EU responds to Microsoft's browser move
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."
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. 
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.
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 should more than compensate them for any additional work required on their part.
As for users, people purchasing these new PCs can stick with the browser that was pre-installed by the PC maker (which many will) or install their preferred browser and uninstall the original.
What makes you think that? How do you know that Microsoft won't just put some other pressure on the OEMs to re-install IE? Microsoft could, for example, threaten to withdraw co-marketing dollars or to make other Microsoft software bundles (office, developer tools, server software, etc.) more difficult or expensive.
Unless we know what the actual contract Microsoft has with the OEM, there's no telling whether or not this makes it any easier for anyone but Microsoft to get onto those machines and I think it's highly unlikely that OEMs will be able to turn around and charge Microsoft of installing IE when Microsoft obviously has an upper hand when it comes to owning several critical components of the OEM's offering.
If you run the Acid3 test on IE and compare the results to any of the other major web browser (Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari), you will find that IE gets the worst results. So, it clearly depends on what your criteria is, for classifying a browser as crappy.
The acid3 test is here: http://acid3.acidtests.org/
That's the point of the 25% limit. Regardless of what Microsoft does, ethical or otherwise, the PC maker cannot pre-install IE on more than 25% of their machines. So, considering the worst case scenario, with Microsoft's worst behavior, IE can only get 25% of the market on new PCs. What users do, after the fact, is another thing.
Way to play "guess what browser my computer shipped with" with some arbitrary percentage as 25%. You still don't seem to understand that no other industry is FORCED to advertise other competitors products for FREE.
There's no advertising involved. The PC maker negotiates pre-install deals with browser vendors & decides which 4 they install based on that. It may not be the same 4 browsers for every PC maker.
Re. the 25% limit, that is just an idea intended to prevent any one company from monopolizing a PC vendors installs, through financial incentives or otherwise.
I'm sorry, but I still think your idea is putting free product placement on a MS OS for competitor browsers. And it looks like others on here agree (excluding my posts, yes there are a lot last one I promise hehe).
I liked jezzali post below about MS update only functioning on IE which I didn't think of till he/she mentioned it. Guess this is the EU next mission.
There is no free product placement in my idea. The pre-install negotiations are between the PC makers & the browser vendors. I'm simply advocating that PC makers have some kind of limit on pre-installs, so that no one vendor can monopolize them.
Re. MS update, it is my understanding that it works without IE. If it doesn't, then this will be a BIG problem, because MS is presumably shipping a fully supported OS to Europe that doesn't include IE.
Maybe the customers will realize that EI is not that bad afterall.
I'll help my brothers across the pond. www.firefox.com. Click the GIANT download button and install!
Simple.
You might try reading posts of other people in other articles, related to this subject. Sometimes there is good information there.
"What is FTP Alex"? (oh! incase you didn't know, FTP means FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL, which means you can download and upload files from within EXPLORER... which IE can't do anymore for some strange reason... it's likely how you get firefox anyway... check the link, see if it says "ftp://")
Same would go for AV software. Obviously this could exclude some "players" but as long as you are allowed to submit your slim installer to MS for inclusion free of charge and MS routinely updates this functionality, it would work just fine.
MS and computer manufacturers both already do this sort of thing with "tryware" installs, why not extend it to things people want.
And this eliminates the "infected before you even get a chance to protect yourself" problem, as you wouldn't be launching a web browser just to download a web browser. Though I doubt Windows 7 is nearly as prone to this as XP was now, who knows 2 years down the line.
No company would give free product placement to competitors. However, it can be forced to, and it can be in the best company interests to comply. It particular, it can be forced to do this by law if it is found to abuse its monopoly.
Your examples are bad. BMW is not a monopoly. And Apple can bundle Safari with Mac as much as they want, since Mac's OS market share is small (that is, Mac also is not a monopoly).
