EC responds to Microsoft's browser move

Summary: The European Commission on Thursday responded with a mixed assessment of Microsoft's move to strip Internet Explorer out of European versions of Windows 7.

The European Commission on Thursday responded with a mixed assessment of Microsoft's move to strip Internet Explorer out of European versions of Windows 7.

As first reported by CNET News, Microsoft has been telling PC makers of its plan to offer Windows 7 in Europe with the browser removed. PC makers and consumers would have to add in a browser. That would be simple - and potentially profitable - for PC makers, but could prove quite a hassle for those trying to upgrade an existing PC to Windows 7.

In a statement, regulators said that the move seems a step backward in the retail software arena, but said it could be more positive in the new PC market, which is how 95 percent of consumers get a new version of Windows.

"As for retail sales, which amount to less than 5 percent of total sales, the Commission had suggested to Microsoft that consumers be provided with a choice of Web browsers," the Commission said. "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."

But, as for the new computer market, stripping out the browser might be a good thing, the Commission says.

"As for sales to computer manufacturers, Microsoft's proposal may potentially be more positive," the commission said. "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."

Opera, the Norwegian browser maker that pushed the EU to open its case, said that it is wholly dissatisfied with Microsoft's action.

"They are under pressure to do something and they come up with this thing, which is quite obviously not going to work," Opera CTO Hakon Wium Lie said in an interview "This is very similar to what the remedy was in the Media Player case. It was widely recognized that that was an insufficient remedy. It was too little too late."

Lie said Opera favors an option that the EU has been considering in which consumers would be offered a choice of browsers when they buy a new PC.

The Commission said it expects to act soon in its own case against Microsoft, and suggests Microsoft's action wasn't among those it was considering. The commission issued a preliminary finding in January that the inclusion of a browser in Windows violated European antitrust law. Microsoft has objected to that finding.

"The Commission will shortly decide in the pending browser-tying antitrust case whether or not Microsoft's conduct from 1996 to date has been abusive and, if so, what remedy would be necessary to create genuine consumer choice and address the anticompetitive effects of Microsoft's long-standing conduct," the Commission said. "In terms of potential remedies if the Commission were to find that Microsoft had committed an abuse, the Commission has suggested that consumers should be offered a choice of browser not that Windows should be supplied without a browser at all."

This article was originally posted on CNET News.

Topics: Windows, Browser, Enterprise Software, Microsoft, Security

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

34 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Limiting browser pre-installs

    As stated in the article, 95% of users will get Windows 7, when they purchase a new PC. The remaining 5% will get it by upgrading an existing machine.

    If the EC were to issue a mandate to PC makers that required them to limit the installation of any one browser to say 25% of all new machines, it would:

    1. prevent browser vendors with deep pockets (Microsoft, Google, Apple, ...) from "purchasing" (or finagling) 100% of the new PC installs.

    2. make it easier for future browser vendors to bring their browser products into the mainstream.

    3. provide a reasonably balanced solution for 95% of the problem.

    The good news for PC makers is that, even Microsoft will have to pay, if they want to have IE pre-installed on new PCs, so this new found revenue would more than compensate them for any additional work required.

    People purchasing these new PCs could stick with the browser that was pre-installed by the PC maker (which many will) or install their preferred browser and uninstall the original.
    linuser
  • Imagine the support nightmares

    If internet explorer is not there to fall back on in a support session
    It needs to be available just because who wants to train their support staff in 5 different browsers in several different versions

    zmud
    • Oh come on...

      If you don't know how to use the five major browsers equally you don't need to be doing tech-support.
      Metronome49
      • and you've....

        never done tech support on any large scale.

        This will do nothing but raise the cost of computers, and give small businesses more support headaches.
        JoeMama_z
      • for real

        Have you ever done tech support for any sort of computer related subject? Oh my God it is hard to deal with how slow and ignorant people are! This browser thing could be real annoying for support for sure!!!
        AceOfJames
        • Well...

          Some people are stupid, but so what. They're going to be stupid whether they're using IE, Opera, FF, or even Lynx. That is if they can manage to get past working out what a power plug is, and how it affects their computer's failure to respond to their commands.

          Suffice to say, as long as you can get them going, they're never going to notice if they're using a mainframe or an iPhone.
          zkiwi
    • If you code to standards

      that becomes a non-issue.
      Michael Kelly
      • As usual

        utopianism trumps common sense. Anyway, it's nonsense to suggest that "coding to standards" solves the problem. Each browser has its own UI, its behaviour is different. You obviously have no clue what it's like dealing with users.
        LordLiverpool
  • RE: EC responds to Microsoft's browser move

    Stop winging. If you buy Microsoft, don't expect honesty and transparency.

