Comments on: Europe to get Windows 7 sans browser
Aiming to appease regulators, Microsoft plans to ship Windows 7 in Europe without Internet Explorer, though computer makers will have the option to add it back in, CNET News has learned.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Beyond Binary
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.
Beyond Binary is a look at how technology is changing our lives and the people behind all that life-changing stuff, with an extra emphasis on that which emanates from Redmond, Wash.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Beyond Binary topics
Binary Bits
Follow Ina on Twitter (Twitter name: InaFried)
Competition laws. EU's equivalent to American antitrust laws. Are you really unaware of the existence of competition law?
Yes, equally applied.
The law that was broken was Article 82.
No punishment has been awarded yet. It is to be determined.
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
The most recent news I've seen on the issue is this: "In the statement of objection, the Commission sets out evidence and outlines its preliminary conclusion that Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice," the EU executive said in a statement.
That's all it takes in the EU? No court of First Instance, etc? Just an EU executive says so and you're guilty? I beleive the hearing was scheduled for this month. But since you've decided guilty until proven innocent is the new standard in the EU, I guess it's a done deal?
Once again your ignorance shines through.
1) You quoted a preliminary statement, not a judgement.
2) The hearing was canceled by Microsoft.
3) Microsoft has been convicted of the same practices in the past, so one has to be insane to think that they are completely innocent.
I still don't follow your argument. There has been no judgement in the current case, so they are guilty based on past behavior, instead of completing the judicary process for the current case?
Using your analogy, if you got busted for speeding 10 years ago, the police would be "insane" to not assume you are still speeding in your new car today.
BTW, the attempt to stifle debate with unnecessary demeaning comments isn't working.
Again, the judgement is just a technicality. Everyone can see that Microsoft is guilty.
And the point with them having been convicted in the past just strengthens the fact that they will be convicted again, since we see the same behavior now as when they were convicted before.
You made my day, sir!
Windows has a 90% market share.
Neither Mac OS nor Linux are dominant. So this doesn't apply to them.
Get a clue please.
It is well-documented that Microsoft is actively trying to destroy competitors with immoral and illegal methods.
Really? Care to provide some? I'd Bing it, but I didn't make the claim and don't feel a need to. Do you really believe that Steve Ballmer wakes up each morning with a desire to destroy? The shareholders every year constantly crying out for more destruction and immorality?
How old are you?
Are you old enough to remember the antitrust case against Microsoft in the US in the late 90s? In that case, there was a lot of evidence brought forward about a conscious strategy by Microsoft to use illegal tactics to destroy the browser market.
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
I followed it closely back then and used to be an M$ hater too. The fact that Office cost hundreds of dollars meant I just didn't buy it. I looked for alternatives.
What's changed? I grew up. I am "old enough" to have seen that the surest way to screw the customer is to get the government involved in "protecting the consumer". Politics being what it is in the last 2 decades has shown that gov't is more reponsive to the businesses that lobby with the most cash or campaign contributions. The "people" are always the victims.
As for MS, The courts reached a decision, MS complied and changed its behavior. It's been under a high powered microscope since then and can't fart without a regulator getting involved to ensure that they've properly exposed their flatulence api. It sounds like you want double jeopardy - punish the criminal after they've served their sentence and been released.
Just because you were (and are) irrational and all about knee-jerk reactions doesn't mean that everyone else is.
I don't HATE MS. Not at all. I am merely pointing out the fact that they broke the law. And you seem to be ignorant of the basic facts of this case.
I see you've run out of reasoned debate. There wasn't anything substantive in your post. Then again, there hasn't been for a awhile. Here's my summary of our discourse:
Plings: MS broke the law, article 82.
Rixhere: Not yet, still in process.
Plings: But they did in the 90's!
Rixhere: yup, and are still paying for it today.
Plings: You're ignorant.
There was some other stuff about freedom of choice and our basic disagreement about whether personal freedom of choice is better than government mandated choice, but I thing we're done. Thanks for participating.
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.)
FACT: Microsoft has been convicted of anti-competitive practices in several countries, including the US, Korea and the EU.
You clearly do NOT know the history.
Whether IE is making money directly or not is irrelevant. Microsoft destroyed the browser market with illegal methods. That's all there is to it.
Now stop posting all these inane comments, and start educating yourself instead.
2: I dont understand the idea of browser market consumers can swich if they wish just as they can to linux or mac but they choose not 2 consumers are not supid. And fyi i am educated i know the history i just refuse to belive your interpration of it.