I'm not talking about including competitors software, or even including IE8. Only the small .exe files that run the installer wizards for each product, which then grabs the actual browser from the internet. There is no reason these apps would have to be tied to any registry until you actually install the browser, in which case the installer/unistaller registers itself. This is how any modern installer you download from the internet works, at least on Windows. It downloads as a small file that checks your system when run and then brings in the right components from the internet.
It's a very low overhead method of complying.
Actually it doesn't matter how much market share Apple has since they control the entire production cycle so they are not subject to the same rules as MS whose systems are built by third parties.
An argument such as yours based on market share is biased at best even with monopolies. The point of anti-trust is to level the playing field for all parties not skew so that underdog companies have an advantage.
"Actually it doesn't matter how much market share Apple has since they control the entire production cycle"
With all the respect, you are not right. It does not matter whether the company controls the whole cycle or not. In fact, as soon as iPhone will get market share big enough to be considered a monopoly, it will not be able to get away with things like restricting the choice of apps that can be installed on the device.
For example, because Apple already dominates MP3-player market, they got in trouble in EU for using their proprietary audio codec and rightly so.
" The point of anti-trust is to level the playing field for all parties not skew so that underdog companies have an advantage."
I agree the point is to level the playing field. Now, how is what EU is suggesting is not a leveled field? It gives the users a choice what browser to install. What can be more fair? If you like IE more than other browsers, you can choose IE.
You may say that it is not fair to force Microsoft to provide this leveled field. But it is also not true. I think this is the least the company can do to pay for badly abusing its market position for decades.
"It is not up to the EU to force an infastructure change on the PC manufacturers."
But this is the point, they do not. Though I do believe that any PC manufacturer will be glad to pre-install one of the browsers and get paid for it.
Also, while I believe that having 5 install packages on disk to choose from is not a big deal, it is not the only option. If you want you can have a single installer that will download and install the browser of your choice. I am sure that any of the browser makers will be ready to write one just to get a shot at the leveled playing field.
"Not only that moste consumers don't know or care what browser they use, so they are highly likely to either a. click the top option: or b. click the one with Microsofts name in it."
I partially agree with you on this, but only partially. First, if you are right, why would not Microsoft provide the option? Second, what if one of the options is Google? Google's brand is at least as good as that of Microsoft (actually much better if you look at data for the last three years, especially in Europe).
"And what happens to off the shelf PCs? before you can take it home you have to tell the salesman what browser you want installed so he can install it before you leave."
That's not necessary. You may chose the browser among several different alternatives during the setup stage (that is, when you choose your username, password, etc).
Offering a selection of browsers is less choice than no browser at all. EU consumers can now install whatever browser they can find. What happens if I write a new browser however bad it may be? Should MS be forced to include that on their list? Can they cry foul that IE, FF, Safari, Chrome are on the list of selectable browsers and they are not.
You would replace a monopoly with an oligarchy which is just as bad.
WRONG AGAIN. Please stop spouting your lies and untruths. Apple cannot and will not be stopped because of their control of the entire product cycle. The point of the Apple iPod anti-trust was to break the exclusive link between the iPod and the iTunes store. The result was that Apple was forced to allow their AAC codec to be used by other third party software. Apple in NO way was forced to change anything with the iPod or iTunes except to make the iPod usable by third party software which required no changes. Don't you hate being wrong so many times. Please stop commenting with incorrect statements.
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3624906
Don't look at Microsoft.
And this really only effects the EU consumers. Are you one?
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. I think the final mechanism is still a work in progress.
Microsoft, the driver, EU is the cop.
Hello sir, I've pulled you over for bundiling you OS with a brower.
What does the driver do? IT DOESN"T BUNDLE BROWSERS ANYMORE. (replace bundiling with speeding if you really don'tt get it).
"Step 25, download a brower by...."
I wish that was true but it is not. Even if Apple had 99.99% market share they could do whatever they want. Same reason why the iPhone and iPod touch only has to provide Safari, and other mobile phone makers provide whatever mobile browser that suits them. They control the entire product cycle as I've already stated. This is why Apple fought tooth and nail to eliminate the Psystar Mac clones. As soon as Apple allows third parties to build their devices they are subject to the same rules as MS.
