ballot screen' though I've seen no mention of which browsers will appear on it or how they will be selected in a fair and impartial manner.
What it boils down to is that the EC wants to decide how bad a boy Microsoft has been since 1996 and what kind of penance it needs to do.
Pro tip, EC: Windows 7 is due to ship soon, and Microsoft is making an effort here (gasp!). Maybe it's time to come to a consensus already.
The Commission's press release this morning states "As for retail sales...the Commission had suggested to Microsoft that consumers be provided with a choice of web browsers. Instead Microsoft has apparently decided to supply retail consumers with a version of Windows without a web browser at all. Rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less."
Oddly, though, they also minimize the importance of the retail channel, noting that it accounts for a paltry 5% of sales.
On the OEM front, it's a another story: "As for sales to computer manufacturers, Microsoft's proposal may potentially be more positive. It is noted that computer manufacturers would appear to be able to choose to install Internet Explorer – which Microsoft will supply free of charge - another browser or multiple browsers."
Would appear to be able to choose? How would they not be able to choose which browser to load on an OS that ships browser-free? They choose to load plenty of other bloat right now, so dumping a browser or four on their PCs really shouldn't be too tough.
As for the beef with retail, Microsoft can't win that one. If they ship no browser, users have no way of downloading an alternative. If they choose to list some browsers, the companies who are passed over will cry foul - and there are a lot of people developing web browsers (see Wikipedia). The EC, of course, is pushing a 'ballot screen' though I've seen no mention of which browsers will appear on it or how they will be selected in a fair and impartial manner.
What it boils down to is that the EC wants to decide how bad a boy Microsoft has been since 1996 and what kind of penance it needs to do.
Pro tip, EC: Windows 7 is due to ship soon, and Microsoft is making an effort here (gasp!). Maybe it's time to come to a consensus already.
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
DarkeSword said 9:05AM on 6-12-2009
Whenever I read stories like this, I always get the feeling that the EU wouldn't pull this crap if Microsoft was a European country. :\
Reply
DarkeSword said 9:06AM on 6-12-2009
OOPS I MEANT EUROPEAN COMPANY
I AM A STUPID PERSON :(
DarkeSword said 9:07AM on 6-12-2009
er...I meant European company, not country.
Tim said 9:09AM on 6-12-2009
Ya think?
KarlW said 9:14AM on 6-12-2009
I posted this before the news was even announced:
"The EU hasn't been after an IE-free version of Windows per se, it's been after less proprietary integration between Windows and IE. That means either less integration, or opening the integration to 3rd parties, and making IE easier to replace (otherwise the market is warped in favour of IE)."
"Once there is a version of Windows without IE, having IE becomes a decision. That is, somebody has chosen to have IE rather than had Microsoft decide for them."
This seems to be exactly what the EU are saying. Surely that proves to the EC whiners that the EU are taking a consistent position. If I can tell you what Microsoft needs to do to get out of this mess, Microsoft surely knows.
The thing about this package is that it does not limit the proprietary integration between IE and Windows in the other packages, and as a result, doesn't un-warp the market so that competitor browsers have a fair shot. It also provides more browser choice to OEMs rather than consumers.
When Microsoft had a browser monopoly, there was no development in the browser space (remember the IE6 era?). It was only once Firefox started gaining marketshare (that is, once there was competition) that Microsoft started improving their browser. Surely everybody will support as fair a browser market as possible in order to spur technology development?
Reply
Quikboy said 11:44AM on 6-12-2009
Do you work for the European Union or EC? You seem to be taking a huge standpoint in favor of them.
"Surely everybody will support as fair a browser market as possible in order to spur technology development?"
I do, and it already is. Things have changed since then, if you haven't noticed.
IE8 is very standards compliant in most areas, IE8 can be uninstalled on Windows 7 with no consequences to users, and competition with other browsers has grown strongly since then.
If you ask me and many other people, Microsoft is complying to most of these demands the EU is pushing, but Opera's complaint is going too far.
Microsoft should be able to install IE8 on Windows 7 if they want to, without having to worry about the EU posing another asinine fine on them. It's Microsoft's products, so it should be there choice. If you ask me, Apple should be forced to do the same with Safari and OS X since they are the only legal supplier of OS X.
IE8 does NOT restrict competition, make it hard for users to get alternatives, or all this other BS. It just seems that the EU is using this anti-monopoly stance to help companies, not end users.