Long live Microsoft.
Good one.
Consumers can NOT switch freely. Many sites still require IE. And they cano NOT switch freely to Linuy and Mac either, but that's a different discussions.
You are clearly not educated. You clearly don't know the history. Please stop lying.
Except they didn't. They never achieved domiance outside of the desktop. Which shows how utterly pathetic their products are. That they managed to become dominant on the desktop is because of illegal and immoral business practices and luck, not quality or skill.
@plings " that they are forced to use Microsoft products?"
Really? Somebody comes to your house, puts a gun to your head, and says "Use IE dammit, or your done for!" For your statement to be true, Windows would need to have 100% market share and it would be impossible for you to use FF or Safari, or anything else.The simple fact that you DO have a choice means you are not forced to do anything. At least not until the EU gets its way, then you will lose out on choice.
To quote you again: "I guess that just goes to show how ignorant you are."
No, Windows would not need 100% market share. But it does have 90% or so.
And indeed, it is impossible to use anything but IE on many sites.
How will the EU cause you to lose out on choice? No one will prevent you from installing your favorite browser, IE.
I need to stop reading, its getting too easy. you said: "How will the EU cause you to lose out on choice? No one will prevent you from installing your favorite browser, IE"
Thank you for making my case. Nobody is stopping you now from installing your favorite browser.
Your straw man is just pathetic.
1: as i said in my last post consumers do have a choice please explain one good reason why consumers cant swich to mac or linux tomorro? Why are they forced to use them?
2: Give me one url i can totally not access when not using IE.
3: I have not lied just giving my views
2: No. I'm not going to dig up all sorts of stuff right now just to convince some Microsoft shill.
EU wants the company to un-bundle the browser from the OS and legitimately so. For those who do not know the rules, it is not illegal to bundle products in general. It is also not illegal to be a monopoly. But it is illegal to have a monopoly in one area and use it to obtain a monopoly in another area.
When you become a monopoly because you have a superior product, that's good for you, and no one can take that success away. However, if you use your success in one area to gain an unfair advantage in another area, via bundling and such, you are abusing your market power.
Few people doubt that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. Back in the 90's they used that monopoly to "win" the browser war by bundling IE with Windows. That was and is against the law.
Now they have a monopoly in the browser market. Not because the browser is any good, but because it is shipped with Windows and set as a default. You are also encouraged to install it via OS updates, and yes, guess what, you cannot download those updates from a browser that is not IE!!! Not because there is no way to make this feature work, not because YOU want to use IE, but because THEY force you to use it.
Why should you care? Well, to start, every website on the web now has to program around IE problems It is buggy and not standard-compliant, but it still has a huge chunk of the market. That is very inefficient, and the cost is ultimately passed to the consumer. And if you have a startup, what is a point to build the best browser ever if you know you cannot win? Even more worrisome is what Microsoft can do by doing the same thing again and bundling IE with its search engine and its web services.
Now, EU wants to un-bundle IE from Windows. They did not suggest that Microsoft not ship the OS with a browser (ridiculous). The idea was that the new OS would come with a number of browsers pre-installed and the user will be able to choose between them. That would be great for users, but MS does not want that, because many people go with IE as a default but few would actually choose it.
So Microsoft decides to ship the OS without a browser at all. This way they can still play the OEM game and have a chance to pre-install their browser at that level. This way they will also blame EU for bad user experience: "we had to do it, because EU told us so", which is a lie, since they had a much better alternative.
Re. the concern about the OEM game, one solution I have been suggesting is that PC makers be required to limit the installation of any one browser to say 25% of all new machines.
Quite likely, 3 of the 4 available slots would be IE, FireFox & Chrome. However, the 4th could be Opera or Safari or any other browser, depending on negotiations with the PC makers.
This solution would at least prevent browser vendors with deep pockets (Microsoft, Google, Apple, ...) from "purchasing" (or finagling) 100% of the new PC installs. It would also gives future browser vendors a better shot at bringing their browser products into the mainstream.
If it is not obvious, one thing has little to do with the other. MS has many great people and a lot of potential. Like any big company they often get hammered for wrong reasons too. I would love to be proud of the company, but it will not happen until they change their practices and start winning not because they got lucky 20 years ago, but because they can be the best.
Microsoft broke the law. That's why they may have to include other browsers.
It makes sense to punish those who break the law.