I call for a boycott on Opera! Oh wait no one cares about them anyways... carry on.
Now, MS is supplying an OS without the inclusion of a browser - and the European Commission is unhappy with that. They want MS to include competitor's browsers??? That would be like forcing McDonald's to sell Whoppers. Or making Lambourghini have to offer engines by GM, Ford, Chrysler, Ferrari, etc.
Typical of a government entity sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong.
Big question: does Apple have to do this too? Not just Safari? And what about mobile phones?
Please notice that is was not EU decision to ship the new OS without a browser. Microsoft itself chose to do so as opposed to providing several alternatives and let users choose.
EU wants more choice for users, and Microsoft wants less. So you should think better who to hate.
Maybe you'll get it this way:
If you were an apple tree, and your life depended on people eating as many apples as posible, would you go through the trouble of growing oranges? Why would microsoft want to dysplay its competition to its products on its own platform??
I hope the people is not as dumb as the lawmakers.
MS gave the EU commision what it wanted an OS without IE integrated in and not installed on setup, so stop whining about how MS implemented the EUs rules. Guess the EU didn't really think this one through.
"Why would microsoft want to dysplay its competition to its products on its own platform?? "
That's a valid question, and I do get it. Of course no company would want to display products from its competitors. However, they may be forced to do that nonetheless, and it may be a good thing.
Using your example, an apple tree will not go through the trouble of growing oranges, but the gardener may choose to cut some apple trees if they are killing everything else in the garden. Especially so, if given a choice the gardener's family would actually prefer oranges.
The point is, choice is good. EU wants to provide its users with more choice and can force Microsoft to do exactly that. If Microsoft wants to sell software in EU, they have to follow EU rules. Will it be good for Microsoft? No. Will it be good for consumers? Ultimately, yes.
but if MS is getting fined every 5 years hundreds of millions of dollars then i think most people would agree that the EU is basically pointing a gun at MS and saying don't pre-install IE or we're going to fine you lot of money.
"but if MS is getting fined every 5 years hundreds of millions of dollars then i think most people would agree that the EU is basically pointing a gun at MS and saying don't pre-install IE or we're going to fine you lot of money."
To be more precise, EU is pointing a gun at MS and saying "don't abuse your OS monopoly". The only reason IE keeps fining Microsoft is that the company keeps ignoring the law, both in the US and in EU. When DOJ decided to fine Microsoft $1mil a day until it complies with the rules, Bill Gates laughed and said that he was making $1mil every 2.5 hours.
Is it fair for EU to force Microsoft to do more if the company chooses to release an OS without a browser? It depends on how you look at it. On one hand, Microsoft will no longer violate the law. On the other hand, it is still responsible for the damage it did in the past. It therefore can still be made to provide a solution that would work better for EU users, for example, one that would give users a choice what browser to install. That is, if Microsoft wants to do business in EU, which of course it does.
You are not advocating a free choice. You are pushing for your choices. The EU decided to rule that MS could not tie it's browser into its OS, and the EU got what it wanted. Ask and you shall receive. Now go forth and multiply with yourself. Forcing a pre-selected choice is not real choice.
I like the way they restore balance to the system. If this was boxing and they decided Ali had won two many championship bouts, they would blindfold him and remove a leg before he could fight again.
I mean let's be honest, MS doesn't need any help in losing market share, they are doing a fine job of it on a daily basis. The market will self correct and is already doing so.
This isn't about monopoly, it's about functionality and in today's world, an operating system without a browser is a paperweight. MS may have argued incorrectly years ago that the OS couldn't function without the browser, but today it is pretty much true.
So, if they want to go down this path, Apple doesn't get to bundle Safari and Linux Distros can't bundle Firefox.