Lee Mathews said 11:46AM on 6-12-2009
And truthfully, the argument that the EC statement made that Microsoft's manouvers could "stifle innovation" don't hold water. Browsers have innovated more in the last year than ever before, and the web is evolving as fast as it ever was - if not faster.
Those two things will continue to occur regardless of what Microsoft does with IE.
KarlW said 1:22PM on 6-12-2009
I don't work for the EC: I support what they're doing for the reasons I give. There are reasons to support their action.
The browser market has become more competitive, and the increased frequency of IE updates is testament to the idea that competition spurs technology development. That's point one.
Point two is that Microsoft have a dominant share of the browser market as a direct result of their dominant share of the desktop OS market. These are two different markets (the EC has implicitly ruled) and should not affect each other. Competitors haven't been able to compete as effectively because, THOSE COMPETITORS ARGUE, Microsoft are changing the rules to give themselves an advantage. This means that IE is tied in to Windows by proprietary extensions, more difficult to remove, and most users/OEMs don't have a choice about which browser to ship.
Microsoft has made progress in Win7, at least making it possible to remove IE, but they could make it easier by making the un-installer more discoverable (for instance, putting it in the add/remove programs section rather than the add/remove windows components section -- putting it in the same place users go to remove 3rd party browsers), opening up any non-public extensions in IE (or removing them), and/or, if they want to go down the IE-free SKU route (which they apparently prefer), they should make sure that both users AND OEMs get a choice and that they don't use the their hold over windows pricing and availability to skew those decisions.
This is about creating a level playing field, and that's obviously the EU's goal. Looking at the decisions and thinking about them for more than 2 seconds and from more than one perspective, that is clearly what's going on. This isn't a witch-hunt: the EU have given reasons for their decisions and those reasons make sense. Microsoft are smart enough to know what they have to do to comply - IMO, they're playing dumb to see how much they can get away with.
hazard said 11:23PM on 6-12-2009
Windows will _always_ ship with IE regardless of whether C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\*.* exists or not. IE is a rendering engine that is built into the OS and cannot be removed without breaking system and third party dependancies. Try and remove ieframe.dll (Internet Explorer) and ieui.dll (Internet Explorer UI Engine) and see how far you get. Basically, IE provides an established API that any programmer can use and Microsoft cannot remove that!
FYI, you have been able to remove IE as a standalone application since Win2K using the Add/Remove Windows components section. So all this talk about it being a feature of Win7 is nonsense.
All this posturing by the EU is more about politics than equity and the only option MS has is to provide a "smoke and mirrors" solution.
shaunisadirty said 9:16AM on 6-12-2009
So how come Apple is allowed to sell their computers with Safari? Isn't it the same frickin thing? Users have a choice to use a different browser, it's up to them if they install it or not. Works the same way in OSx.
Reply
mko said 9:21AM on 6-12-2009
They usually answer that with market share. But imho you're right.
This is why I always get a custom build pc.
KarlW said 10:04AM on 6-12-2009
Apple does not have a monopoly on desktop OSes to leverage and does not use proprietary extensions to integrate Safari in to OSX.
This isn't about if dekstop OSes may ship with browsers or not, it's about monopolies and restricting competition through unfair business practices such as integrating IE with Windows more tightly than competitors are able to do.
What's your explanation then, that the EU is favouring Apple? That's absurd. They have absolutely no motive to do that, and Apple has been under similar fire from the EU for its restrictive DRM systems (since it owns a monopoly in PMPs and uses that to gain a monopoly in digital music stores).
Evenio said 9:20PM on 6-12-2009
@KarlW: Just to clarify, the browser engine behind Safari, WebKit, is indeed integrated into OS X. The developer tools even give you built-in WebKit views to display web-based content in a native application. You can remove Safari, but in all likelihood, removing WebKit altogether would have dire results for the reliability of the OS — just like in Windows, where the "front end" Internet Explorer application can be uninstalled, but even the file browser itself acts as an IE-based web browser when you type an address into the location bar, and IE's engine (Trident, is it?) is integrated into a great many aspects of Windows. Another parallel is QuickTime, which may be a mere third-party app on Windows, but forms the very core of OS X's media framework; and Windows Media Player, which...well, doesn't even exist on non-Windows platforms (duh), but I understand it's a big thing with Windows users.
