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.
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.
Topics
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.
Just In
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
It needs to be available just because who wants to train their support staff in 5 different browsers in several different versions
If you don't know how to use the five major browsers equally you don't need to be doing tech-support.
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.
This will do nothing but raise the cost of computers, and give small businesses more support headaches.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Absolute madness.
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.).
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.).
... 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...
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...
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...)
"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...)
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.
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.
It doesn't fix the problem... it just lines the OEMs pockets.
But another problem... that makes the WHOLE THING crazy... is that a browser is an integral part of an operating system, and it won't really work except for very limitedly (not a word?) without one.
Windows comes with a lot of junk that other people make better alternatives to... that are not as integral.
But another problem... that makes the WHOLE THING crazy... is that a browser is an integral part of an operating system, and it won't really work except for very limitedly (not a word?) without one.
Windows comes with a lot of junk that other people make better alternatives to... that are not as integral.
MS includes a browser that they have tested and are
confident plays nicely with their OS. Why should they
have to INCLUDE any other browsers? What's next - is
the EC going to require them to update their install
CDs every 2 months to keep up with the various
versions of Firefox, Opera, & Chrome? Perhaps MS
should be responsible for supporting their
competitors' browsers as well...
Also, as Scubjrr mentioned, can't they simply provide
links to the websites of other browser providers,
thereby giving the customer a choice? Sure Opera's CEO
his browser included with the OS because they're one
of the little guys in the desktop browser market
(careful what you wish for, Opera, since your mobile
browser's success might eventually put you at odds
with the far-reaching EC), but the idea that MS has an
unfair competitive advantage simply because they
include a browser with their OS seems a bit absurd. If
MS made it difficult to install another browser or
blocked another browser from being set as the default,
then I could see some justification for the EC's
involvement. This is stupid regulation, IMHO.
confident plays nicely with their OS. Why should they
have to INCLUDE any other browsers? What's next - is
the EC going to require them to update their install
CDs every 2 months to keep up with the various
versions of Firefox, Opera, & Chrome? Perhaps MS
should be responsible for supporting their
competitors' browsers as well...
Also, as Scubjrr mentioned, can't they simply provide
links to the websites of other browser providers,
thereby giving the customer a choice? Sure Opera's CEO
his browser included with the OS because they're one
of the little guys in the desktop browser market
(careful what you wish for, Opera, since your mobile
browser's success might eventually put you at odds
with the far-reaching EC), but the idea that MS has an
unfair competitive advantage simply because they
include a browser with their OS seems a bit absurd. If
MS made it difficult to install another browser or
blocked another browser from being set as the default,
then I could see some justification for the EC's
involvement. This is stupid regulation, IMHO.
People always present this as a "use what you want" deal, or just say to stop whining about IE and install something else. But these people totally miss the point...
IE does not uninstall. You can choose to run or not to run it, but it is always there. Applications can therefore execute these libraries and executable files assotiated with IE without my permission, even if I have installed another product. This presents not only security issues but privacy issues.
Plain a simple a browser should not be a shortcut around writing code, a method for installing software, or an engine for desktop advertising. It is an application made for one purpose and one only, browsing the web. MS does not want to get rid of IE, because they use it improperly to reinforce the usability of their OS.
That's wrong.
IE does not uninstall. You can choose to run or not to run it, but it is always there. Applications can therefore execute these libraries and executable files assotiated with IE without my permission, even if I have installed another product. This presents not only security issues but privacy issues.
Plain a simple a browser should not be a shortcut around writing code, a method for installing software, or an engine for desktop advertising. It is an application made for one purpose and one only, browsing the web. MS does not want to get rid of IE, because they use it improperly to reinforce the usability of their OS.
That's wrong.
I might not have read this correctly but if MS strip out all browsers how is the normal person meant to get on the internet to download their browser of choice?
95% of users will get Windows 7, when they purchase a new PC. The PC maker will have already installed a browser, so there is no issue. If the user doesn't like what the PC maker has pre-installed, they download a different browser, and uninstall the pre-installed browser.
The remaining 5%, will be upgrading an existing machine to Windows 7. You could argue that people capable of doing an OS upgrade are most likely technically savvy enough to figure out the browser part. However, it probably would be better to have a simple mechanism to do this. It appears that the specifics of this mechanism is still a work in progress.
The remaining 5%, will be upgrading an existing machine to Windows 7. You could argue that people capable of doing an OS upgrade are most likely technically savvy enough to figure out the browser part. However, it probably would be better to have a simple mechanism to do this. It appears that the specifics of this mechanism is still a work in progress.
My problem is the whole EU version of Windows 7. If they get an OS install free of Internet Exploder, why can't we? I suppose I'll have show my dissatisfaction the old fashioned way and just not buy it.
