Europe to get Windows 7 sans browser
Microsoft plans to remove Internet Explorer from the versions of Windows 7 that it ships in Europe, CNET News has learned.
Reacting to antitrust concerns expressed by European regulators, Microsoft plans to offer a version in Europe that has the browser removed. Computer makers would then have the option to add the browser back in, ship another browser or ship multiple browsers, according to a confidential memo that was sent to PC makers and seen by CNET News.
"To ensure that Microsoft is in compliance with European law, Microsoft will be releasing a separate version of Windows 7 for distribution in Europe that will not include Windows Internet Explorer," the software maker said in the memo. "Microsoft will offer IE8 separately and free of charge and will make it easy and convenient for PC manufacturers to preinstall IE 8 on Windows 7 machines in Europe if they so choose. PC manufacturers may choose to install an alternative browser instead of IE 8, and has always been the case, they may install multiple browsers if they wish."
Microsoft confirmed the authenticity of the document but declined to comment further.
European regulators had said in January that the inclusion of a browser in Windows--something Microsoft has done for more than a decade--was a likely violation of European antitrust law. Microsoft disclosed in an SEC filing earlier this year that it believed the EU might seek to force Microsoft to distribute rival browsers or take other action.
Microsoft's decision to offer Windows 7 in Europe without IE appears to be an effort to head off such action as well as to ensure that it can ship Windows 7 in Europe at the same time it does so elsewhere. It comes at an interesting time, though, as Microsoft faces its strongest browser competition in years, with Mozilla, Apple and Google all gaining ground.
"The whole thing is pretty silly," said Forrester Research analyst J.P. Gownder. "Since Microsoft first took on Netscape years ago there has never been more competition in the browser market."
Firefox is particularly strong in Europe. According to AT Internet Institute (formerly XitiMonitor), IE had a 59.5 percent share in Europe as of November, compared with 31.1 percent for Firefox. Opera had about 5 percent, and Safari half of that. Microsoft lost a full 5 percentage points of market share since from April to November 2008.
Microsoft's decision, though, is also interesting given that the company argued in its long antitrust battle that the browser was an integral part of the operating system that could not easily be stripped from Windows.
The browser-less versions, dubbed Windows 7 "E", will be distributed in all members of the European Economic Area as well as Croatia and Switzerland. In addition, Microsoft will strip the browser from the Europe-only "N" versions of Windows 7, which also removes the Windows Media Player from the operating system and is the result of another move by Europe's antitrust authorities.
In contrast with the "N" version, though, Microsoft will not also sell a full-featured version of Windows that includes the browser.
"Microsoft will not offer for distribution in the European territory the Windows 7 product versions that contain IE, which are intended for distribution in the rest of the world," Microsoft said in the memo. "This will apply to both OEM and Retail versions of Windows 7 products."
For computer makers that want it, Microsoft will offer a free "IE 8 pack" that allows them to add the browser back in. It's a little more complicated for consumers who buy a retail copy of Windows 7. Because the operating system lacks a browser, there's not a direct way to go to Microsoft's Web site to download one. Microsoft aims to make it as easy as possible for folks in Europe to get the browser, though, and plans to offer it via CD, FTP and retail channels, according to a person a familiar with the situation.
"Microsoft is focused on ensuring that Windows 7 is a successful worldwide release available to the broadest number of consumers, including those in Europe," The software maker said in the memo. "We believe that we need to release these E versions to address the preliminary legal views communicated to us in the EU. We are informing OEMs of these plans now so that we can work together to meet our shared goal to have Windows 7 broadly available for a holiday launch."
The software maker says in the memo that it is only stripping the browser from Windows 7 and won't do the same with older operating systems, or with the virtualized version of Windows XP that is part of the free "XP mode" download.
"This announcement impacts Windows 7 products only," the software maker said in the memo. "Microsoft has no plans at this time to release versions of Windows Vista or Windows XP products without Internet Explorer. This announcement does not impact Windows XP mode for Windows 7 Ultimate and Windows 7 Professional."
Microsoft doesn't plan to offer the browser-less "E" version outside Europe, but is also offering an option in all regions in which users can hide IE 8, as part of a control panel that lets users turn on and off various operating system components.
Update, 12:20 p.m.: Microsoft has posted a blog on its law and policy Web site, in which one of its lawyers responds to our story.
