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)
Regardless, I do wonder how much difference the ruling is going to make. If PC manufacturers simply install IE as the default web browser, what has changed for the end-user? Absolutely nothing. Given this I think the ruling leaves a loophole that makes it rather useless.
Because if is true that in this way Redmond's company will ensure compliancy to EU laws, on the other side will leave all people not having enough technical knowledge without a browser, though making their new PC quite usefull.
It's not so easy for an average or below average user to install and configure a browser, so the scenario is that those kind of users (that represent the majority of PC users) will rely on choices made by OEM manufacturers or will move to those browsers having the easiest installaction package (and guess which we'll be the choice).
So, in my opinion Microsoft move is again a strong move against UE, but, at the end a non sense move for users.
This article as a comment also at
http://icthewordld.wordpress.com
I use Firefox on Windows Vista (and 7 RC) as my default browser and I don't see IE unless I want to. So where's the problem. Firefox has made huge gains in market share (particularly in Europe, actually) without any artificial "help". This is more about Opera being desperate for some more users, which they could get if they made a product that was better than the competition (like their mobile browser is). I use Opera on my phone, but I would never use the desktop version except to test websites. I wonder how much Opera and Google are paying the EU for this...
This doesn't benefit the consumer in ANY way - actually, I wonder how Opera wants users to get their lackluster browser when they don't have a browser to download it with. Microsoft has shown a big willingness to improve IE and make it standards compliant, let's applaud that effort and have EU outlaw IE6 instead.
To all citizens of a EU country: Let's mass complain to the EU about this. I want freedom of choice. If I want Windows with IE, I want to be able to buy it - EU or no EU.
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.
We have a bigger problem. Are you folks aware that Hasbro owns both Milton Bradley AND Parker Bros?
Sounds like a (ahem cough cough) MONOPOLY to me! Wake up EU! You've got work to do!
What will Opera's next move be when the current situation is resolved and they don't benefit from it? I use FireFox with IE as my backup. Have for years. IE is imo the 2nd-best browser behind FF. Chrome, Opera, etc will never see my hard drive.
And one other thing - There was a time when Netscape was King Daddy of the browser world. It was commercial software. One had to pay for it. MS gave us IE for free. Now, thanks to MS, ALL browsers are free. Perhaps a little appreciation is due here?
And Netscape was actually free for individuals.
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.)
put a option when installing OS, where windows installer downloads a list of up to date browsers and show them to the user?
like this
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/searchguide/en-en/default.mspx
And it is NOT TOO LATE. Many sites still require IE to work. As you point out. So you basically contradicted yourself.
Firefox is an anomaly, as Mozilla points out:
"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser."
1) install Windows and not have the IE icon on the desktop AND
2) install Firefox/Safari/Opera/whatever AND
3) make it the default web browser AND
4) still be in compliance with their dealer agreement with MS?
The realistically simple solution is for the individual browser companies to supply a CD-disk with a closed label warning that must be tarred to open, and a user-manual with support telephone numbers included that Microsoft can place within their product box. Providing these items assures that Microsoft stays within the Law and provides browser choice for their Windows product.
> "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."
Who cares? Tying is illegal. Not much to say about this. And this is the problem:
http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1699418/?view=results&msg=voted
The current market share of IE does not reflect the competitive quality of the software but is the expression of an unfair advantage, and yes, Opera is a much better browser and supports web standards.
This is just bad design by the webmaster. Not MS's fault.
"...and yes, Opera is a much better browser..." (plings)
Better? Than what?
"...Microsoft is merely making the worst browser slightly less terrible..." (plings)
Before IE7 and its ugly UI, IE was my browser. It was the hideous interface in 7, not the functionality, that drove me to FireFox. IE rarely gave me reason to complain. Personally, I find this aspect of the argument to be totally bogus. I know a lot of tech-savvy people who are also happy IE users. IE isn't perfect but it's a very good browser.
"...Why are you whining about Opera?..." (plings)
Who's whining? Opera's market share is less than a hiccup in a hurricane. And Opera is the one making most of the noise. In spite of their participation in the complaint, FF is EARNING its market share. Opera wants it handed to them on a tin plate.
Lastly, MS is certainly not blameless in this mess. They're having to sleep in the bed they've made for themselves, and deservedly so. But seeing the EU accuse someone else of any kind of corruption is rather like watching Dracula call the Wolfman a monster. The level of hypocrisy is stunning.
I'm outta here.
AB
Opera's market share worldwide is 3%. In Europe it's nearly 10%. This is after 3 years of being free and aimed at the mass-market. Your point being?
When did the EU say anything about corruption? Microsoft broke antitrust laws. Please pay attention.
do us all a favor download firefox. its not a choice its common sense
It's like playing baseball were one team pitches a baseball the "excepted rule of the game" but M$ pitches a softball and wins, or golfing - you tee off using the blue tees but MS tee off yellow. My favorite example you're in a horse race given a donkey and M$ gets thoroughbred... And then M$ says your cheating... especially if you win
You are now able see it now with IE 8, you hit a site plagued with errors (written in M$ Visual Studio with 'correct' syntax) you are force to go into compatibilty mode.