You are mistaken. Apple is free to bundle Safari and Linux guys are free to bundle Firefox, because neither has a monopoly in the OS market.
If MS had only 10% of the OS market, they would be free to bundle their OS with whatever they want. What they are doing now is against the law, and they know it.
Yes, MS is losing share, but it will take years for the markets to self correct, and given a chance, this company can do a lot of damage (I mean, look at their history).
"If this was boxing and they decided Ali had won two many championship bouts, they would blindfold him and remove a leg before he could fight again."
I would say it is more like Ali had a gun and shot three guys instead of boxing them. And now EU asks to take the gun away and let the best boxer win. If MS has the best browser, what are they scared of? But then of course they do not have the best browser. In fact, they probably have the worst browser...
"I would say it is more like Ali had a gun and shot three guys instead of boxing them"
So you are implying that Ali was succesfull because he was cheating?
Microsoft is succesfull because consumers make it so, and that is because it is more good than bad, otherwise people simply would not buy.
Simply put, Opera sucks, they know it and are desperate so they pushed lawmakes and probably paid them to act in a stupid manner expecting microsoft to give in and make it easy for the competition so I laugh very hard jajajajajajajaa at the fact that microsoft made a smart move to comply and not get screwed by these small brain people.
"So you are implying that Ali was succesfull because he was cheating?"
Yes.
"Microsoft is succesfull because consumers make it so, and that is because it is more good than bad, otherwise people simply would not buy."
To be more precise, Microsoft is successful in the OS market. Consumers make it so, and it is fair.
Is Microsoft successful in the browser market. Yes, Is is fair? No. Because in the browser market, it has an unfair advantage. Its browser is worse than those supplied by competitors (pretty much all experts, including web standards gurus, agree), yet it has a big market share because it comes pre-installed with the OS.
This is precisely why Microsoft does not want users to choose what browser to install. And that's what EU is trying to enforce.
You may say that Opera sucks, you do not have to install it. The point is it should be up to the user and not up to the company that has a long history of abusing its market position is every way possible.
Wrong again. The EU wants MS to provide browsers of its choice. Not all browsers can fit into a selection screen, so who decides what browsers are selected? The EU? I hope not.
MS leveled the playing field by removing all browsers from the OS and giving EU customers a true choice to install whatever browser they can find (without a browser of course).
"Wrong again. The EU wants MS to provide browsers of its choice. Not all browsers can fit into a selection screen, so who decides what browsers are selected?"
I personally would make it simple: any browser with a market share more than 1% makes the list (there are only a few of those). Would it be perfect? No. Would it be better than what we have now? 100 times better!!! If a new browser shows up, 1% is low enough to make it, and from there on you are on the leveled field. playing with the big guys.
"MS leveled the playing field by removing all browsers from the OS and giving EU customers a true choice to install whatever browser they can find (without a browser of course)"
I would agree with you if OEMs could not pre-load machines with software of their choice. However, because they can and do, MS solution plays well for big guys like MS (of course) and Google. This is why I like my solution better.
Don't believe me ? As someone who is well and truly familiar with Microsoft's practices all I will say to you is, "Oh goodie, lets wait and see shall we ? And I'll try not to say 'I told you so'".
It was those sly tactics that I find questionable. How about some common sense? Let MS include whatever browser they want on their OS, and make sure they make it easy and understandable for common consumers how to switch browser default settings. What the EU is doing is overstepping their bounds. It is the PC manufacturers that need to be convinced to start offering alternative OS and browsers on the hardware they sell.
Can I get an Amen?!
It's like solving a problem after the fact instead of spending time on prevention.
Extreme example (just for laughs):
"Too many teenagers are having babies. I know let's force them to have abortions." Instead of spending money on condoms and sex education.
That is the best common sense scenario that would bes fit this issue.
I wish the people that make the rules were the smarter people instead of the most popular.
I don't see what the big deal is anyway.