Of note, deputy general counsel Dave Heiner notes that Microsoft's action was taken unilaterally and doesn't preclude the EU from ordering some other type of remedy, such as allowing users to choose which browser they want as part of the installation process.
"Our decision to only offer IE separately from Windows 7 in Europe cannot, of course, preclude the possibility of alternative approaches emerging through Commission processes," Heiner wrote. "Other alternatives have been raised in the Commission proceedings, including possible inclusion in Windows 7 of alternative browsers or a 'ballot screen' that would prompt users to choose from a specific set of Web browsers."
Microsoft said it wouldn't have been right for it to adopt such an approach on its own. "Important details of these approaches would need to be worked out in coordination with the Commission, since they would have a significant impact on computer manufacturers and Web browser vendors, whose interests may differ," Heiner wrote. "Given the complexity and competing interests, we don't believe it would be best for us to adopt such an approach unilaterally."
Audio
What a browser-less Windows 7 means
CNET News intern Mats Lewan talks to reporter Ina Fried about the impact of a browser-less Windows 7 on the market and European consumers.
Download mp3 (2.89MB)
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
I don't know what I'm saying. Point is, EU deserves DOS not any modern OS.
IE would not hold a lead on browsers if it weren't bundled with the Monopoly OS. Then we would have a more standards compliant Internet. And you wouldn't have to switch away from your favorite browser in order to view the non-standards compliant websites.
But what do I know? I don't use ANY MS products at all. Unless I am at work. But I've been told I should quit my job if I don't like MS. I've been told if I don't like MS, I shouldn't talk about them. As it turns out, I'm not supposed to have an opinion at all. Too bad.
I really enjoy the responses from the Redmond fan club. So enlightening! Bring it on.
"I don't know what I'm saying. Point is, EU deserves DOS not any modern OS."
Because they are enforcing their own laws?
I guess the same goes for the US since they, too, enforce their antitrust laws?
Bundling a browser is not a violation of antitrust law. Using bundling to abuse its dominance in the OS market in order to destroy competition in the browser market is.
Apple and Linux distros are not dominant OSes. Windows is.
Many sites still require IE, so no, you can't always use the browser you want.
The calc comparison is useless. Calc doesn't even interact with other people. The web, on the other hand, is a global communications network, extremely important, and shouldn't be locked to one single vendor.
So where do you draw the line? Windows has built in software for FTP and remote desktop, there are plenty of competitive products for both of those. What do you want when you boot up Windows for the first time? An old school C:\ waiting for your input? Does Ford destroy the non-OEM car stereo market by preinstalling their own stereos? They have a lion's share of the market. This whole discussion smacks of socialism and forcing products unable to compete on their own merit (Opera) on the masses.
So sorry, Microsoft shills, but you are still screwed.
it seems you're an EU shill yourself....so will you be benefiting?
Opera needs to market it's browser better if it wants more PC market share. IE is loosing ground and as soon as business finds a reliable alternative & migrates all their customised IE apps to a more open architecture then they will loose even more.
Here's the deal:
An antitrust law (both in the EU and US) is a law against undermining the free market by abusing one's dominant position. You are not allowed to undermine the free market by leveraging your dominance in another market. Microsoft has been found to have such a dominant position in the operating system market, which means that they are forbidden from abusing that position to disrupt other markets, such as the brwoser market.
Even if you disagree with the law, you can't demand that Microsoft be above the law while it is being enforced against everyone else. Why should Microsoft be the only company which is not subject to these laws? Even if the laws are completely wrong, Microsoft should still follow them. That you disagree with a law is no excuse for not following it. It won't get you out of jail.
.
(Semi-OT: Antitrust laws ensure that all players in a market are pressured to make the best product possible. Microsoft is merely making the worst browser slightly less terrible, but it isn't as good as other browsers. If the laws aren't enforced we can't expect the quick improvement and innovation present in other market because of the lack of financial incentive. We're already behind where we should have been in the browser market. We need to make sure Microsoft is pressured like everyone else to make the best product possible, which means that when they do have the worst product, they won't have 60-70+% market share like today. What's keeping IE in the game is bundling. The game needs to be changed, not because IE has to fail, but because Microsoft needs the pressure to make a better browser.)
