Windows 7 to ship without IE in the EU (+ HR, CH)

[BRiT]

Why does it have to be inside of a browser?

What else would display Internet links and content? So you're forcing MS to include the engine of a browser but just not the front end to it?

As for being free, the media players I've used in the past have always been free from the start -- WinAmp, VLC, foobar. The only item that ever had to be paid for were silly DVD players and those are for the license fee for dvds. For all the other media type, the free players have always worked fine.

 

[Florin]

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.

It isn't about extracting funds. If that were the case, the fines would be serious and not the likes of 500 million Euros, which is a glorified business lunch expense to both the EU and Microsoft.

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.

What do you mean 'keep'? The playing field is not level.

Why on earth should Apple 'or any of the other Linux distros' (sic) be forced to do anything when they have not done anything wrong to beging with. Unlike Microsoft?

 

[Florin]

What else would display Internet links and content? So you're forcing MS to include the engine of a browser but just not the front end to it?

What engine of a browser? It needs to open a tcp socket and transfer some bytes.

That does not require the installation of a program which has its default home page set to MSN, its default search page to MSN Search or Windows Live or Bing or one of the various failed search engines which would've died a long time ago if this were not Microsoft, which has 'accelerators' for Live Blogging and Live email and 'PlaysForSure' media or w/e it is called these day, and all the other lock-in attempts that are in that product.

As for being free, the media players I've used in the past have always been free from the start -- WinAmp, VLC, foobar. The only item that ever had to be paid for were silly DVD players and those are for the license fee for dvds. For all the other media type, the free players have always worked fine.

Well, they've had to be. Who would even try a product, let alone buy the Pro versions, if every website hosts WMV files for Media Player anyway. As for those silly DVD players, they do cost a little more than just the 'license fee for dvds'. But yeah there's another fine example of a category of software which will soon be killed.

 

[BRiT]

My opinion is anything you force one player to do 'for the good of the market' should be done by the other players. It's for the good of the market, right? If it is, then why not everyone? If it's not for the good of the market, then don't do it in the first place.

As for the premise of doing something wrong, when was the last time MS did something wrong? Years ago. Why are they continually being punished for it? When does that punishment end?

 

[BRiT]

Well, they've had to be. Who would even try a product, let alone buy the Pro versions, if every website hosts WMV files for Media Player anyway.

Hogwash. The media players I've used were always free, and this is before the era of even Windows 95. Yes, I've been around long enough to see the entire soap opera start. The tools which everyone takes for granted today were always free before MS even stepped into that realm. Maybe my perspective is skewed since I always used a *nix terminal and open source products or freeware products except for the actual MS-OS to bootstrap the games. Maybe things look different from the uninformed consumers' perspective.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

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.

With MS having the overwhelming monopoly, of course they would be treated differently. You can't really compare free linux distros with single digit market shares (or less) with a large company with a massive monopoly that has engaged in anti-competitive practices in the past.

You don't see Red Hat or Ubuntu "embracing and extending" in order to lock out other products from the market.

 

[Florin]

My opinion is anything you force one player to do 'for the good of the market' should be done by the other players. It's for the good of the market, right? If it is, then why not everyone? If it's not for the good of the market, then don't do it in the first place.

Actually, it's for the good of the market to have competition. You know, free markets driving cost down and improving products and all that.

The current situation is sick and needs to be rectified. Microsoft may well continue their dominance in client OSs. They will undoubtedly be the corporate standard in Office productivity tools for years to come.

That does *not* mean they should be able to freely extend that lead into content delivery, media hardware, game consoles, mobile devices, search services, server appliances, by leveraging their current lead.

As for the premise of doing something wrong, when was the last time MS did something wrong? Years ago. Why are they continually being punished for it? When does that punishment end?

The browser and all the automatic eyeball/mindshare benefits that come with that, which they fully exploit, is just one thing. To name just a few examples, going after the hypervisor market ('free' with Windows server 2008) is another. Media services between PC and Xbox 360 is another problematic issue. Outlook and Exchange lock-in is just wrong. Active Directory integration to the specific detriment of open LDAP standard based solutions is wrong. Sharepoint is a product that should not exist.

Basically, Microsoft has noone to blame but itself for the situation it is in.

 

[nutball]

Sure do, Mosaic came out of the coffers of academia.