So what if Windows comes with Internet Explorer or Media Player? There are alternatives that work as good (or better) and they aren't hard to get - if you want them. Forget what the "M$" Bashers have to say, the stuff that comes with Windows does work and some (or most) don't see a reason to ditch this software just because there are others programs that *might* do the same thing. Don't like what comes with your computer? Download something else; problem solved. It's not like having IE present is going to cripple your installation of Firefox. In general, software is 'better behaved' and plays more nicely with others than in the past and won't keep bugging you about it. Not every piece of software is as willing to co-exist, but for the most part, we're not caught in the middle of a digital tug-of-war on our hard drives.
I don't need a MacGuyver browser, just something to check my e-mail and visit the handful of sites I wander through regularly. IE serves *my* needs just fine, with Opera as my backup (I've been using it for years and was my primary brower in between Internet Explorer 5.5 and 7, I've tried Firefox but saw no compelling reason to switch to it over what I already use). Your mileage will vary, depending on what you do and where you go. Unlike the underwhelming IE 6, the more recent builds have been far less problematic and more capable. Perfect? No, but much better than in the past. Plus, Windows Update doesn't run through IE anymore, so there's that.
Now, it's been some time since I've even bothered with a Mac (I'm one of those converts people seem to overlook, Mac to PC), but doesn't OSX also come with stuff other than the OS? Why doesn't this get mentioned? What happens if Macs gain more of a percentage (which I think is a flawed way to look at things, but it's how a lot do it) in households? While we're at it, why not make it so that computers can't come with an operating system either, so you have to go out and buy Windows or Mac OS (if you can pry a Mac out of Apple's total control) or else get your hands on a disk with your favorite flavor of Linux on it?
Isn't that the next step?
The EU complains about anti-trust laws being broken; however, its also against standard business ethics to force a company to encorporate another company's product into their own. As much as I can't stand Microsoft, they have every right in the world to include IE in Windows or remove it (Its ALL THEIR software). Again, if you don't like it, don't buy it.
Also, as another post stated, its not that difficult to open IE and type "http://www.firefox.com" and download another web browser. If people out there can't figure that out by now (young or old), they really need to get with times and learn the basics of Internet and how it works. Good Grief, this is 2009!
I, personally, hope that Microsoft sends them OS's without IE. Then the EU is really up **** creek! Without IE, people wouldn't have the slightest clue of how to obtain a web browser and put it on their computer(s).
-my 2 cents
Well, it also works vice versa, you do not like following EU rules, don't sell in EU!!! Of course the thing is that Microsoft cannot afford to lose EU market, and so I guess they will have to follow the rules.
And yes, EU can force Microsoft to provide users with a choice: their land, their rules. Again, if you do not want to follow them, you can always withdraw from that market. It is just the Microsoft cannot do that.
I agree with you on trade wars (Airbus vs Boeing, etc). The reason I do not think this is the case here is that pretty much all MS competitors are also US-based companies and they are also the ones who are the most likely to gain.
Plus, no one really has any doubt that MS is abusing its position. This is exactly the reason they chose not to wait for the final verdict. I mean, their defense was just ridiculous. They knew it would not hold.
I am for competition, not against it. Trade wars should be avoided at all costs, the same way as there must be laws to prevent monopolies from abusing their power.
Regarding EU being "the last Coke in the desert", let's face it, there is simply no way Microsoft can afford to lose that market. It accounts for a huge chunk of the company's profits, but, more importantly, losing market share in the EU would have an immediate affect on MS market share in other countries too, and MS would be worth much less without its firm grip on the OS business.
I'm not a huge fan of Microsoft and I don't even use IE (Firefox all the way) but we're moving into Kafkaesque territory. Let the best browser win and be done with it. I switched, does the EU really believe its citizens are too stupid to make the same informed choice?
Yes, as everyone in this industry knows, it is true, users are too stupid. Sad, but true. Both in EU and US, and everywhere else actually. And this is why the government sometimes has to make corrections.
