Comments on: EU responds to Microsoft's browser move

European Commission says that while the move to strip IE from Windows is bad for retail software buyers, it could have some positive effects in the new PC market.

[raghavny80]

I am all for support alternate browsers and am typing this with opera. However I find the EU and Opera CEO's expectation that MS bundle some alternate browser with Windows as unjust and unreasonable. I am always for freedom of the internet and choice to the consumer. In this case, I definitely think EU and Opera are just being greedy..

[trippisme]

I just think this whole thing is stupid. Now how are people going to get a new web browser on their systems? I really don't care if Microsoft wants to ship their browser with their OS. Just so long as they don't force me to use it, aside from the short time it takes for me to download a different one, I'm fine. If Opera or any other company has an issue with that, have them make their own OS. Its a simple solution. Cause where do you draw the line with these "choices?" Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome, Netscape(U know, not really supported anymore but it still works), Konquer(it would have to be in a VR, but its still an option) AOL(Which uses IE to render pages...), etc. So, I see no problems with loading Windows with IE, then letting the end user download what they want. Just leave, well enough alone, before long, we'll be getting completely useless copies of Windows because some company said Explorer (file browser/GUI) was antitrust and had Microsoft Remove it.

[anti-liberal]

While I love the EU and the US, it is truly a shame that our world has become little more than various groups of self-proclaimed victims, little children who blame others and whine every time they don't get their own way.

EU, if you don't like what MS offers, don't buy it. Linux and Mac are great options. Flex your collective power by exercising your right to choose the competition. Whatever you do, please stop the incessant whining!

Microsoft, pull out of the EU. That's right, take your ball and go home. They will quickly beg you to return...on your terms and at your price (and then fine them with price increases to recover your losses). Personally, I prefer Linux, but I for one believe that you have the right to design your OS the way you want to design it and you should not be punished for creating the world's most successful OS. When success is punished, creativity and hard work cease.

[barcelonafan]

Ok this is just plain silly of the EU. Honestly, why on earth does Microsoft have to advertise its competitors?

And even if we separate browser market from everything else - Microsoft is developing the browser at some expense and bundling it with its OS - it's a package deal. Kind of like a buy one get one free - is that illegal?

Is it prohibiting users from accessing google.com or mozilla.com or opera.com?

Microsoft may have done some bad things - but I fail to see the logic behind EU's decision on this one. I've always thought the UK as stupid for not joining the EU, but maybe they were right in not joining it...

[Vegaman_Dan]

Wow... even when you concede to the EU's demands, they change the rules. There's no pleasing this group.

I'm thinking that perhaps the EU should insist any and all software should be sold only through the EU itself. The EU will decide for consumers what they are allowed to choose from that way.

If they force MSFT to include other browser installers on versions of Windows, then they will have to also force Apple to include copies of Opera, Firefox, IE, etc, as well or face billion dollar fines. Same goes for Red Hat, Ubuntu, etc. It would become a nightmare of litigation.

This demonstrates that the EU is only about the EU administration itself.

[whiplash55]

If I had Opera on my machine I'd uninstall it, what a bunch of F****** losers.
In case no one told the moron at the EU you can download any browser worth having which obviously doesn't include Opera.
The Opera guys should give up and find something they're competent at, any McDonald's in Sweden?

[GScully]

MS could just hold off on selling Win7 to EU for a couple years and wait for the people to yell and scream at the gov to let them sell them the OS however they want. Seems that no matter what MS does the EU will never be happy.

[whiplash55]

If I had Opera on my machine I'd uninstall it, what a bunch of F****** losers.
In case no one told the moron at the EU you can download any browser worth having which obviously doesn't include Opera.
The Opera guys should give up and find something they're competent at, any McDonald's in Sweden?

[Cyrn]

I quote:
"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."

The keyword here is still the first "IF". Then again, how does the commission define "offered a choice of browser"? Is the "choice" already freely available?

[X-C3PO]

it doesn't matter on what MS or Google, Apple, Intel are doing, I bet the EU still will fine all these US companies, just EU only can generate $$$ by this way.

[geodude360]

*** EU??? First they say MS shouldn't have a browser preinstalled and they want it with all. Do they want it to dispense coffee and put out the cat next? Error Code: ID10T5

[geodude360]

What's wrong with W- T. F....?