The EU does realize that you can download other browsers, but that's not the issue here. Perhaps you should educate yourself about the matter before commenting?
Microsoft has been convicted of the same thing in the past, so I think we can safely say that they will be convicted again.
MS has not taken adequate steps to address the core of the problem. They have made some half-assed efforts to make it look like they are playing nice, but the EC will see through that.
This decision by MS does not make the case pointless at all. If MS did break the law, it needs to be punished.
Part of what you are saying is true. For instance, while this step by Microsoft is bad for users, it is not necessarily bad for Microsoft. If you read between the lines, EU wanted more competition, and Microsoft told them to f$&k off... Does it make me love Microsoft more? No. Was it a bad business decision? Not necessarily. For example, by doing what they did, Microsoft, discourages other countries from following EU.
However, even so, I would argue that ultimately it was a bad business decision. Microsoft knew they would lose the browser case (and yes, they did break the law - this decision of theirs is the best evidence), so instead of supplying several browsers they decided to supply none. The only problem for them is that EU can still force them to do the right thing (and yes, forcing a monopoly to provide users with a choice, is the right thing). Microsoft simply cannot afford not to do business in EU. I therefore would argue that giving the user a choice of multiple browsers would not be "stupid from a business sense", at least if you look at the alternative of being forced to do so and pissing off law-makers you do not want to **** off.
And no, it would not be more of "customer service nightmare" than it is now. PC-s usually come pre-loaded with all kinds of programs, so it is not like all programs on your desktop are from Microsoft anyways.
"The EU should realized that while Windows includes IE, it does not preclude someone from downloading and installing another browser. Yes, a lot of people don't do it, but so what? Those people WANT IE bundled with Windows."
That's also not true. Those people do not want IE bundled with the browser, they want A browser, which is a big difference. The problem with bundling IE is that it distorts the market. Just to avoid that problem, I think it is wise to show users several alternatives to choose from and let them choose. They do not care? Let them choose a random browser, it is still better than what we have now.
"Who is the big winner? Not the browser makers... They're also a loser. Now they have to pay the manufacturers to include their browser. The biggest winners are the pc manufacturers."
You are right, PC manufactures are big winners, but you are wrong about browser makers, they are winners too. They are, simply because Microsoft now has to pay to have IE pre-installed. Microsoft has big pockets, but bidding will be expensive, and so Microsoft will lose at least some of its market power.
"How will the pass the savings onto us? No, of course not."
In the long, run, it will, simply because there will be more competition in the browser market, and more competition tends to drive innovation and benefit consumers.
Ok today in 2009 how is the continue bundling of IE into windows 7 helping MS gain another monoploy? If so in which area?
"Few people doubt that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. Back in the 90's they used that monopoly to "win" the browser war by bundling IE with Windows. That was and is against the law."
Fair enough but its now 2009 and people consider a browser a core part of an OS well i do anyway its as important as a GUI to most people.
"Now they have a monopoly in the browser market. Not because the browser is any good, but because it is shipped with Windows and set as a default. You are also encouraged to install it via OS updates, and yes, guess what, you cannot download those updates from a browser that is not IE!!! Not because there is no way to make this feature work, not because YOU want to use IE, but because THEY force you to use it."
Somthing has to be shipped with a consumer OS and I dont want loads of web browsers clogging up my system preinstalled also you only have to use IE once to download another browser and most updates from Vista onwards come via the explorer shell
"but MS does not want that, because many people go with IE as a default but few would actually choose it."
Dude most consumers dont know its even call internet explorer or what a browser is. "The E thing" is all they know. Do you want your grandparents or somthing calling tech support saying why is this IE different i cant use it when in fact its firefox? Im not against choice but im for simplisty.
People also consider walking freely around a core part of individual freedoms, but if you break the law, that freedom is taken away and you are put in jail.
That you don't want multiple browsers to choose from is irrelevant. Everyone else doesn't want IE forced on them.
It does not help them to gain a new monopoly, it helps them to support old monopoly that was obtained illegaly, and this is just the same, at least because the way the law is written today you cannot punish the company until it has done the damage (and keeps doing it).
"Fair enough but its now 2009 and people consider a browser a core part of an OS well i do anyway its as important as a GUI to most people."
But that's the point, the browser does not have to do anything with the OS. It is possible for the OS and the browser to share the same libraries, but OS does not need the actual browser application. This is why it is possible to use FF or Chrome on Windows at all.