Indeed, and it was

a) revolutionary
b) crap

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.

Right. Netscapes business model was obviously stupid, even at the time - they were "competing with free", and the free was the free that the individuals involved created themselves.

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?

Well, MS existed before Google. Google now seem to be doing pretty well against MS in the search, advertising and "host of other budding developments". AFAIK they have also been putting cash into competitive non-MS projects for some of the other stuff you're mentioning (eg. web browsers).

So tell me, what's the difference between Netscape and Google?

 

[Florin]

Well, MS existed before Google. Google now seem to be doing pretty well against MS in the search, advertising and "host of other budding developments". AFAIK they have also been putting cash into competitive non-MS projects for some of the other stuff you're mentioning (eg. web browsers).

So tell me, what's the difference between Netscape and Google?

Google is the exception that proves the rule, but not for lack of trying by Microsoft.

Microsoft is terrified of Google because it is an emerging giant, even though they're not quite obviously in the same markets at all. That alone should make anyone think.

 

[BRiT]

What engine of a browser? It needs to open a tcp socket and transfer some bytes.

Then the EU or Opera will start a new lawsuit saying their page to select their product and list their pros / marketing material doesn't look appealing since they can only display raw text. Yes, it sounds insane, but I'm sure that would happen.

Or are you proposing a simple ballot app that only displays the raw choices and nothing else? That sounds awfully confusing to the normal consumer. I can already see it now, relatives/friends/family calling up their techie asking which one to select, or they merely select the first one on the list.

Their selection menu would simply be the following with no additional information at all:

• "Internet Explorer",
• "FireFox",
• "Chrome",
• "Safari",
• "Opera",
• "Netscape Navigator",
• "SeaMonkey",
• "K-Meleon",
• "Amaya",
• "Maxathon Browser",
• "Flock",
• "Slim Browser",
• "KidRocket",
• "PhaseOut web browser",
• "Crazy Browser",
• "Smart Bro",
• "ShenzBrowser",
• "JonDoFox",
• "Avant Browser",
• "xB Browser",
• "Sleipnir",
• "Space Time",
• "Browser 3D",
• "3B Room",
• "Bitty Browser",
• "Grail",
• "Lynx",
• "Happy Browser".

List of browsers for windows taken from google - http://www.webdevelopersnotes.com/design/browsers_for_windows.php3

 

[nutball]

Google is the exception that proves the rule, but not for lack of trying by Microsoft.

Err... what? I'm not really talking about 2005 here. By 2005 MS had already lost.

Microsoft is terrified of Google because it is an emerging giant, even though they're not quite obviously in the same markets at all. That alone should make anyone think.

It makes me think that you're avoiding the question, or don't understand the issue. In the area we're talking about here Google is not an emerging giant, it owns the market-place and MS is a minnow playing catch-up.

Google was a start-up during the era that MS had their eye on-the-ball wrt the WWW. Back then MS wanted to do search, advertising, portals, all that stuff, and they lost pretty much all of it to Google. Because, why?

I'll tell you - because Google did it better than MS, and it was free (and more or less still is). Netscape wasn't better than IE by the same margin that Google was better than Altavista and MS-blah-Search whatever it was called at the time.

Anybody trying to make a business out of selling web browsers is an idiot. The internet isn't about what web browser you've got, it's about content, how you find that content, and how much money the provider of the search engine you use to find that content can make out of your searches. The world has moved on.

 

[Florin]

It makes me think that you're avoiding the question, or don't understand the issue. In the area we're talking about here Google is not an emerging giant, it owns the market-place and MS is a minnow playing catch-up.

It is right now, yes. But somehow MS can not accept that, and they're using all the tricks they can to go after that market as well. Did you know that Bing jumped up to the number 2 search engine recently? And that's solely because it is the default engine in Internet Explorer 8, and as soon as that was rolled out, that's where the eyeballs went.

For now, it's small stakes. But then, who woulda thought that Microsoft would take over the console market? Or become the dominant mobile phone OS? Their first attempts were not conceived as particularly competitive, but they're in the unique position that they can just keep throwing money on it. Which means that market regulators need to treat them as a special case, not just a regular competitor. Why is this so hard to admit?

 

[I.S.T.]