Personally I won't mind a browserless version, but I reckon that most OEMs will choose to have IE8 included, unless Google jump in and get Chrome thrown in with Google Desktop.
MS provides a browser with their OS to access the web, Apple does the same with Safari, seems like a non-issue these days.
To respond to the bundling issue, MS was convicted of being a Monopoly (which most will agree with). So they're not supposed to bundle free software in this fashion. Apple is far from a monopoly so they can bundle Safari all they want.
you then can explain to the typical computer user who just wants it to work why they suddenly have no idea why their Internet browser looks so different or how they can "download" one when they don't have a browser to get on the internet with in the first place.
How do you download a browser without a browser to view the browser's download page? I suppose explorer offers FTP access, but you'd still need to know the FTP site and I wouldn't know it without being able to google search it. I guess you could email a friend.
Whoa... wait, explorer offers FTP access and I didn't read anything about removing Outlook Express! EU, get to work.
As long as people can get on the internet it does not matter what it looks like. Different versions of IE looks different. Yes, M$ is not supposed to bundle their software in this fashion since it wants to control your computing experience from A-Z. You can't make other browsers completely default even though one does not want it in any way or form. That's not choice. Sure Apple does have Safari install on any Mac but Apple does not have the same amount of market share as MS. Furthermore, Safari does not take over the default browser one chooses like IE does.
For those who say that Ubuntu bundles Firefox, there are other browsers out there you can download and set to default, and Firefox does not take over like IE.
Or perhaps they'll go after the biggest pack-in threat to software... Notepad.exe!
Some people seem to forget that web browsers are the gateway to global internet commerce, so it is VERY important that no one company has undue influence (control?) over the technology.
Ah, I see. So because Microsoft is more successful, we need to cripple them so that they can't continue to be successful.
I like this line of thinking. Actually, my neighbor makes more money than I do. I'm a little envious of it. His car also runs better than mine (damn my car). I think his car gives him an unfair advantage of picking up women. I can't pick up women in my car! Hell, I don't even want to ride in my car... it's sticky and the seats are a little ripped up. And everyone know's a man's car is a gateway to real-life coitus. He should therefore not be aloud to own a car. Allowing me to cruise around town while he has to stay home Friday nights. That'll show that smug bastard.
If IE were not packaged in the majority of non-tech savvy consumers would be left behind or end up paying the 'geek squad' some ridiculous fee to install for them whichever browser that high-school grad thinks they should use.
in your analogy, the "car" you speak of is actually Windows, not IE. Legally speaking, nobody said it was wrong or illegal for Microsoft to have an awesome OS that beats the pants off their competition and ended up owning the OS market. It was bundling IE into it which was considered illegal.
In other words, if you created an awesome car that everybody liked, fine. But if you then became head of Transportation and changed the roads somehow that only your car could be used on them, then that wouldn't be so fair.
What in god's name are you talking about? Your analogy was almost on track up until the point where you basically stated that Microsoft has forced IE on to everyone and then forced the internet only to allow IE browsers which is simply not the case on both points.
I've stated the same concern as noslodecoy... why is it OK for Apple to bundle software but not Microsoft? Marketshare should not matter. It's still unfair to Opera, Firefox and Chrome when Safari comes preinstalled on every single Mac instance. Same as it is unfair for media player developers when iTunes is on every Mac.
Same I guess can be applied for Ubuntu for bundling Firefox
Apparently the EU is full of hypocrites... either go after Apple or leave Microsoft alone. Fair is fair!
do you even understand what you said there? how is bundling IE with windows analogous to changing the roads? here's a good analogy if u want, car = windows, car deck = ie (i believe a car can run without a car deck too!) so now EU says that for example BMW (or whatever car manufacturer for that matter) cannot install their own car deck in their cars for anti-competition reasons because it wouldnt let Pioneer or other car audio equipment manufacturers' to sell their stuff???? that's BS! that's telling people they're brainless and need the "paternal" guidance from them. so here's a word to EU and whoever doesnt understand this: as long as alternatives are better in quality, you can bet your ass people would go for them, even if they have to pay extra money!
What? I just want my neighbor to suffer. With his fancy suits and sparkling smile. It makes me sick.