[unifex_]

I would simply suggest for Microsoft to withdraw from the Europen market and then we'll see what the consumers will tell their burocrats!

Their arguments are ridiculous. What does the law say? They ruled that bundling is illegal? So it's now unbundled. What more could they want? Are they seriously suggesting that Microsoft should distribute products of rival companies free of charge?

Aren't browsers free anyway? How those Opera guys make money at all?

[joshsc]

I think this is bloody brilliant. Good for MS.
If people aren't smart enough to go out and get a different browser if they hate IE so much then screw them.

This crap began so long ago when the Internet was much different. This crap doesn't apply today and the EU should stay out of it, or at least treat Apple with the same equal bullsh&% rules.

[Heebee Jeebies]

Whine, whine, whine. First everyone gets their pretty little pink panties in a knot about IE and then when Microsoft takes it out to stop all of the complaining and moaning that isn't good enough. Frankly these twits need to stop thinking that any company should be made to install and offer products from third parties that are in direct competition. That is like Asking Toyota to offer Honda, Ford, GM and VW parts on its cars. Or make McDonald's sell big Whoppers. All of this because the vast majority of Windows users have chosen to use IE.

If users aren't smart enough to install the browser they want that is there problem. Not Microsoft's. Microsoft is not perfect, but this whole bunk with the browser is just getting stupid. How about the EU being forced to offer USA, Canadian and Cuban laws for those that don't want the EU laws.

Robert

[luvduchovny]

I know technically this is beside the point, but why isn't the EU all up in Apple's business? Their operating system comes with Safari installed but I've never heard them making a fuss that Apple was violating the rights of Europeans of choosing their browsers. Since Windows Update for Vista or Windows 7 doesn't require a browser anymore it's all immaterial. Seriously, EU get with the times. I think Microsoft said, screw this, you don't like the browser? Okay we won't put it on at all. Problem solved. I also don't see what the initial fuss is about, maybe because here in the U.S. you can put any darn browser you want on your system. I have Chrome, Opera, IE8 & Firefox all on my computer. I mostly only use Firefox. Nothing has exploded yet.

[guappo24]

apple-pi,

Ok. I still do not see how you can say that M$ not offering competitors browsers is wrong. Lets review your continued stance.

(a) Monopolies should be prohibited from abusing their market power (like bundling a crappy product with an OS to gain a monopoly in the browser market). Neither MS nor Apple, nor any other company should be able to do that.

(b) It is good for users to have a choice. More choice leads to better competition and more innovation.

(c) EU is a democracy and has a right to protect its consumers in whatever way they want. If MS wants to keep doing business in EU, they have no choice but to comply. But they are free to leave. It is just that it does not make any business sense for them to do so, and therefore they won't.

I love your points. They back everyone who has been disagreeing with you. Lets take a look.

A. This has already been agreed upon. The removal or the addition of offering competitors browsers is due to this. You can say everyone agrees that M$ used its market share to advance the use of IE. . Point closed. Now on to the actual content of the article.
B. By not offering any browser is pure choice. M$ has done that. Do you not agree? Pure competition.
C. By offering competition the same playing field as M$ has M$ not done what this body has requested?

What EXACTLY is your issue with M$ not offering browsers? You keep going back to monopolies, but this article is strictly about the bundling of browsers. And to appease the EU due to a ruling that has been accepted by everyone, they just took their browser out and said to users "there ya go. Choose your browser of choice"

Does this not meet the EU request? Your points are not addressing the actual article: The bundeling of browsers to encourage competition. Look, if other browsers need a spike in their use, come up with marketing ideas to encourage the download of their browser. M$ rolled out http://browserforthebetter.com/ to encourage 2 things. 1. More people use IE and 2. Feeding America by offering food for each download.
Your points are moot. I agree with you as does the EU about the monoploy. But M$ decision to not offer any browsers with THEIR OS is a good, smart move. And none of your points refute that.

[TV James]

My car came with a crummy radio installed. I upgraded to a better one.

Every computer I've ever owned came with a crummy browser installed. I've upgraded to a better one.

