Windows 7 to ship without IE in the EU (+ HR, CH)
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
I doubt there will be much problems. IE8 will only be not included in the retail version. It will still be included in OEM versions and since 90+% of the people who buy a new pc buy a OEM they wont have a problem. People who buy a retail version atleast have some clue about what they are doing so I doubt that if somebody who manages to install windows isnt capable of downloading browserX.exe and put it on a flash drive before installing his new OS.
Well I disagree that they would be funding other products, but they would do well to try and be in compliance with antitrust law, for one thing, and to generate goodwill for another. I mean, they've already been convicted of monopoly abuse, and right now they're still quite clearly using Windows revenue to fund software that leverages their client OS marketshare to get ahead in other areas (notably, web and video content delivery, as well as server marketshare). It would make real sense for them to comply with the wishes of regulators, as opposed to the childish behaviour they're showing right now.
I lol'd.
But it doesn't. Who gets screwed here? The poor consumer (the same person the EU is supposedly trying to protect) who's upgrading from Vista to 7 and having his browser suddenly disappear (from an upgrade!).
If Vista without IE will be cheaper than the other versions, as of course it should be, then this isn't a bad thing at all. But if it's not then yeah I guess you could say this decision by Microsoft is really screwing the poor consumers.
But it's not! Windows 7 in the EU is going to be the same price as it always was going to be just sans IE.
Err what? Microsoft is being forced to do this. It's not by choice.
That makes no sense. European consumers shouldn't have to pay for the work on Microsoft's browser and media player if they just want Windows.
Of course it is. A selection box where you can choose a browser and media player during Windows installation would fix it nicely as well. It's Microsoft's own decision that they'd rather drop their toys and stop playing.
They already discounted the price of those items from the OS. MS doesn't charge for the browser or the media player. Put mathematically: $X - $0 = $X.
As for the selection box, which browsers and media players should be included? Which versions? Who makes the decision what to include and what to exclude? How often do the bundled browsers and media players have to be updated? Is MS responsible for updating them upon selection to install?
MS is responding in the only way that makes it abundantly clear how infantile the EU and Opera is behaving.
As for the selection box, which browsers and media players should be included? Which versions? Who makes the decision what to include and what to exclude? How often do the bundled browsers and media players have to be updated? Is MS responsible for updating them upon selection to install?
MS is responding in the only way that makes it abundantly clear how infantile the EU and Opera is behaving.
That browser and media player don't just come out of thin air. Those are programmer man hours subsidised by their succesful franchises, notably Windows. Windows without IE and Media Player should cost X less, with X probably being somewhere in the range of EUR 30-50.
Not at all, an Internet link to Firefox, Chrome and Opera will do just fine for starters, and those organisations can put w/e download they feel is currently best there.
And in the next version or service pack the installer can be updated with other alternative browsers or media players that may have arrived.
MS is behaving like a spoilt kid, and should probably tone down more than a little. The antitrust measures so far have only been a harmless slap on the wrist, but if this insistant anticompetitive behaviour continues then the EU might be forced to consider a more appropriate reaction.
MS is just using their monopoly power on the EU. MS can removed features and sell Windows for whatever they like. It's not like we have a good alternate.
Those companies that complaint about MS bundling stuff, perhaps they should make their own OS and bundled their product with it. We sure are in dire need of competition in that department.
Those companies that complaint about MS bundling stuff, perhaps they should make their own OS and bundled their product with it. We sure are in dire need of competition in that department.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
And then what's next?
MS will then be required to include competing disk management software. Or pay the EU money.
MS will have to include competing firewall software. Or pay the EU.
MS will have to include rival music players. Or pay the EU.
MS will have to include rival free document editing software. Or pay the EU.
MS will have to include rival remote desktop software. Or pay the EU.
The list just never ends. And as has been stated multiple times, who chooses which browsers MS must include.
And then, who's going to take the rap if one of the non-MS applications has a secrutiy hole but MS was forced to include it anyway? Or causes system instability? Or does something else nasty.
Well, obviously the EU would make MS pay. Or they could pay the EU if they don't.
As far as I can see it's a no-win situation for MS. All the while no unnecessary burden will be placed upon their competition.
Who cares if you are incompetant and can't make a competing product that consumers find attractive? Just cry to the EU that "it's not fair."
MS has been bending over backwards and making great strides to not only make sure the competition has as easy a time as possible integrating with Windows, but also working to be more standards compliant, even though they held the defacto standard just due to sheer mass.
And yes, to a reply to me waaaaay back. I realize that Netscape failed long before Netscape 4.0 I lived through the travesty that was Netscape 3.x also. Although at the time I drank the Netscape cool-aid and continued to believe they were the better option than the evil Microsoft. Netscape killed themselves plain and simple... I am quite happy that Mozilla Corp. rose out of the ashes with a more focused vision and desire to actually make a solid browser and then improve upon it.
And what do you know, when you actually make a product that people want, they WILL move to it.
I'll give 10-1 odds that even if Opera gets it's way, it won't see any significant rise in marketshare.
And Apple will absolutely love the move as any instability due to a forced install of 3rd party applications not under the control of MS will immediately be attributed to Windows being a buggy OS.
Regards,
SB
MS will then be required to include competing disk management software. Or pay the EU money.
MS will have to include competing firewall software. Or pay the EU.
MS will have to include rival music players. Or pay the EU.
MS will have to include rival free document editing software. Or pay the EU.
MS will have to include rival remote desktop software. Or pay the EU.
The list just never ends. And as has been stated multiple times, who chooses which browsers MS must include.
And then, who's going to take the rap if one of the non-MS applications has a secrutiy hole but MS was forced to include it anyway? Or causes system instability? Or does something else nasty.