It is right now, yes. But somehow MS can not accept that, and they're using all the tricks they can to go after that market as well. Did you know that Bing jumped up to the number 2 search engine recently? And that's solely because it is the default engine in Internet Explorer 8, and as soon as that was rolled out, that's where the eyeballs went.

For now, it's small stakes. But then, who woulda thought that Microsoft would take over the console market? Or become the dominant mobile phone OS? Their first attempts were not conceived as particularly competitive, but they're in the unique position that they can just keep throwing money on it. Which means that market regulators need to treat them as a special case, not just a regular competitor. Why is this so hard to admit?

Take over the console market?

I take it you don't actually pay attention to the console market, do you? They most certainly haven't taken it over!

 

[nutball]

Did you know that Bing jumped up to the number 2 search engine recently? And that's solely because it is the default engine in Internet Explorer 8, and as soon as that was rolled out, that's where the eyeballs went.

So it wasn't just that there was a cubic fuck-tonne of marketing and main-stream media coverage about Bing then? And that the entire universe who's a liddle bit pissed off with Google slapping ads and paid-for-search-results-placements went there to see if it was any better. (Not to mention the Bing feature that allows peeps to watch pr0n through corporate firewalls?!). I mean everybody went to check out Cuil when that launched but where's that now? Maybe we should wait a year or so and see what happens?

For now, it's small stakes.

It's not small stakes, it's irrelevant. If MS start intercepting attempts to visit Google in IE and redirecting them to Bing, that's an issue. Otherwise Bing needs to compete with Google on results, and visa versa.

Their first attempts were not conceived as particularly competitive, but they're in the unique position that they can just keep throwing money on it. Which means that market regulators need to treat them as a special case, not just a regular competitor. Why is this so hard to admit?

Their position isn't unique. Google are in a similar position. The EU regulators are in a unique position, with unique agendas. Opera is in a unique position in that they've got a clueless business model. Neither MS nor Google are EU-based companies, Opera is. Opera are being treated as a special case. Why is this so hard to admit?

 

[Florin]

Their position isn't unique. Google are in a similar position.

They're a unique factor of their own, and I suspect that EU regulators will keep a close eye on any endeavours by Google to leverage their search and advertising imperium to unfairly advantage them when they branch out to other areas. A comforting thought, to be honest.

Neither MS nor Google are EU-based companies, Opera is. Opera are being treated as a special case. Why is this so hard to admit?

Opera just called for this particular investigation, as AMD happened to start the Intel case. But sure, it's clearly in the EU's interest to protect its own industries from foreign giants, I don't think that that is a hidden or particularly contemptible goal. But if the likes of Microsoft would play by the rules, they wouldn't have anything to fear.

 

[Florin]

Take over the console market?

I take it you don't actually pay attention to the console market, do you? They most certainly haven't taken it over!

Well I'd say Wii isn't really in the same market, but in the not so long run, even Nintendo is squarely under threat. 360 has made remarkable strides, I don't see how anyone could call it anything but a huge success.

 

[nutball]

But if the likes of Microsoft would play by the rules, they wouldn't have anything to fear.

Sure. But the like of MS then have the right to make a business decision whether it's worthwhile them even entering the market. Or what costs they should pass on to customers in aforementioned markets to accommodate the local regulatory overheads.

 

[Florin]

Sure. But the like of MS then have the right to make a business decision whether it's worthwhile them even entering the market.

I don't think anyone is actually preventing them from not selling their software in the EU, except for their own rather strategic interests in what it the largest free trade zone in the world.

Or what costs they should pass on to customers in aforementioned markets to accommodate the local regulatory overheads.

Sure. But then if the price difference becomes more than retail in other areas + VAT, then EU customers will likely decide to take the hit on imports instead.

Still, they've clearly opted for this tit-for-tat kind of indignant posturing that you're proposing at this moment in time, but do you really think it is in their best interest moving forward?

 

[Richard]

Posts were deleted (again) and infractions were handed out. The dwarves are watching.

 

[CouldntResist]

I see lot's of Stockholm syndrome occuring around here.

The state of matters is that the average price for internet browser is $0. The only value the monopolyst can see in its browser, is how it can be used to strengthen the monopoly it already has. The only reason why Microsoft cares what app you use to browse the interweb, is the potential to exploit IE as a vector to spread something else, avoiding competition.

EU's action is an attempt to ensure that Microsoft's internet browser is... just an internet browser. How dare they?!