Alright, seriously. As thelemurking pointed out, your analogy kind of ran off the proverbial highway. Sure that wouldn't be fair, but in your analogy you basically claim Microsoft manipulated the market so only it's "car", Microsoft Windows, can access the "road" which I presume is meant to be the internet. Microsoft may add features to it's browser, but it hardly sets any web standards. If anything, they packed in a Sony stereo and JVC thinks that's just not fair.
Microsoft is successful, and people have become bitter towards the successful. If anything that is what my analogy was meant to convey. We think the little guy's problem is that the world isn't fair so we set rules to make it unfair to everyone who isn't little which isn't any more fair, it's just unfair. However my car still sucks, but maybe with a little hard wor--aw screw it, I call for regulation!
So now it's not only a matter of packaged software, but it's a matter of poor software. Markets usually filter out the bad and if you look at that chart up above in that there article, you'll see that IE's marketshare has been declining.
You want to tell the world that there are browsers better than IE? Then do it. Tell your mom, your grandma, the guy taking your order at McDonald's how great your browser of choice is. Some of them will listen. However, I've found that they listen better if you tell them actually why it's better instead of just complaining about Microsoft.
MIcrosoft broke the law. Simple as that.
Your photo, calc, notepad and ftp comments are missing the point. Neither can be compared to a web browser.
Also, you would have to show that Microsoft broke the law with any of the things you mentioned, like it has been shown that they did with IE. Good luck with that.
Even if you disagree with the law, you can't demand that Microsoft be above the law while it is being enforced against everyone else. Why should Microsoft be the only company which is not subject to these laws? Even if the laws are completely wrong, Microsoft should still follow them. That you disagree with a law is no excuse for not following it. It won't get you out of jail.
I can easily download another browser if I want to, but chose to use IE8. Mozilla for all it's ******** will never have me as a user of its browser. Google is also ******** but I like Chrome.
1. allow PC vendors to negotiate "pre-install" deals with browser vendors, to be 1 of the 4 (revenue for PC vendors).
2. prevent any browser vendor with deep pockets (Microsoft, Google, Apple, ...) from ?purchasing? 100% share.
3. provide a channel for future browser vendors to bring their browser products into the mainstream.
People purchasing these new PCs could stick with the browser that was pre-installed (which many do) or install a different browser and uninstall the original.
Any time you set quotas to "equalize" results, you remove freedom from the consumer. For example, using your suggestion, if an EU citizen wanted a Dell with Firefox, but Dell had already sold it's 25% quota of Firefox machines, that citizen cannot purchase what they want. I thought antitrust regulation was (supposed to be) about protecting consumer choice, not removing it by making their choices for them.
Dell would have to provide a browser selection option, when you order a machine, to guarantee that configuration. I suspect this would be prohibitably expensive for Dell to support, because it could imply special handling for every order.
The point of the percentage limit I suggested, it to avoid giving any one browser a significant advantage over the, by virtue of a companies' "buying" power, close relationship with the PC vendor, etc.
People purchasing new PCs can stick with the browser that was pre-installed (which many do) or install their preferred browser and uninstall the factory-installed browser.
Thanks, you've made my point. No government intervention is necessary. Since people already have the freedom to use any browser they wish, forcing an equal distribution of the big 3(4?) browsers has nothing to do with user choice and is only about ensuring equal outcomes for corporations, regardless of the negative impact on the consumer.
I also don't think the EU really cares about the consumer, they just see another opportunity to leech from Microsoft.
Actually, Microsoft's illegal practices do create problems. Many sites till require IE, for example. So no, you don't have the freedom.
The EU is merely enforcing its laws. I know that criminals don't like laws, though.
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
There is nothing stopping Firefox, chrome,etc from including Active X support in their browser...in fact MS up until the backlash from active X exploits was pushing for active X to be a web standard and included in all browsers. Now even their own browsers limit or downplay the active x capability.
if you look at the current browser market share MS does not have a monopoly in the browser market, but apple on the other hand has and enforces anti completive practices with the ipod music player and the lock into itunes and the apple music store. The is just like MS using the os to favor it browser Apple uses the ipod to favor it's music store. And Apple claims that the Macintosh is not a PC and since it is the only player it allows in its market and it forces OSX on every Mac user the area gets kinda grey there.....
Next thing you know, Opera will demand that OEMs preinstall their browser on a certain percentage of PCs sold in Europe.
