Microsoft, Internet Explorer, and the EU court decision

[Molinaro]

The EU courts decided against Microsoft with respect to bundling the IE browser with Windows. They said it gave them an unfair advantage over other browser makers.

So, when Windows 7 is released in the EU, it will not have a browser installed.

How many users in the EU do you think will find themselves without a clue as to how to get a copy of Firefox or Opera or Chrome or whatever, without having a browser to do the downloading?

Furthermore, do any of those browser makers put their product on a shelf for consumers to buy? I don't think they do. Don't they in fact count on Microsoft to give people IE so that they can use it to download their product as a replacement?

I foresee issues with the release of Windows 7 in the EU, caused by that court decision that will harm the consumers far more than it was suposed to help.

 

[laca]

EU Criticizes Microsoft’s IE Unbundling, but Does It Matter Anymore?

The EU courts decided against Microsoft with respect to bundling the IE browser with Windows. They said it gave them an unfair advantage over other browser makers.

So, when Windows 7 is released in the EU, it will not have a browser installed.

How many users in the EU do you think will find themselves without a clue as to how to get a copy of Firefox or Opera or Chrome or whatever, without having a browser to do the downloading?

Furthermore, do any of those browser makers put their product on a shelf for consumers to buy? I don't think they do. Don't they in fact count on Microsoft to give people IE so that they can use it to download their product as a replacement?

I foresee issues with the release of Windows 7 in the EU, caused by that court decision that will harm the consumers far more than it was suposed to help.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009...ts-ie-un-bundling-but-does-it-matter-anymore/

“The commission had suggested to Microsoft that consumers be provided with a choice of web browsers,” the EC wrote regarding the standalone software proposal. “Rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less.”

 

[Molinaro]

The EU is acting insane, in my opinion.

For them to suggest that Microsoft should include other browsers with Windows is absurd. Why on earth should Microsoft be their distribution network?

I think sending out Win7 with no browser is the only fair option left to Microsoft after the court's decision.

 

[laca]

The EU is acting insane, in my opinion.

For them to suggest that Microsoft should include other browsers with Windows is absurd. Why on earth should Microsoft be their distribution network?

They don't have to include them, they could bundle IE AND offer options to download some other ones.

I think sending out Win7 with no browser is the only fair option left to Microsoft after the court's decision.

That might be, but there are those problems you mentioned...

 

[jsiv]

The EU is acting insane, in my opinion.

For them to suggest that Microsoft should include other browsers with Windows is absurd. Why on earth should Microsoft be their distribution network?

Because Microsoft broke the law? They caused damage, they have to help fix it. It's not entirely unreasonable.

 

[Molinaro]

Microsoft was found guilty by a court of clowns.

I do not in any way shape or form think of Microsoft as having broken any real laws. The EU reacted extremely stupidly in their accusations against Microsoft. And the courts proved that they are a bunch of clowns by convicting them.

It is beyond riduculous that Microsoft should be in any way dictated to as to what constitutes an OS and what does not.

 

[laca]

Microsoft was found guilty by a court of clowns.

That's a bold statement.

I do not in any way shape or form think of Microsoft as having broken any real laws. The EU reacted extremely stupidly in their accusations against Microsoft. And the courts proved that they are a bunch of clowns by convicting them.

It is not your place to decide whether they broke any laws or not... Justice is not a democracy.

It is beyond riduculous that Microsoft should be in any way dictated to as to what constitutes an OS and what does not.

I beg to differ... On the contrary: they do not get to decide what constitutes an OS or not.

 

[ddt]

Because Microsoft broke the law? They caused damage, they have to help fix it. It's not entirely unreasonable.

I agree.

So, when Windows 7 is released in the EU, it will not have a browser installed.

How many users in the EU do you think will find themselves without a clue as to how to get a copy of Firefox or Opera or Chrome or whatever, without having a browser to do the downloading?.

I don't see the problem. From the Wired article:

Microsoft floated the idea on Thursday of offering a browserless version of Windows 7 for the estimated 5 percent of Windows users who purchase Windows in boxed software from retailers. Microsoft also suggested shipping an Internet Explorer-less version to computer manufacturers who could then choose what browsers to install on the computers they manufacture — which would let Windows machines ship with multiple browsers and let manufacturers charge software makers for the privilege if they like.

So, 95% of the sales of Windows consists of OEM sales - bundled with a new computer. Do you think that Dell, HP, etc., will sell a PC without a browser? Let them sort out who gives them the best deal - Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera or whomever they shop at to install a browser.

Those 5% sales of non-OEM Windows are probably done by people who are computer-savvy enough to download a browser with their other computer, or at a friend's.

 

[ddt]

Microsoft was found guilty by a court of clowns.

By that measure, Teddy Roosevelt (the "trust buster") would be a clown too?

 

[geni]

The EU is acting insane, in my opinion.

For them to suggest that Microsoft should include other browsers with Windows is absurd. Why on earth should Microsoft be their distribution network?

I think sending out Win7 with no browser is the only fair option left to Microsoft after the court's decision.

The ruleing is consistent with other ruleings against microsofts actions. While it could be argued that it is largely outdated at this point (people expect modern OSes to come with browsers) microsofts past actions have clearly been anti competative.

Microsoft's current moves look like an attempt to get the courts to back off.

 

[dtugg]

They don't have to include them, they could bundle IE AND offer options to download some other ones.

It seems to me that by bundling it with IE like they do everywhere but the EU, they do offer options to download others. One of the first things that I did when I installed Win7 was open up IE and use it to download Firefox. If others don't want to or are too dumb to figure this out, I fail to see how it's Microsoft's fault.