A US version of Windows without IE would mean that Microsoft would have to pay to have IE pre-installed, just like the other browser vendors. That would not only help to level the playing field, but it would potentially become a new source of revenue for the PC makers (like AV pre-installs, etc.).
Ladies and Gentlemen, the solution to the Microsoft IE issue is realistically simple. If Microsoft is violating the Anti-Trust Law because it imposes the use of their browser on the Public when they purchase the Windows software, it follows that the removal of said browser places Microsoft well within the Anti-Trust Law. Now, for the Courts to turn and demand that Microsoft provide ?multiple browser choices? as a remedy, may satisfy the quest for vengeance of a certain group out their, but it also causes the public to have unsubstantiated guarantee that Microsoft considers said browsers to be on the same level of compatibility with their Windows product as their IE browser. Furthermore, the displaying of a ? Warning? prior to choosing a browser other than the Microsoft IE, will, for the most part, in our ?fast food drive-thru? generation go unheeded and overlooked, leading to many dissatisfied customers.
The realistically simple solution is for the individual browser companies to supply a CD-disk with a closed label warning that must be tarred to open, and a user-manual with support telephone numbers included that Microsoft can place within their product box. Providing these items assures that Microsoft stays within the Law and provides browser choice for their Windows product.
The realistically simple solution is for the individual browser companies to supply a CD-disk with a closed label warning that must be tarred to open, and a user-manual with support telephone numbers included that Microsoft can place within their product box. Providing these items assures that Microsoft stays within the Law and provides browser choice for their Windows product.
I'm sorry, does nothing please you? I guess their only
option is to go out of business to make european
companies happy. I'm sorry, but if Europe's definition of
competition is killing the winner, what's the point of
competing?
option is to go out of business to make european
companies happy. I'm sorry, but if Europe's definition of
competition is killing the winner, what's the point of
competing?
I would say that it is more akin to Gillette producing a razor without the blade. In todays world a browser is as much a part of the OS as a file manager - if not more so!
What did anyone expect? That is what the EU asked Microsoft to do. If they had gone with a list of possible browsers that could be installed then what would happen if they create the list, make all the install disks and then another browser comes to market and they are not included on the install. Microsoft are then in trouble again.
I think it's quite amusing really. New PC's will still come with a browser. If you are upgrading an old machine, then it will keep your existing browser; the only problem would be for someone purchasing Windows to put on a machine they build themselves or to do a clean install. Either way, if they are that tech savvy, then they will know to get a browser before they start.
I think it's quite amusing really. New PC's will still come with a browser. If you are upgrading an old machine, then it will keep your existing browser; the only problem would be for someone purchasing Windows to put on a machine they build themselves or to do a clean install. Either way, if they are that tech savvy, then they will know to get a browser before they start.
This is actually a brilliant move on Microsoft's part. If the EU accepts this compromise from Microsoft, instead of forcing them to include additional competing browsers, then Microsoft can ship Windows 7 initially 'without' a browser, and you can bet that the first "Important Windows Update" when they turn on the PC would be Internet Explorer 8. Also, without having IE8 on the machine to start with, users actually won't be able to go and get any other browser, as the typical user doesn't know how to download things without using a browser, they'll be forced to get IE8, and the Microsoft browser monopoly will continue. It's a fact that most users will go for the easiest option, in this case IE8, instead of first getting IE8 and then going off to get FF3 or Opera or Safari.
If the EU forces Microsoft to include competing browsers, then the user would be able to choose from a plethora of browsers right at the start, which would seriously harm Microsoft, since they rely on the fact that IE8 is the easiest browser to get, since it is pre installed. Shipping no browser means that IE8 is still easiest to get, due to Windows Update, than any other browser.
I would hope the EU does not fall for this tactic, but still I have to admit that it's a genius offer, because at face value it seems like it levels the browser playing field, where really, absolutely *nothing* will change.
This of course, assumes that the end user gets a PC without any browser on it, a scenario which I find unlikely, as PC makers are going to know that the end user will want an internet browser.
If the EU forces Microsoft to include competing browsers, then the user would be able to choose from a plethora of browsers right at the start, which would seriously harm Microsoft, since they rely on the fact that IE8 is the easiest browser to get, since it is pre installed. Shipping no browser means that IE8 is still easiest to get, due to Windows Update, than any other browser.
I would hope the EU does not fall for this tactic, but still I have to admit that it's a genius offer, because at face value it seems like it levels the browser playing field, where really, absolutely *nothing* will change.
This of course, assumes that the end user gets a PC without any browser on it, a scenario which I find unlikely, as PC makers are going to know that the end user will want an internet browser.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
