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

And why does that require MS bundling other browsers?

 

What about Firefox then?

What about Opera before Firefox showed up. At which point Opera had to stop selling their browser because Firefox was taking all their marketshare.

So you blast MS for providing basic essential utilities for free. Yet give open source free latitude?

MS removed the the chance for Netscape to sell a browser so bad Microsoft. Open source removing the ability to sell products for a profit so good open source.

Likewise I don't see much complaining that Firefox basically took away almost all Opera's marketshare that it had in turn gotten from Microsoft.

Back when Opera was still actually making a good product rather than complaining and resorting to litigation. Hell, they aren't even going after the company that actually crushed their business model.

Regards,
SB

 

Firefox gains market share for a variety of reasons, including being free, technical merit, a wealth of plugins, being crossplatform, and others. Firefox is not riding market share of an existing monopoly to get ahead. Internet Explorer on the other hand is, and it is an important part of a strategy aimed at making serious inroads into web services marketshare.

Ok, one more time then.

MS does *not* give away their browser and media player for free. They are available as part of purchasing Windows.

You like others are calling for applying the same restrictions that apply to Microsoft to others. As if this would somehow be fairer, or be a solution to some sort of injustice which the EU is perpetrating gainst Microsoft.

That mindset is incorrect.

Players like Firefox, or Ubuntu, or Apple, operate on a level playing field. They do not have an advantage in getting ahead of others in other markets. Microsoft on the other hand does not just have several such advantages, but they've repeatedly been warned and fined for abusing them. Microsoft keeps violating both the terms of the consent decree with the US justice department, and is operating in violation of antitrust regulations in the EU. The other players are not, so they're free to do things that Microsoft can not do.

 

What's this then?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/mac/mp9/default.aspx

 

If Microsoft offered Windows without IE for 30€ less than the bundle, who in their right mind would buy the latter when there are browsers (including IE) downloadable for free? And if hardly anyone buys such a product, there is little point in putting it on the market at all. What is left then is a version of Windows without IE bundled, which is exactly what Microsoft announced.

Ok, but what if there was one?

True, but that has little to do with market dominance in desktop OSes.

 

I can`t remember Mozilla doing anything like this. Cant blame Opera by going at MS when they got a chance.

 

I'm pretty sure i'm gonna pre-order for the much lower price. Full Home Premium for only £49.99 is quite a bargain, the OEM of Vista cost £80!

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1406108/microsoft-unveils-windows-pricing

An this upgrade will usher me into the world of 64bit computing

 

I don't understand how you're supposed to choose your browser if you can't go to, say, www.getfirefox.com without IE. The first thing I do on any new PC build is open IE and go there.

Seriously, it's a practical nightmare not having a browser installed on an OS. I understand the "anti-competition" stuff but FFS now the consumer will be suffering.

 

Is it definatly not installed? I heard the EU were unhappy with Microsofts decision to ship Windows without IE and that it may not stand.

 

you can go to ftp://ftp.mozilla.org
But I don't know if explorer.exe can act as a ftp client in Vista or 7, without depending on IE. I hope it doesn't, as there's no need for a web backend for that.

There still is the ftp command, and I used it a few time to donwload firefox without touching IE on windows box.. but it feels like using a program from 1982.

 

I'm actually glad the Mac is still around as an important enough platform that they need to have the likes of .wmv and Silverlight on there to succeed in capturing these markets. But that does nothing to change the fact that development and marketing of these 'free' products is sponsored by sales of their other software, notably Windows.

 

So they complain about MS bundling IE, and then they complain when it's removed. Who are these idiots?

 

Indeed.

And that's fine, if the version without IE is indeed less expensive than the one with. As it is still sold in other areas, of course.

If there were an open source program with monopolistic market share - and it would need to be actual *market* share, so we would be talking about open source programs that are sold commercially, of which there are few examples, but let's say it is Red Hat, and they were using that to leverage expanding market share - generate profit - in other areas, then hopefully the EU would also intervene. Who can tell? That situation is so hypothetical, I don't think we'll get to see it happen in this lifetime.

Sure. It was merely an example of how Microsoft's modus operandi can allow them to increase market share over time with products that are initially not particularly outstanding or innovative.

 

This sounds like a promising development. Score for European customers and antitrust regulators alike!

 

Shouldn't we be able to download the IE through Windows Update?

 

It would be quite trivial for MS to include downloads in some form of "choose your internet browser" program that downloads the latest releases of Firefox, Opera, Safari etc.

Perhaps MS can include a program to download a Word type package pointing to OpenOffice or trial versions of MS Office and why stop there? May as well point to Internet Security programs (Kaspersky, AVG, Avast, Norton, McAfee) and some media players (WinDVD, Cyberlink, VLC, Media Player Classic).

Soon there will be no need to call that "geek" computer friend of yours!

 

Prices in different areas of the world are not necessarily comparable, though, due to differences in taxation, buying power (competitive prices depend on what people are willing to pay, after all), cost of marketing, etc.

I don't see why this is relevant. With this argument none of the major desktop browsers have any market share at all since they are available for free.

Anyone who can convince enough investors that he has a sound business idea can throw a lot of money at entering a market. Microsoft is certainly not in a unique position in the console business.

 

The complaint wasn't necessarily at MS for bundling IE. Its was for ONLY bundling IE, thus giving its competitors a big disadvantage.

The EU wants to give the consumer more choice by not giving one browser a leg up over the other. However they acknowledge that by removing IE altogether, the consumers choice would be more limited.

At last check, they were pushing for the OS to offer a choice of browsers at install time, including IE. I don't know if thats the route MS will go with though.

 

Not necessarily. The most prominent browsers are only free in the sense that they are means to a goal - for Microsoft this is Windows market share and leveraging their monopoly to get a head start in media delivery and web services, for Google it is the advertising business.

One of these has repeatedly been warned and fined by antitrust organisations over the world.

Investors get impatient when there is no return. Microsoft's first, second, xth generation do not have to be profitable. See MSN/Live/Bing, Windows CE/PocketPC/Mobile and Xbox, for instance.