With a huge market developed around IE, using sloppy standards "providing that better user experience" should other browsers stoop to their level, I don't think so. If M$ is to bundle a browser, let them do it following the standards which everyone else has agreed to.
And have M$ remove that 'Compatibility Mode' to force those sloppy sites to provide that better experience.
Damn, I forgot, the EU wants to make Europe into a Stalinist state, bring it on so the rest of us can raise sanctions against it.
If I were M$ I'd be considering whether I might not just pull up stumps to withdraw from the EU marketplace. Then I could sit back and enjoy the spectacle of %$@*! thrown by European industry and consumer hitting the EC fan.
All men are created "="
If one man is ">" another, the former will become "/" 'd.
The rest of the world:
If we don't like you, you get "/" 'd.
So, although our government wastes our tax dollars on hiring investigators to keep us away from a free market, at least they aren't censoring our Internet access (yet... take a look at news articles about US restrictions on blog advertisements) like China or Iran (or so many other nations out there).
I wonder if MS is using their monopolistic position to push the use of Explorer.exe. I bet even a smaller portion of users know that there are alternative GUI explorers out there than know that there are alternative web browsers. I'm sure all this BS antitrust stuff is the reason MS started excluding more software and forcing you to download it through live services (like moviemaker).
With that said, further defense that people have attempted can start to make sense to someone as consice and adept in arguing it seems to be apparent by your strong reasoning thus far. As it stands, ANY business company with a self-owned browser and operating system that gets the dominant share at ANY point of time will face what Microsoft is facing. Again, this what many were merely attempting to say before their apparent missing points were found out by your excellent logic skills. For instance, if Apple with both their operating system AND BROWSER or the either of the two eventually got dominant share of the market, they would objectively by in the same situation Microsoft is in. This you cannot deny theoretically. Apple indirectly notifies the user to update its native browser just as Microsoft does with Internet Explorer and so forth that many people have pointed out but not fully demonstrate. As you have had to destroy thousands of these unfinished arguments it seems, I will not bore you entirely with this all-too-familar-process. This dilemma seems to become apparent no matter who eventually continues to have dominant share as all MAIN browser compietors today have operating systems now or coming soons with the exception of Mozilla: Microsoft (Windows and IE), Apple (OSX, Safari), and now Google (Chrome OS, Chrome Browser). It is logical that with their native project, continuity will start with the above companies with their OS to bundle their Browser. However, with most having their browser established before their operating systems or the other way around, how will they NOT take advantage of the latter's/either's dominance to sell the other? Theoretically, it is inevitable. If Mozilla created an OS and bundle it with their browser, how will the former NOT capitalize on the latter? Objectively it will inevitabably and any previous sales of the browser or the operationg system WILL OBJECTIVELY propel the other--either INTIIALLY, PROGRESSIVELY, or much later.
Again, if you put any in the dominant position, they will share the same fate more times than not.
To another point, you point out that Microsoft has previously have been accused AND prosecuted (I daresay might add, I may honestlly be wrong with the latter point), in the past on a similar event. Well, while it can be pointed out that it was in the PAST, it will be unrealisitcally to say that this shouldn't have ANY factor in current judgement. In an example that many will consider a staple, If a murder killed before, it is up to the MURDER more than the ACCUSER to point out his innoncence. The same goes to any kind of due process, and it includes this antitrust squarrell. However, if we are familar with the "boy who cried wolf" we must give the defendent a fair opportunity to defend themselves, even with overwhelming odds--somethiing I feel absent with this current debate by numerous individuals--daresay yourself if I have interpreted, and remembered all that has been said so far. With that said, it seems many are beginning to attack the company RATHER than attacking the current ACTION being argued. I will further flesh out this part of my argument, but I would like to hear your comments refuttals to make sure I have understood your argument so far.
- by lozandier July 10, 2009 11:01 AM PDT
- On to my next point, the idea of allowing to choose multiple browsers makes the issue resurface with a new victim: developing and future browsers. By making consumers choose between a finite number of browsers--let alone arguably less than 4 (Internet Explorer, Chrome, Safari, Firefoxx, Opera, etc) I t will essentially make the browser market saturated only with fhose 4 or more (I am aware I listed 5) browsers. What about the browsers left out that a independent software developer claims (and perhaps rightfully so) that their browser if better than all that have been mentioned? While this idea will better browser development than it is TODAY, it will limit the free market of browsers, making no incentive to create a new, innovative browser--the very thing you are arguing IE is limiting. Microsoft, google, mozilla, etc being multi-million companies, any new browser compeition is doubtful andl ikely to have the innovative technology similarily copied or bougtht to thrive long by the finite browser options people would have to choose from if we were to comply with your suggestion. However, what else choice do we have? It's is economically illogical to create some kind of "Browser library" for new computer purchasers to choose from to be the main browser(s) on their new computer.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 3 of 4 pages (205 Comments)However, please do not misinterpet. There is no perfect solution at the end of the day; In fact, I am not entirely neccessarily against you or your point