Hocus

Why don't you use Opera, Ubuntu, OO3, or any of the raft of CHOICES that are out there? Vote with your Euro's.
Me, I think the skateboarders are alot less linear thinking than you.

picklefinder

Why don't you read up on the matter?

You can't 'just' use the alternatives alone.
IE is an integral part of the Windows OS & certain functions are only possible using it.

That is not free and open competition and it is plainly an attempt at rigging the market heavily in favour of Microsoft.

What, exactly, requires IE???

Windows update in Win 7 and Vista don't require IE...you're argument is really running thin...

Netscape had a big hand in killing themselves. By the year 2000, they had made Netscape so bloated (in memory foot print) that it was completely unusable.

This was never about "winning" or anti-trust Scott, it's about milking a foreign companies like Microsoft and Intel for as much money as possible. Microsoft could do EVERYTHING the commission asks and it still won't ever be compliant.

I believe this falls into the "Careful what you wish for category . . ."
I agree with the article 100%. Did Europe expect to lose or something? Is that why they have no idea what to do with a win in this case?

I would like to retract my comment about the "mouth breathing, pot smoking, knuckle dragging, skateboarders''. In retrospect, they are more tech savvy than most. I belive the EU will mandate a browser standard that will cause your browser to change in an inverse relationship with with a browsers market share, so all browsers will be equal. Then the blatanly ignorant masses will have on less thing they will have to decide , relying on the greatness and wonderous rightness of gov't and its' ability to save us all from the icky world of choice and responsibility.

We in the US will be joining you soon in your socialist workers paradise now the Barack the beatified is leading us.

It seems some people really have a hard time seeing the difference between an OS and an Internet browser.

Nevermind.

We have a 500+ million strong single market and Microsoft wil end up complying to get some of that action.
Don't worry about it.

The net upshot will be that in Europe we will see something closer to genuine competiton and a freer choice.

In the US Microsoft (like a lot of notionally US firms......like as if it really means much in these days of the international tax-wh*** corp) wil continue with their anti-competitive practices and ultimately it'll be the US consumer that is worse off.

Still, with enough loud jungoism and its scoundrel cousin patriotism you can get away with any old sh*t you can wrap the flag in, eh?

One thing about keeping the "gun in the holster" on posting is that it gives you time to NOT respond with a put-down but try and be reasonable. So here goes-
HocusPokus? I agree with your 1 sentence and that sums up the problem. A media player or browser is a program utility and as long as a company allows the user to use alternative media players or browsers then one begins to see the EC actions in a different light. In the case of MS, they do allow this. The irony is that people can use IE and download a different browser and then make the alternative their default browser. The irony is that an user can use IE and download an alternative media player and use that media player. Are you really going to argue that in your "500 million strong single makrket" (which is a problem statement given some of the fractures you see in the economic downturn but I'll let that slide)That the people do not have enough intelligence to understand such a simple concept as I described. If an OS has any add-on utility programs but still alows the user to use those programs to choose different programs, how in the wolrd can you say with a straight face that you don't have choice or geninue competition? And what the heck is "freer choice"? Choice is an on/off switch- either you have choice or you don't. If a company allows you to use their own programs to d/l other programs than that is choice and geninue competition.
I'll let others use the art of flame warfare to tear apart your statement.

So in one thread, you call everyone out for playing the US vs. EC card...when you are the only one bringing it up...

...and then you do the exact thing you decry in the other thread in this one.

Funny stuff, man.

FYI: Competition != forcing one company to advertise, include, or install another companies products.

To Pc- this question is more a reflection of my sometimes having difficulty following the responses to responses to postings here.. My question and it is not derogatory in any way is your comment directed at me, hocuspocus or someone else. At the end of the day, I need to figure out a better way of following these "discourses"

It's the way the new Betanews look indents responses...they used to add an indentation to each response so you can tell who's the response to...now it's a single indentation to all responses so you have no real way of telling other then trying to figure out by context, kind of annoying.

"A media player or browser is a program utility and as long as a company allows the user to use alternative media players or browsers then one begins to see the EC actions in a different light. In the case of MS, they do allow this".