It is true that the browser may be "as essential as GUI", but the fact that bread and butter are both "essential" does not mean that they should come from the same supplier and that supplier only.
"Somthing has to be shipped with a consumer OS and I dont want loads of web browsers clogging up my system preinstalled also you only have to use IE once to download another browser and most updates from Vista onwards come via the explorer shell"
This is not true. Install packages for the top 5 browsers all together would take very little disk space (and most of it would be the space taken by IE). They will not be "clogging" your system, because they would be on disk, not in memory. Windows comes with a lot of less essential features that take 100 of more disk space, and we all agree that browser is one of the most essential programs to have.
"Dude most consumers dont know its even call internet explorer or what a browser is. "The E thing" is all they know. Do you want your grandparents or somthing calling tech support saying why is this IE different i cant use it when in fact its firefox? Im not against choice but im for simplisty."
I am also all for simplicity. The question is: at what cost? If the browser was some random app, I would say sure. But it is essential, because it is the portal to a lot of other markets. If presented with a choice, any choice, let users choose a random browser, it would still be better than given them IE by default. And you see, Microsoft does not want simplicity either. They do not want to give users a choice unless it is Microsoft choice.
I wonder what reply EU, basically second largest power on planet has in hand regarding this aggressive move by MS? We can all be surprised.
Im assuming normal retail versions etc will still have IE in?
PS who is the first most powerful then cause i would of said china?
Also i am wrong or will the standerd version with IE in still be sold in the eu or is this not the case?
Micrsoftsoft say it 10 year ago, and you still repeated it.
An antitrust laws (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.
FU!
And you are aware that the US has the exact same antitrust laws, right?
No, they are not the "exact same antitrust laws".
Basically, they are. They are laws set in place to ensure a free market.
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.)
An antitrust laws (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.
You are playing judge, jury and executioner.
In 1996, when Microsoft bundled a browser and started their supposedly illegal activity the web was really just getting going. The vast majority of users still were using Win3.11and DOS and didn't even know what a browser was, let alone the internet. They had not been legally deemed a monopoly at the time for that matter.
The EC simply has something out for Microsoft, and it has nothing to do with the browser.
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.)
Your argument that "Microsoft broke the law" is specious. If they broke the law 10 years ago then why did it take this long for the EC to react?
This is about money.
The EC reacted now because someone asked them to look into it.
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.)
APPLE can have safari on mac but MS cant have it on a PC. Seriously guys, you didnt have to fall down so low.
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.)
However I have done quite a bit of programming over the years and MS have done a lot of damage over the years by intentionally diverging from accepted standards for HTML, Javascript and Java (++). This has cost me a lot of time in testing and duplicating code (if you don't believe me save this web page then look in the javascript files and you will find stuff such as at the bottom of this post.) The total cost to humankind LLC has been massive.
That said, things are getting better. MS is definitely becoming more standards compliant and the reason is wholly down to anti-trust action. The US gov can't really act because of MS's financial leverage there so it's down to the rest of the world.
if (((((navigator.appName == "Netscape") && (navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Mozilla") != -1) && (parseFloat(navigator.appVersion) >= 4))||((navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Opera") != -1) && (parseFloat(navigator.appVersion) >= 3))) && navigator.mimeTypes && navigator.mimeTypes["application/x-shockwave-flash"] && navigator.mimeTypes["application/x-shockwave-flash"].enabledPlugin)) {
var plugname=navigator.plugins['Shockwave Flash'].description;var plugsubstr=plugname.substring((plugname.indexOf("Shockwave Flash")+"Shockwave Flash".length),(plugname.indexOf(".")));
if( plugsubstr >= ftminversion) { plugin = true;}
}
else if (navigator.userAgent && navigator.userAgent.indexOf("MSIE")>=0 && (navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Opera")<0) && (navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Windows 95")>=0 || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Windows 98")>=0 || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Windows NT")>=0) && document.all)
- by mgillespie2 June 12, 2009 1:09 AM PDT
- And as was the was with MediaPlayer-less Vista that Europe had, you would never find it in a store and couldn't actually buy in anywhere.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 4 pages (205 Comments)This is nothing more than a token gesture by Microsoft to keep the Eurocrats happy. I urge the Eurocrats to make sure this version of Windows 7 is the ONLY version that can be purchased in Europe, otherwise it's a pointless excercise, and Microsoft will ensure it's available as an option, but it's not the main productline, and therefore not the one that stores will stock.