Rambling aside, IE poses a trickier question than just whether to include the GUI front-end or not. While it's important to understand the history behind that conundrum (which is where most commenters here seem to fail), present-day Windows is what it is, and that's an OS of which Internet Explorer is inextricably a part, unless MS were to magically wake up one day and decide they could get away with rewriting huge portions of Windows from scratch without bringing the business world's wrath thundering down upon them.
(Oh, and for all you guys saying "how are you supposed to download a browser without a browser": yeah, it's too bad browsers are the only applications at all, ever, anywhere, that are capable of accessing files on the Internet, right? Mhm.)
Sharon said 9:37AM on 6-12-2009
Microsoft makes and offers their own products. If they comply (which they have) with the EU who allegedly have an issue with the Internet Explorer browser, by eliminating it...that should definitely solve EU's problem. Microsoft should not have to be responsible for packaging browsers that do not belong to them...that is the responsibility of the vendors who are competing for it...If the EU keeps this up, Microsoft should eliminate shipments to them period.
Reply
shaunisadirty said 9:43AM on 6-12-2009
And on the same hand Apple makes and offers their own products. Actually, in most cases, their products are the only thing that will work with their computers. Not the case with browsers, but still, by including it with the OS and not even mentioning or offering anything else, anywhere, they are in the same boat as MS. The way I see it, if MS can't package their browser with their OS, then Apple should not be allowed to package their browser with their OS, or any OS manufacturer should not be allowed to package their browser with their OS. Coming with IE installed is not preventing users from using a different browser in any way at all.
Reply
Ji said 10:16AM on 6-12-2009
I would still choose to install IE8 for one, I need a browser to get the latest daily build of Firefox, which won't be on the ballot, and IE8 still comes in handy, even though its horrible.
Reply
Molly said 11:05AM on 6-12-2009
after reading some comments, just a few thoughts:
1. Apple is small fry.
2. it doesn't make much of a difference that Microsoft is an American company, some European companies have been fined heftily in the past too. Thyssen et al for price fixing (€992m), Siemens for price fixing (€400m,) Vodafone (€76m) for privacy breeches, Volkswagen for unlawful conditions on dealerships (€102m), .to name but a few.
btw, Intel is facing the next record fine of €1006m ($1.5bn)
and as for our policy makers, here's a famous quote from a 2007 TV interview with Brigitte Zypries, Germany's minister for justice:
http://schieflage.blogspot.com/2007/06/brigitte-zypries-browser-was-sind-jetzt.html
which translates to: "what are browsers again?"
there you have it. bleedin' muppets, all of them.
Reply
T said 11:06AM on 6-12-2009
I see no problem with keeping IE on Windows as it has been. The others crying about their browsers not being included should realize that if someone doesn't take the time to search for or download another browser of their choice, they probably just don't care. All this will do is confuse and irritate people who just want to simply go to a few web pages or check email.
All this will do is confuse the older generation more than they already are when it comes to general computer use.
Then again it seems right up EU's alley to mess people over in some way or another. Computer privacy invasion comes to mind right off hand..
Reply
jhtrico1850 said 11:38AM on 6-12-2009
Morons, first they cry because Microsoft included it.
Reply
Neoprimal said 2:36PM on 6-12-2009
I haven't seen a more "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation in a while - well, that's not true....that's kind of what's happening with this whole Radio royalties thing too; play music by artist, pay royalty...don't play music by artist, be sued by artist for boycotting.
I don't understand this tight integration they speak of. If the OS can be shipped WITHOUT the damned browser, then that should suffice. That means that without IE the OS will still work perfectly...pick up your own browser...FF, Opera, etc. etc. and go your own way. I have several PCs in my household and all but 2 are defaulted to FF. Integrated or not, they've never seen IE run. IE.exe has never popped up in the processes. I believe the "integration" in mind, is for example what WMP uses to go online, get album covers and stuff....what else is MS supposed to do?! With something like a media application, how do you unhook your own browser, and why should you be forced to?
And what do you mean, Safari isn't integrated into OSX? How can you judge one type of so-called integration, albeit invisible and then completely ignore another?. I'm pretty sure that Safari code is built into Itunes along with Quicktime, and Itunes is as much a part of OSX and WMP is of Windows 7. So stick with the monopoly excuse and leave it at that.
It seems as if there's an ulterior motive on the EU's part, it's just to figure out what it is.
Reply