    And in a Corporation, individuals don't buy PCs, nor do they choose which software or hardware is added to them. The support team does that. So the support team choses Opra, Firefox or whatever and they have just one browser to support.
    ampers@...
    • Wrong. Try again

      Except my clownish friend, most corporations will pick IE over any other browser.
      Most web based internal IT applications work best with IE, and most IT developers prefer to only develop for one browser. Since IE has the largest market share, the developers prefer to target IE first.
      Unix Pimp
      • This is wrong and inane...

        "most corporations will pick IE over any other browser."

        How do you know that since there has never been a real choice? They pick it because it's ubiquitous.

        "Most web based internal IT applications work best with IE"

        Only because they are made to target, if that. Internal IT developers target IE because it's chosen by the corporations because it's ubiquitous... and the whole thing is backwards. Whereas a standards based execution would work across platforms and be extensible and flexible.

        If you prefer to target any browser... then you're a lazy developer. If your forced to then sorry bout your luck... but it needs to change sometime... because it's a huge problem that has completely frozen technological advancement in a lot of corporations and tethered them to a browser that's three versions old (IE6) because they would have to completely rewrite the applications to work on new, more advanced software. The corps would save money if the learned to embrace progressive enhancement.
        Metronome49
        • As usual

          ... you fail to distinguish between developers and users. It isn't MY responsibility to make all web sites compatible with all browsers. The world is the way it is. You choose the browser you need for the world as you find it, not your utopia. Jeez.
          LordLiverpool
          • So...

            It is your responsibility to find out what your client base is using and to code appropriately. The ideal would be to just use web standards and not have to produce nasty hacks. But, that might not have occurred to you.
            zkiwi
          • How can people

            be so clueless? Clearly a debate about how to code is not relevant to a law on what can, or cannot, be installed on PCs for the consumer market. We are where we are, the software that's available is what's available. Lawmakers can't legislate for coding utopia. Jeez, it's like debating with ten year-olds.
            LordLiverpool
          • Go back a couple steps and read...

            This was a comment on a thread started by complaining about IE targeted development... on a story about law. And as I remember it, ad hominem arguments are what is immature when debating... go look it up...
            Metronome49
  • RE: EC responds to Microsoft's browser move

    In a free market, how on earth do you justify limiting any one browser to less than 25% of pre-installs? It's like limiting Toyota to installing Panasonic music systems in less than 25% of its cars. Surely, the PC builder gets to decide what browser its customers prefer? If illegal payments have been made, that's a matter for the competition authorities.

    Absolute madness.
    LordLiverpool
    • PC makers & users still have freedom

      The PC makers would still be free to determine which browsers they install. The limit is simply to prevent them from allocating all of their pre-installs to the browser companies with the deepest pockets (e.g. Microsoft or Google). That would essentially equate to "buying" marketshare.

      With this model, the browser companies start on a relatively even footing. After that, browser marketshare would adjust naturally, as users migrate between browsers to find the one that meets their specific needs (e.g. performance, usability, features, standards compliance, etc.).
      linuser
      • Once again

        ... you fail to distinguish between the freedom of PC suppliers to supply the software users are most likely to want, and the illegal abuse of market power by the payment of bribes or other "incentives". The former is a fundamental element of a free society; the latter is a matter for the authorities.

        You appear to want a law that forces an arbitrary number of PC makers to supply its customers with Opera, or Safari, or some other minority browser, when very few are likely to want those browsers or know what to do with them. All of this you justify, no doubt, by saying that you know what's best. And here was me thinking communism was history...
        LordLiverpool
  • For retail purchases

    The EU is concerned that this will make it difficult for the retail purchaser, here is a solution. Include a seperate CD in each box with IE on it and a final screen on the Windows install script which states:

    "INTERNET EXPLORER 8 IS AVAILABLE ON THE COMPANION CD. ALTERNATIVE BROWSER'S ARE AVAILABLE FROM FOLLOWING MANUFACTURES:
    FIREFOX: WWW.MOZILLA.COM
    OPERA: WWW.OPERA.COM
    SAFARI: WWW.APPLE.COM/SAFARI/DOWNLOAD/
    ECT...
    THERE MAY BE OTHER BROWSER OPTIONS AVAILABLE FROM ADDITIONAL SOURCES UNKNOWN AT THE TIME OF THIS MANUFACTURE."

    There is your choice, your notification of atlernatives. Of course this will infuriate EU politicians, but it will meet their requirements.
    Anything else is the tantamount to saying "ALL BMW AND MECERDES DEALERS WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO CARRY CADILLAC, ACURA, INFINITY, LEXUS, ect...)

    Scubajrr
  • Did you run into a wall?

    I won't even comment about the typographical errors... snark, snark.

    Your analogy is crumbled... because a OS and an internet browser are not the same product... but they are coming bundled.

    It's more like Gillette selling all razors bundled with Gillette shaving cream... and Gillette owning 95% of razor marketing share... and none of the other shaving cream manufacturers can get their products recognized, although they are superior... because everyone just uses the shaving cream that comes with their razor.
    Metronome49