Microsoft Decides No IE with Win 7 in Europe

[curnel_D]

This is exactly what they needed to. Sure they may have some fault in preventing IE from being uninstalled all these years, but it doesnt excuse the bully tactics that the EU is handing down to foriegn countries. And if anyone can stand up to the EU it's MS.

 

[apmyhr]

[citation][nom]matchboxmatt[/nom]I think the ballot screen would have been best, since now the competing players in the internet browser field can possibly sway computer companies to pick up their browser over others.It would have been a better idea to just include all major internet browsers in the thing, and have a side by side comparison of all of them.[/citation]
Who choses what third party software Microsoft must include with their OS? If you only include the "major" browsers, aren't you being "anti-competitive" by not giving a chance for the smaller browsers? If people suddenly chose between the top 4 browsers at start up, there is almost zero chance of the 5th major browser becoming well know at all, because now people have to reason to ever go browser shopping in the first place. Here in lies the flaw in this reasoning. You actually end up killing competition by doing this.

 

[greliu]

+1 for Windows. -999999999999999999 for the Eu. WHOS WITH ME?!?!?

 

[matchboxmatt]

[citation][nom]apmyhr[/nom]Who choses what third party software Microsoft must include with their OS? If you only include the "major" browsers, aren't you being "anti-competitive" by not giving a chance for the smaller browsers? If people suddenly chose between the top 4 browsers at start up, there is almost zero chance of the 5th major browser becoming well know at all, because now people have to reason to ever go browser shopping in the first place. Here in lies the flaw in this reasoning. You actually end up killing competition by doing this.[/citation]
There's not significant competition beyond the top 5 browsers for it to be considered any more anti-competitive than including IE with Windows. If they displayed the top 5 browsers available for download on the ballot immediately, they could easily just include a link to show all the other available browsers that are compatible with Windows 7 that don't have enough of a market-share to consider then significant players. If anything, it would help competition since most of those browsers are left completely unexposed anyway.

 

[rage machine]

This ruling is useless. Microsoft bundles IE because its easy to use and works well with their websites/windows update/media player that they have. They don't bundle it due to "competition" and gaining a monopoly over the market, they bundle it because after 26 years of making operating systems its expected to come with windows.

So now how about safari? its only fair.

 

[TheMan1214]

I'm wondering if there is other motivation by this ruling, perhaps europe is afraid of the microsoft monopoly and is taking that out in a negative way(the antitrust stuff)

 

[blackened144]

[citation][nom]SAL-e[/nom]I guess we have very different definition what "Choice" means.My options from Microsoft were:Option 1: You get OEM price for XP $89 and not sell PC with pre-install Linux or no OS pre-installed;OrOption 2: You pay full XP price of $199 when your competitors are paying $89.So my choices were:1. I would have to pay $110 MS tax in an attempt to provide my service to my customer and go out of business;Or2. Or try to stay in business and be prohibited of offering other solutions to my client when it makes sense. You may see choice here, but I don't.And we are talking about PCs around $1000. The profit margins were around 15% or $150. If I pay $110 to MS I will have about $40. How much service you can provide with that profit? Look around you. How many times you have been called by a friend about PC problem, because he/she can’t get his vendor to help?[/citation]
We are arguing semantics here and I am playing the devils advocate.. You could always get out of the PC game altogether and never have to deal with MS in this situation again.. Im not saying thats the best thing to do, but its still a choice you have to make.. Just like ditching Microsoft completely is a choice, even though it doesnt make any business sense what so ever.

 

[ezareth]

There is a reason those browsers are left "unexposed", it is called they non-competitive with IE. Microsoft is in the business of selling its own software, not the software of other companies.

This is just ridiculous. If microsoft started including other browsers, what is to stop other browser companies from charging microsoft to bundle their software?

The EU once again has proven how ignorant they are.

 

[skullfire2]

I am a Firefox user, have been pretty much since its initial release, and I think this is ridiculous. So Microsoft makes a product(whether you like it or not is irrelevant), they sell it, and you want them to basically give free advertisement for other companies web browsing software? It doesn't make much sense to me. I agree that companies shouldn't be blocked out by the "Big Guys" but I use windows and Firefox without any problems. Why should MS give away free advertising?

 

[SAL-e]

[citation][nom]blackened144[/nom]We are arguing semantics here and I am playing the devils advocate.. You could always get out of the PC game altogether and never have to deal with MS in this situation again.. Im not saying thats the best thing to do, but its still a choice you have to make.. Just like ditching Microsoft completely is a choice, even though it doesnt make any business sense what so ever.[/citation]
Yes you are right. I have my choices. MS has done the same. MS had chosen to use anti-competitive practices and now have problems with EU. For many MS fans it is unjust, but for me this is simply result of MS actions. Now there is different problem how far should EU go in order to restore the balance? If EU can calculate the damage done by MS should fine MS. At the same time EU should not attempt to manipulate the free market by giving advantage to MS competitors. That is why proposed Ballot Screens is very bad idea. Even worst would be to force MS to ship other browsers with their OS. The only think EU should demand is the option to uninstall IE if the user chooses. It is up to other vendors to educate users that there are other options and provide them with access to their products. Unfortunately MS is continuing in the wrong direction. They are trying to rally their supporters by causing in convenience for retail customers in EU. The only thing MS should do is to allow complete removal of IE to be in compliance. They are keeping insinuating that pre-installing of the IE is the same as bundling it. And it is deliberate step. They want to insult the members of the EU commission and play on their ego to deliver unfair ruling. Then MS will have big leverage on their appeal and new media campaign.