I also wonder which browsers the EU thinks Microsoft should have included as other options. If they were interested in being fair, it would have had to be all of them, rather than say just Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Chrome.

And why stop at web browsers! Why should Microsoft be allowed to use their position in the market to give Windows Media Player an unfair advantage? I think they should be forced to distribute competitors' products too. And so it's fair, it has to be every single one of them, not just the popular ones.

And what about Paint? Force them to include every competitors' product also. And Windows Firewall too. Other companies make free firewalls. Why should Microsoft have an unfair advantage over them? And why should Microsoft's desktop gadgets be bundled with Windows over similar products by Google and Yahoo!? Something should be done about the unfair advantage Microsoft holds there.

Don't get me started on the free games that Microsoft includes in Windows. That is just totally unfair. If Microsoft wants to include free games with Windows, they should also distribute every free game in existence along with them.

 

[realpaladin]

Ok, we are calling Neelie back... she seems to be aiming for a position as our Prime Minister... happy now?

 

[realpaladin]

It seems to me that by bundling it with IE like they do everywhere but the EU, they do offer options to download others. One of the first things that I did when I installed Win7 was open up IE and use it to download Firefox. If others don't want to or are too dumb to figure this out, I fail to see how it's Microsoft's fault.

I also wonder which browsers the EU thinks Microsoft should have included as other options. If they were interested in being fair, it would have had to be all of them, rather than say just Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Chrome.

And why stop at web browsers! Why should Microsoft be allowed to use their position in the market to give Windows Media Player an unfair advantage? I think they should be forced to distribute competitors' products too. And so it's fair, it has to be every single one of them, not just the popular ones.

And what about Paint? Force them to include every competitors' product also. And Windows Firewall too. Other companies make free firewalls. Why should Microsoft have an unfair advantage over them? And why should Microsoft's desktop gadgets be bundled with Windows over similar products by Google and Yahoo!? Something should be done about the unfair advantage Microsoft holds there.

Don't get me started on the free games that Microsoft includes in Windows. That is just totally unfair. If Microsoft wants to include free games with Windows, they should also distribute every free game in existence along with them.

Let's just see what happens with the Google OS and Chrome

 

[CelticRose]

It seems to me that by bundling it with IE like they do everywhere but the EU, they do offer options to download others. One of the first things that I did when I installed Win7 was open up IE and use it to download Firefox. If others don't want to or are too dumb to figure this out, I fail to see how it's Microsoft's fault.

I agree. I don't see how bundling IE with Windows forces someone to use IE. I have Vista and I'm not forced to use IE -- if I want to I can set Firefox as my default browser and use that instead.

 

[Molinaro]

By that measure, Teddy Roosevelt (the "trust buster") would be a clown too?

I have no idea to what you are refering.


I do know that the decisions handed down against Microsoft are equivalent to the bum sleeping in the gutter outside giving advice to brain surgeons.

The rulings have been idiotic beyond belief.

 

[ddt]

It seems to me that by bundling it with IE like they do everywhere but the EU, they do offer options to download others. One of the first things that I did when I installed Win7 was open up IE and use it to download Firefox. If others don't want to or are too dumb to figure this out, I fail to see how it's Microsoft's fault.

The case might seem to be a bit antiquated, but that has more to do with Microsoft dragging its feet and not complying with earlier measures (and let's not forget, outright lying to the US judge). And no, most people don't bother with downloading another browser when they've already got one.

And why stop at web browsers! Why should Microsoft be allowed to use their position in the market to give Windows Media Player an unfair advantage? I think they should be forced to distribute competitors' products too. And so it's fair, it has to be every single one of them, not just the popular ones.

I think you missed this one.

 

[realpaladin]

I have no idea to what you are refering.


I do know that the decisions handed down against Microsoft are equivalent to the bum sleeping in the gutter outside giving advice to brain surgeons.

The rulings have been idiotic beyond belief.

Troll, yes?

You can not be this person you seem to be here...

 

[ddt]

I have no idea to what you are refering.

All these decisions simply have to do with anti-monopoly laws. It's really that simple.

I do know that the decisions handed down against Microsoft are equivalent to the bum sleeping in the gutter outside giving advice to brain surgeons.

The rulings have been idiotic beyond belief.

Did you read them?

 

[dtugg]

The case might seem to be a bit antiquated, but that has more to do with Microsoft dragging its feet and not complying with earlier measures (and let's not forget, outright lying to the US judge).

If they aren't complying with earlier measures than the EU can get them for that. Trying to force them to distribute competitors' products is just plain ridiculous.

And no, most people don't bother with downloading another browser when they've already got one.

So?

I think you missed this one.

I've seen Europeans complain about how expensive Windows is in Europe compared to the US. 500 million euro fines for including a media player with Windows probably has plenty to do with it.

 

[Molinaro]

All these decisions simply have to do with anti-monopoly laws. It's really that simple.


Did you read them?

I did not read the actual decisions as written by the courts.

I do know that it is absurd to think that a government gets to redefine what constitutes an OS.

Namely, for them to say that Media Player cannot be included is mind boggling as it attempts to prevent one of the prime functions of an OS. That being, to allow the user to open various common file types.

IE is more of the same. It is a program designed to allow the user to open files of type .htm and various other web based file types. To suddenly say that the OS is finished as far as what it supports, and can't support anything new that comes along makes no sense.

That is what their judgements amount to, in the eyes of this user.