I'm sorry, but the browser should be an expected, basic function. Maybe Microsoft should be required to offer two versions - a simple crummy one (the one they produce now) and a better one on par with the likes of Firefox and Opera. (Which would probably mean actually stripping out some functionality since it's such a memory hog bloat with lots of useless features. (Flame in 3...2...1...)

Opera has put all their eggs in one basket and that basket has turned out to be a difficult egg to crack. So they've turned to the legal system.

Maybe the retail version of Windows 7 should contain additional CDs, each one containing the install for a single browser (those CDs supplied to Microsoft and Microsoft legally obligated to add into retail box without charging browser manufacturer) for all browser manufacturers who want to participate and then a step in install requiring the customer to insert one or more CDs for the browsers they want to install.

Most would still go with the CD stamped Microsoft because they'll be sure that it's compatible with the operating system. Probably a bunch would go with the one stamped Google (Apple would probably pass or include it but also try to hawk iTunes and Bonjour and QuickTime) and a bunch would grab the one marked Mozilla. And then the Norwegians would mark the one stamped "MADE IN NORWAY".

Opera's problem is one of marketing and differentiation when the average customer can't tell the difference between "Google" or "AOL" or "Internet", they're surely not going to be able to tell the difference between applications that all have forward and backward buttons and a URL bar at the top and then a blank screen below.

[dgrant6230]

So if I buy a retail version of Windows 7 it will have no browser. The idea is that I am then free to install whatever browser I want. BUT exactly how am I to get the browser I want if there is no way to access the web?!?!

[Josepancho]

Microsoft sells a product (OS) employing the same methods all companies employs. It started with nothing, much like all other companies. Over time its OS was bought by more people than any other OS. Microsoft monopoly came about because customers around the world bought the product, because given all the evil products around; Microsoft OS was the best evil. Microsoft monopoly position was not created by the governments around the world as do governments do with say Power/Electric companies.

If The EU and any other government wants to impose rules to stop majority of consumers to purchase a particular product (because most consumers want it) then the EU and such government MUST impose rules that is fit for both the goose and the gander. Therefore, the EU rule should also be applicable to Apple, IBM (on mainframes) Sun/Oracle, Linux providers, etc.

Microsoft did not invent its behavior that made it a monopoly. The behavior Microsoft uses is the same behavior Apple, Sun/Oracle, Google and any other company employees to get the products in consumers hands and to maintain it there. Ultimately consumers will decide if a product is good or not good and make the decision to purchase and stay with a particular product. Consumers around the world have chosen Microsoft?s OS. Governments should not impede my choice in preference to what a few ministers in a government want.

BMW, Mercedes, Opal, Volvo, Fiat, Ford, Renault, Citron and all the others are car manufacturers. They do not manufacturer tires. So why not force them when they sell their new cars to consumers that they are to provide consumers with at least four (4) different sets of tire brands on each car and give me the option of deciding which set of tires I want for my car. Oh, and while at it, why not force the car company to ensure that a car comes with as many axels as possible so that I can have the option of deciding which four axels to use and which tire to use on each axel. Who decides that a car must have four (4) axels, the car company or some government? After all a car can have two or more axels and as many axels the manufacturer wants on it. Why can?t Microsoft decide on what constitutes its own operating system and what component to make and ship it with?

[admezor]

When someone buys a pc from a vendor like Dell, they also get the ****** Dell chooses to pre-install. MS gives oem's this option/ability and has going back to at least Windows 95 that I know of. FF, Opera etc. can be included by the oem if the oem chooses to do so and without MS having role or say in it. If Dell chooses to include a pre-installed FF, so be it. MS provides its partners/oems with a wealth of tools and support for how _they_ choose to provide Windows to _their_ customers.

Frankly, the EU should be picking bones with the oems, not MS over this.

Retail outlets have the ability to bundle other software along with a Windows distribution, as I assume they will with the disk MS will offer for IE in the EU.

I for one fail to see where MS is abusing its status by including or excluding IE as it chooses. In the end its the oems who have the final say in what end customers see on their systems, not MS. Contrary to the EU's opinion on MS's monopoly status, FF is the market leader/majority browser with a little under 50% of the market. MS/IE is not the dominant browser which should be enough to clearly state MS has not abused its OS monopoly to cripple competition in the browser market.