By the way I enjoyed the debate with you.

 

[Supertrek32]

This is ruling is total bogus. Microsoft should be able to ship whatever they want with their own program. Don't like it? Remove it, or just don't buy it. They're being picked on because of their popularity. Aren't lawmakers supposed to make things equal for everyone? OS X shouldn't be able to ship with a browser, either.

If something like this happens again, Microsoft's big enough that they should just pull out of Europe altogether and tell the public something alongs the lines of, "If you would like to purchase Windows, Microsoft Office, or any other Microsoft Product, please contact your local lawmaking representative. Due to unfair rulings in which we were solely chosen as a software company to follow rules no other company was required to, we have elected to end all business dealings in England, France, Spain, blah blah blah"

I guarentee you something would happen *really* fast.

 

[bourgeoisdude]

Now we should expect the EU to make Apple to stop including Safari on their computers in Europe as well...

...not.

 

[strandwolf]

Where is the profit in any of the Internet browsers? Does IE and FF, etc., run paid ads in the browser windows? If so, they could be quite lucrative software. If not, who finances their development and maintenance, and for what reason? (IE is obviously MS, but maybe FF is shareware or freeware, like some Linux?

 

[eddieroolz]

Boys, it's time to activate the W87 MIRV warhead.

On a more serious note, can anyone give me the e-mail address of the EU antitrust commissioner? I'm going to send him a scathing email.

 

[suppliesidejesus]

Users have been unable to uninstall Internet Explorer from their machines (until the advent of Windows 7) because it was integrated into the Operating System - it has been a driving component of Windows Explorer since, I believe, Windows 98 (which is why it's always such a painfully long install process).

With that being said, they still never forced it onto anyone. It just kind of happens to be there, seeing as it was a critical component of the OS. It didn't stop anyone from using something else, it was just there. The EU seriously just needs to leave Microsoft alone.

 

[lancelot123]

I don't blame MS for not allowing you to uninstall IE. It is their OS after all. Its their choice. Plus, I'm sure there are some good technical reasons as to why they have it that way. As long as they aren't stopping you from installing another browser, I'm cool with it.

Its kind of like when MS wanted to lock their Kernel to make the OS WAY more secure. Virus Scan companies started bitching about how their software won't work then and they made MS not do it. Bullshit. If MS found a way to make their OS more secure, let them, its their right. If MS found a way where we would never need AV software ever again, nobody would let them do it. People are insane.

 

[erikstarcher]

[citation][nom]SAL-e[/nom]I guess we have very different definition what "Choice" means.My options from Microsoft were:Option 1: You get OEM price for XP $89 and not sell PC with pre-install Linux or no OS pre-installed;OrOption 2: You pay full XP price of $199 when your competitors are paying $89.So my choices were:1. I would have to pay $110 MS tax in an attempt to provide my service to my customer and go out of business;Or2. Or try to stay in business and be prohibited of offering other solutions to my client when it makes sense. You may see choice here, but I don't.And we are talking about PCs around $1000. The profit margins were around 15% or $150. If I pay $110 to MS I will have about $40. How much service you can provide with that profit? Look around you. How many times you have been called by a friend about PC problem, because he/she can’t get his vendor to help?[/citation]

I'm sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this. I work for a small computer company and Microsoft has never, NEVER, told us that we can not get oem pricing if we sell other os's installed on computers. Hell, you can even go onto Newegg and buy OEM software.

 

[rdawise]

So, will the EU sue companies let HP and Dell for the bloatware they put into their systems (after isn't that anti-competitive to the other bloatware vendors)? Yeah the ruling was and is bull. Even if there wasn't an option to remove IE (like I'm pretty positive there is now), you always had the ability to download a new one. The EU's beef was comsumer ignorance, not anti-competitive practices.

 

[SAL-e]

[citation][nom]erikstarcher[/nom]I'm sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this. I work for a small computer company and Microsoft has never, NEVER, told us that we can not get oem pricing if we sell other os's installed on computers. Hell, you can even go onto Newegg and buy OEM software.[/citation]
Newegg.com was founded in 2001. If I remember correctly the version that you call OEM and sold at newegg.com when you buy new hardware did not start selling before 2002/2003. Windows XP was introduced in summer of 2001 I believe.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116515
Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP3 for System Builders - OEM price $121.49
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116511
Microsoft Windows XP Home SP3 for System Builders – OEM price $89.99
Take a look here: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/atom-windows-7-netbooks-pineview,8065.html

A Windows XP license for netbooks currently costs OEMs around $25 to $30, (of which Microsoft makes a profit of $15)

So to me the OEM version at newegg.com is the retail price of XP. I had dealing with MS at Europe between 1997 and 2002. So as you say you are working for small shop, but you don’t run the business side of that shop. Go to MS and try to get price of $50 for XP and see what kind of contract you going to get! Then come back and call me a liar again.