I partially agree that EU rules are post hoc. They should have fixed the problem long time. But then, the problem is still there, and Microsoft still bundles IE, even though pretty much everyone in the legal community knows that they are breaking the law.
Is EU harsh on Microsoft? They are. Does Microsoft deserve it, I think they do.
It is just my personal opinion, but I still find it strange that so many people do not understand that yes, Microsoft is breaking the law, and has been breaking it for a very long time. And no, it is not like Apple bundling their OS with Safari or GM showing off Ford models. It is very different, because MS has 90% of the OS market, has enormous market power, and has a long history of abusing it.
I am not against Microsoft. I have been using first NT and then XP forever. I am just against some of their practices (I am also against some Apple's practices for that matter, but that's another story).
I also believe that a democracy like EU has a right to do whatever they believe is best for their consumers. It is really that simple.
So I love hearing how the EU is concerned now that there won't be an included browser. Instead - you want to force MS to promote companies who cannot compete even on a playing field of free browsers.
I have a phone with Opera - I hate it - I can't change it for IE which is far better because of the deal Opera has with Samsung and its on a WinMobile phone - so Opera - keep your lame browser or make it worthwhile to download instead - even Chrome appeared with more downloads than you
So are you also suing Apple for Safari being included or Firefox and Chrome for being more popular than you.
That doesn't reflect on the quality of Opera, which is heads and shoulders above IE in every category, from properly rendering to small footprint and fast performance, and security.
Their mistake was a marketing one.
"they are not subject to the communist laws of Europe"
If they want to sell software in EU they are! And those "communist" laws you talk about are pretty much the same in the US, it is just that EU happens to be better at enforcing them.
I will not even look at Opera now just because of this whine ass attitude.
- by saintseminole June 11, 2009 5:51 PM PDT
- I guess I'm missing something here... How will European consumers actually get a different browser, if they don't have IE in the first place?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by apple-pi June 11, 2009 6:05 PM PDT
- "Seems like the EU folks shot their citizens in the foot with this one"
- Like this
-
- by kosen11 June 11, 2009 6:12 PM PDT
- No, the EU demanded that IE be uninstallable from the OS and not bundled on install. So MS gave them what they asked for just like the Media Playerless browser before this, which never sold.
- Like this
-
- by chrisdrobison June 11, 2009 6:27 PM PDT
- I bet they could afford it for a little at least. It would be an interesting experiment for Microsoft to completely pull out the of EU.
- Like this
-
- by apple-pi June 11, 2009 6:45 PM PDT
- kosen11
- Like this
-
- by kosen11 June 11, 2009 7:24 PM PDT
- @apple-pi
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (218 Comments)Everyone I've ever known who used any other browser (Firefox, Opera, etc.) had to get online with IE first, download the browser, and then install it.
Seems like the EU folks shot their citizens in the foot with this one.
To be more precise, Microsoft shot EU citizens in the foot by deciding to supply no browser at all instead of supplying several alternatives.
However, I do not think it will be a big deal.
First, all PC-s from OEMs will come with pre-installed browsers (it is just that not all of those will be IE). Second, EU can still force Microsoft to supply several browsers. As long as Microsoft sells stuff in EU, they are subject to EU rules, and Microsoft cannot afford to lose EU as a market.
"No, the EU demanded that IE be uninstallable from the OS and not bundled on install."
I am sorry, but that's just not true. EU argued that by bundling IE with Windows, Microsoft abused its dominant market position.
EU suggested that Microsoft let users choose what browser to install among several alternatives.
Instead of giving users more choice, Microsoft decided to give them none. It was Microsoft's decision to ship an OS without a browser, not that by EU!
Sigh please do some research because your definitely wrong.
"Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice."
http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2009/01/eu-vs-microsoft-bundling-wars-ad-nauseam.ars
So MS is no longer tying IE into their OS. The EU can suggest all they want, but the ruling speaks for itself. No where does it say that MS must provide a choice.