To a point that's true, however Microsoft do embed their IE into their OS in a way the others do not. I can see no justification for this.

"Are you really going to argue that in your "500 million strong single makrket" (which is a problem statement given some of the fractures you see in the economic downturn but I'll let that slide)"

Eh?
The European single market is a legal treaty bound and established entity.
You're dreaming if you imagine there are "fractures" in that.

"That the people do not have enough intelligence to understand such a simple concept as I described. If an OS has any add-on utility programs but still alows the user to use those programs to choose different programs, how in the wolrd can you say with a straight face that you don't have choice or geninue competition?"

It's about behaviour & convenience.
Microsoft work on the basis that relatively few of the businesses and private individuals will bother looking for and setting up an alternative.
It's clearly an anti-competitive practice and it's a practice well understood by the authorities.
This is nothing particularly new or unusual.

" And what the heck is "freer choice"?"

....um, one where your 'freedoms' are extended and greater than they previously were but leaves you not necessarily and completely 'free'.
Come on, it's not difficult concept.

" Choice is an on/off switch- either you have choice or you don't."

Nonsense.
This is not an 'either/or' situation, our freedoms and rights are encompass an enormous & broad spectrum, they are hardly reducable to a single 'either/or' example.

"If a company allows you to use their own programs to d/l other programs than that is choice and geninue competition."

No it isn't.
In practical terms it's not really a choice at all and it does shut out competition.
They know what they are up to, they deliberately arrange their various products to take advantage of people's reluctance to change the in-built bias.

There is no reason why your OS should not at the initial start up offer you choices of browser and enable you to go and d/l your choice.

That would be free and fair competiton.

"I'll let others use the art of flame warfare to tear apart your statement."

Well they can try but it usually amounts to 1 or 2 skipping the points raised and just trying a rather sad & weak flame.

@blt30: It was directed at Hocus. Not you. Gawd this new way of threading the comments sucks.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. You have earned no ire from me. :)

Does Apple have to remove Safari?? the EU is clueless to 99% of everything..

No, you're the one that ends up looking pretty clueless if you really can't work out that Apple have a far smaller market share and are therefore a much much lower priority.

Next college kid level smart a$$ point?

Personally I can't see what Europeans are crying about, whats so hard about using IE for the few seconds it takes to go online, download thier preffered browser and cease usuing IE? does the governments really think people are THAT DUMB? Surely it will cause MORE hassle having no browser included as you would then need to find a cd with it on off a magazine before you could use the web...

@Highwayman, yeah, you'd want to put FF or whatever on a CD or a stick or a different partition first. That is easily-enough done, but your point is well-taken. The people capable of doing that would have no trouble with an OS without a browser, but the people lacking the savvy would likely "be that dumb", yes.

Maybe not that "dumb"; maybe just that computer-illiterate. Bill G said quite a few years ago that he felt almost all of Windows users had no more than a 5% knowledge of how to use Windows. (As far as how dumb people really are, well, THINKING people are pretty unlikely to use bullets or guns to advance their beliefs. Hmmm. . . . Sad. No—tragic.)

Gee, it is hard to find fault with your opinions, Scott. I'm North American, and I use Firefox. Like a lot of people, I have IE 8 as well, and I also have a couple of others—Off by One is always the fastest to initiate, so it is there for troubleshooting and zap-speed.

I have read the European protest, but I'm thinking it's a Europe-thing, because I just don't understand it. I don't like MS a whole lot, but it seems now that the Europeans won't be happy until IE9 ships with Firefox and a cigarette-like warning against IE. It seems childish to me. Windows is not a public world forum; it is a private business. Sure, Bill was pretty evil when he said "the price is right" about his crazy-glued browser. But now it seems the Europeans think that MS should take them by the hand and demonstrate all the rival browsers. Sort of like Toyota exhibiting Nissan in its showrooms, just to be fair.

Makes no sense to me. I criticize corporations all the time, and I often have criticized MS, but in this case the Europeans just sound like a bunch of children seeing how far they can go. It's a big loss of credibility for the Europeans. They've made MS look as though it was the reasonable one, after all.