 

[mrmez]

Not that i like m$, but this whole anit trust thing is going too far.

Whats next? No file explorer cos it a competitive disadvantage to 3rd parties?

Also... how the HELL are you supposed to get any web browser without one to start off with???
U know what i mean? How can i get firefox etc when windoze doesnt come with ANY browser?

STUPID.

 

[goldrocker]

[citation][nom]SAL-e[/nom]MS is bundling their browser.[/citation]

Such bullshit. Haven't you been following Tom's? There was a news article around Windows 7 beta release that Internet Explorer among a lot of other software are uninstallable, and therefore pre-installed. Noone's forcing you to use IE, only to perhaps download firefox. After that you're perfectly welcome to uninstall IE. Please try getting informed before you place facts you don't know about.

 

[azetec]

Those from EU commission don't give a fuck about IE or MP bundled in the OS they just come up with these motives to take Microsoft's hard earned cash. After these they will come up with other endless motives so that the cash will flow freely from Microsoft to EU's accounts.

AND IF THEY CAN TAKE MICROSOFT'S CASH --THEY WILL-- AND NOTHING AND NO ONE CA STOP THEM, THAT'S JUST THE THINGS GO HERE IN EUROPE IT'S ALL ABOUT CHARLATANS TAKING MONEY FROM THE HONEST ONES

 

[erikstarcher]

[citation][nom]SAL-e[/nom]Newegg.com was founded in 2001. If I remember correctly the version that you call OEM and sold at newegg.com when you buy new hardware did not start selling before 2002/2003. Windows XP was introduced in summer of 2001 I believe.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6832116515Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP3 for System Builders - OEM price $121.49http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6832116511Microsoft Windows XP Home SP3 for System Builders – OEM price $89.99Take a look here: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/a [...] ,8065.htmlSo to me the OEM version at newegg.com is the retail price of XP. I had dealing with MS at Europe between 1997 and 2002. So as you say you are working for small shop, but you don’t run the business side of that shop. Go to MS and try to get price of $50 for XP and see what kind of contract you going to get! Then come back and call me a liar again.[/citation]

"You get OEM price for XP $89 and not sell PC with pre-install Linux or no OS pre-installed"

That's what you said. You didn't say anything about calling Microsoft and getting a contract price of $50. The price you quoted was the system builder price and that is what I was refering to. System builder OEM copies have been out since at least Win95, and Microsoft has never said that you can only sell Windows, and nothing else, if you use the System Builder OEM copies.

 

[SAL-e]

[citation][nom]erikstarcher[/nom]"You get OEM price for XP $89 and not sell PC with pre-install Linux or no OS pre-installed"That's what you said. You didn't say anything about calling Microsoft and getting a contract price of $50. The price you quoted was the system builder price and that is what I was refering to. System builder OEM copies have been out since at least Win95, and Microsoft has never said that you can only sell Windows, and nothing else, if you use the System Builder OEM copies.[/citation]
As I sad, I dealt with this problem in 2001. The price of the Windows XP then was $199 retail and $89 OEM if I was willing to sign Exclusive and NDA agreements. I refused and in very short time I had to scale down my computer sells to minimum and only if the customer was willing to pay full price of Windows. That is one of the main reasons I started switching to Linux when I was MCP and one exam short from MCSE. Today MS has been convicted as monopolist and I am sure that they are very careful with their Exclusive deals. MS has dropped the price of Windows XP in order to stop Linux expansion on netbooks. And today's prices are very different: $89 retail and about $30 if you sign exclusive contract. The price of retail is very high because MS is trying to move the users to Vista and it is something that I understand and it is normal.
Yes the System builder versions was available since Win 98 I believe, but you can not buy them from retail channel like newegg.com or other hardware supplier. I don't have clear memory, but I think that MS start offering OEM version of Windows for sell with new hardware like new M/b, CPU or HDD in 2003/2004 as response for anti-trust probes that started in several countries.

 

[SAL-e]

[citation][nom]Goldrocker[/nom]Such bullshit. Haven't you been following Tom's? There was a news article around Windows 7 beta release that Internet Explorer among a lot of other software are uninstallable, and therefore pre-installed. Noone's forcing you to use IE, only to perhaps download firefox. After that you're perfectly welcome to uninstall IE. Please try getting informed before you place facts you don't know about.[/citation]
Yes. My facts are correct. The EU anti-trust case is for MS's behavior in period prior of 2008. Back then the desktop OS was Windows XP and Vista. I know for sure that you can not remove IE on XP and Vista prior SP1 and SP2. I have not tested Vista SP1 and SP2 so if you can demonstrate that IE is removable from Vista SP1 or SP2 I will eat my "bullshit". But if you can not, you have to eat your bullshit your self. Removal of the IE shortcuts from Desktop, Quick Launch bar or Start menu do not count as IE removal.
The Opera has filed the complain in December of 2007. Windows 7 is still not released today. So Windows 7 is irrelevant to the current anti-trust case in EU.