But I do agree, rather than having a whole different version for Europe that lacks IE & WMP (which both would easily be added back by user) why not just release such everywhere and then see how Firefox & IE stack up against each other...
That makes the most sense. Then the PC vendors could negotiate "pre-install" deals, with the different browser vendors. The money they make from these deals would more than compensate them, for any additional work to install the browsers.
Which is why they can't let Microsoft get away with the same crap again.
I suppose you also want Apple to stop putting iLife in Macs, and Ubuntu to stop bundling OpenOffice? Or is it just Microsoft that needs to ship an incomplete OS?
Apple and Ubuntu are not dominant in the OS market, so they are free to bundle anything.
Not if the new monopoly doesn't break the law.
PC vendors don't have people manually install software on PCs during the manufacturing process. They create images of the software they want included (e.g. Windows 7 + Firefox + Norton AV + ...) and these images are what are installed on the machines.
They could just as easily create an image with Chrome or IE or Opera, etc. included instead.
As far as MS including all competitors browsers, sure they can do it but don' count on them supporting them. So when a user has to go through the same scenario as above 3 years from now when Firefox is at version 5.x or 6.x they will be installing and using version 3.10 and it will be pwned the instant the user goes online.
Also if MS is compelled to include third party Browsers who is to say that the browser authors have stopped supporting it or gone out of business? Yet the user will install that browser and once again get pwned.
To me not including a browser supported "On a fresh install" whether it be 6 months from the release of Win7 or 4 years is going to be a security nightmare.
And to follow-up with the arguement about iTunes. It is a monopoly since it is required to both load your iPod and update it.
The EU is a protectionsist group in that if the US had the same requirements for say Nokia phones there would be an instant outcry from the EC.
If I were a PC vendor, anywhere in the world (US included), I would be fighting like hell, to have the same EU rules apply.
1. When you boot your computer the first time, you will get a display screen mentioning your choice of web browsers to install (Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome or Opera).
2. Once you make the choice, it installs a special version of the browser you chose that will automatically go online to check for updated versions--if one does exist, it will download and install the updated browser code.
I think this should be the default for ALL worldwide versions of Windows 7.
It sounds like rather than no browser, you want to mandate that Microsoft Windows comes with many browsers pre-installed. See my points in other posts above. Why do you assume that there is somebody in government that is so much smarter that everyone else, that he already knows what browsers you need and want?
And under this new standard of forced choice (because those consumers are just so dumb!), does the leading company in every industry need to distribute their competitors' products to equalize the outcomes? Does my Toyota need to ship with a stereo made by Kia? Does Google search need to sometimes redirect to Yahoo?
The government doesn't have to be "smart". It has invited comments from OEMs, browser vendors, etc. So the government has invited expert opinions on the matter.
Forced choice? Wow, one has to be a Microsoft shill to think that choice is bad!
Google is not convicted of illegal monopolistic practices. Having a monopoly in itself is not illegal, only abusing it.
How about you educate yourself before commenting?
By forced choice I mean you are letting the gov't choose for you, instead of the total freedom of choice you have today. Why are you so in favor of gov't telling you what you want instead of letting you choose? I happen to like individual freedom. Apparently the EU does not.
A ruling in this case does not mean that the government chooses for you. You can still choose IE. But IE will no longer have all those unfair advantages.
1: Is this just in the N and E versions or all Europe versions the article is confusing if its all versions why have the E editions (N would need to stay anyway due to media player)
2: If it is all Europe versions how do you get to the Internet to download another browser?
3: Does the average user know enough about their browser or even what one is to make a choice let alone download and install one.
4: If OEM preinstalled other browsers wont the end user be confused?
- by 1g2j June 11, 2009 11:57 AM PDT
- Microsoft still has Windows Update. They can just deliver it that way. Most consumers do not pay attention anyway. IE8 will be installed after the fact.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by JoshW02aol.com June 11, 2009 12:16 PM PDT
- So consumers are going to install windows and have to wait until windows says an update is ready for download? Installing after the fact is pointless. And why cant we end the browser war EU and just consider the browser a core part of the OS!
- Like this
-
- by plings June 11, 2009 1:23 PM PDT
- "why cant we end the browser war EU and just consider the browser a core part of the OS"
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (205 Comments)Because Micosoft broke the law.