Well, obviously the EU would make MS pay. Or they could pay the EU if they don't.
As far as I can see it's a no-win situation for MS. All the while no unnecessary burden will be placed upon their competition.
Who cares if you are incompetant and can't make a competing product that consumers find attractive? Just cry to the EU that "it's not fair."
MS has been bending over backwards and making great strides to not only make sure the competition has as easy a time as possible integrating with Windows, but also working to be more standards compliant, even though they held the defacto standard just due to sheer mass.
And yes, to a reply to me waaaaay back. I realize that Netscape failed long before Netscape 4.0 I lived through the travesty that was Netscape 3.x also. Although at the time I drank the Netscape cool-aid and continued to believe they were the better option than the evil Microsoft. Netscape killed themselves plain and simple... I am quite happy that Mozilla Corp. rose out of the ashes with a more focused vision and desire to actually make a solid browser and then improve upon it.
And what do you know, when you actually make a product that people want, they WILL move to it.
I'll give 10-1 odds that even if Opera gets it's way, it won't see any significant rise in marketshare.
And Apple will absolutely love the move as any instability due to a forced install of 3rd party applications not under the control of MS will immediately be attributed to Windows being a buggy OS.
Regards,
SB
Last edited by a moderator:
It most certainly does for FireFox and Media Player Classic Home Cinema Edition and VLC. They're free to the consumer.
And exactly which browser will be opening this link up to display to the user?
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
But the EU isn't asking MS to do this. MS is doing this by themselves to try and make political points before the Win 7 release: "See, if you try to restrict our monopoly position, then the consumer gets hurt" ie "it's not our fault we're shooting the customer in the foot, you're making us pull the trigger".
MS would rather not ship a browser at all than have to give other companies equal chances of being chosen by the consumer as the default browser ie "we'll take our ball and go home".
Free is sadly the only way to survive after Microsoft assumed the browser and media player concept into the larger Windows fold.
And exactly which browser will be opening this link up to display to the user?
Why does it have to be inside of a browser?
Huh? Mosaic was free (you do remember Mosaic, don't you?!). Mosaic begat Netscape and IE. The concept of a free web browser wasn't Microsofts invention.
True, it is by now a list well on the way to approaching infinity.
Your examples merely lightly touch on the group of areas where Microsoft has eroded the software landscape and brought some strong product down over time, by including some almost good enough version for 'free' into the Windows bundle.
Almost any party other than the one who was already convicted and yet keeps engaging in the very same practices aimed at leveraging their existing monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in establishing a presence in other markets sounds like an improvement.
I'll go with some EU clerk deciding instead of Microsoft deciding by default as usual.
MS takes rap for security issues of other people's products? How is that?
Well, no. Cause, see, the competition is not the one engaged in illegal practices. Obviously.
.. and are forced to either give away that product for free or turn it into some annoying adware-vehicle. Because your competitor is 'free'. Who cares indeed?
I find the statement that MS is bending over in any particular direction downright laughable. This latest insult of European customers by these divas highlights that rather nicely.
Sure do, Mosaic came out of the coffers of academia. And as it turns out, their commercial offspring Netscape wasn't to be allowed to exist for long enough to ever make a business model work.
Not only could they not capitalise on their short lived control of the browser itself, but were also actively engaged on the fronts of web serving, directory servers, search, advertising and a host of other budding developments. Who can compete with the kind of resources that MS will bring to bear on an unruly upstart?
Really, I think I will complain to the EC that a clock should not be included in any OS because I've got this killer app that tells time that I'm sure people would find indispensable and pay for if it wasn't included in the OS.
I guess the EC is going to have to ban the distribution of all open source operating systems, since they are obviously impeding developers' abilities to sell a product for profit. Ubuntu does email, text, spreadsheets, web browsing, media playing, and it tells time all for FREE! Clearly, it is much more evil and anti-competitive than Windows. I hope the EC starts regulating Canonical, Red Hat, and Novell ASAP. Since offering a web browser for free is so terrible, I can't even fathom an entire OS.
I guess I will have to buy a Mac, so I don't get anything bundled in my OS. I wonder what has a higher % marketshare vs the OS default, third party browsers on PC or on Mac?
This should go over well:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8095932.stm
I can see it now: "Securing your OS is anti-competitive!"
I guess the EC is going to have to ban the distribution of all open source operating systems, since they are obviously impeding developers' abilities to sell a product for profit. Ubuntu does email, text, spreadsheets, web browsing, media playing, and it tells time all for FREE! Clearly, it is much more evil and anti-competitive than Windows. I hope the EC starts regulating Canonical, Red Hat, and Novell ASAP. Since offering a web browser for free is so terrible, I can't even fathom an entire OS.
I guess I will have to buy a Mac, so I don't get anything bundled in my OS. I wonder what has a higher % marketshare vs the OS default, third party browsers on PC or on Mac?
This should go over well:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8095932.stm
I can see it now: "Securing your OS is anti-competitive!"
Last edited by a moderator:
<modedit>Sadly your guess is both colourful and not in any way aggreable with me.<modedit> The EC is not going to object in the slightest to any open source operating system doing anything in particular, because there are no open source operating systems that have significant market share to abuse in any area.
Last edited by a moderator:
No. Instead the EU is trying to extract funds by not providing any sort of suitable solution so they will be able to levy massive fines against MS after Win7 ships.
I do not see Apple or any of the other Linux distros being forced to provide every single browser and media player on their releases. If it's being forced on MS, it should be forced on every single player in the field. That's the only way to keep the field level.
The way I view it, everyone is providing a different set of basic tools required to function. The consumer is able to install their own set of tools without adverse side-effects. That doesn't sound anti-competitive to me.