I go back to a time when the Wang calculator was kept in a locked room, read "seasoned". With the level of internet available today in developed nations, which I presume the EU is a group of, any mouth breathing , knuckle dragging, pot smoking , skate boarder, can boot up a MS OS, and download any frikkin browser they want. The level of skill involved is LOW. After doing the 7 beta, and then the RC, which works fine so far, one of the first things I did was log on, and download Firefox. I chose not to use IE, so can you. If IE8 offered Ad Block plus, and better add ons, I probably would not look around outside of idle curiosity. But I have a choice, and I exercise it.
I use MS as a means to my end, not to whine about my powerlessness over mega bad Redmond. Smells like sour Norwegian herring.

this is what ms should do ship win7 to them with no ie or include on the disk as a seperate installer

or place a icon on the desktop to download ie8 off of windows update

i think they met and excided the eu demands now let them live with it give this nothing

thats the choice there goverment has made for its people

every one has a choice you was some apple trash buy apple
they provde a browser with there OS

if the eu is going to demand one thing and when they get it be like o well o we didnt mean it like that

to damn bad you asked it out its out deal with it
download ie8 off windows update then

i know a crap load of people are going to say that o but they wont be able to get a browser linux has apt-get and os x has this or that

it is not ms responablity to provide on the install or on the dish any other browswer

in doing so i also think that they should charge not just once but many times to the broswer companys

start with first

1 pay to play you want to be on that ballot you need to play ms
2 pay for a slot on the top list
3 pay for each and every single install that you (ms) installed on the behalf of the broswer if its a ballet at the install send this info to ms at activation time

the broswer companys are all making money any ways from the ads that they show and what not right

they want to make them faster so they can display more ads to you

lol

ok im done ranting for now i guess

spell check what is that ???? LOL

again today copy paste it to ya spell check if ya cant read it

"MS was also told to include a ballot screen with a plenthora of browsers to choose from! "

Incorrect.

They were told that *if* the investigation led to liability on Microsoft's part, *one* of the *possible* decisions *might* be to force a ballot screen.

The whole point of this "bruhaha" is that MSFT took the lead on this and simply removed the browser entirely.

No government can *legitimately* force Microsoft (or any other software company) to include another companies software within it's products.

EU has no objection in bundling Office 2007 as a trialware, right? Make IE a *shareware* for Europe at a cost of [say] $0.99 (should the user decide to pay for it)! Microsoft did make IE a cost option before in another form: IE 1.0 was bundled with Windows 95 Plus!, purchased separately - it was not available as a download.

The bundling of Office isn't MSFT's decision, that is done at the factory by the OEM's.

No version of Windows you buy @ retail will come with an Office Trial.

Two entirely different things....

Bully as the EU is, they'll keep poking on MS as long as MS keeps giving stupid answers.

How is this a stupid answer? They did exactly what the EC asked them to do with the *last* bundling "issue" they had with Microsoft (WMP/Windows XP-N).

Is it Microsoft's fault the EC seems to be making up the rules as they go along?

"You can't bundle a media player with the OS. Remove it."

"You can't bundle a Browser with the OS, but this time, we want you to not only remove it...but advertise for your competition."

"You can't bundle a calculator with your OS, so you have to remove it, advertise your competitors products, and chop down the tallest tree in the forest with...a HERRING!"

*laughing*

I'm joking, of course, but it's so close to reality it's almost frightening....

They claim the Browser is not a necessary part of the OS...but then turn right around and claim you can't actually ship a modern PC with the ability to browse the web. Makes a lot of sense....doesn't it? No? ;)

When did the EC hire Abbott and Costello?

I am taking an existing post I made elsewhere about this issue, in responce to someone who supported it, and posting it here for those who find it relivent:

"So Microsoft will only do 'the right thing' when forced to. Why IE in the rest of the world?"

I am all for choice (posting this from Opera) but how is this, “the right thing?"

This was never about right or wrong, it was about competing companies wanting to take the easy path, complain to a government board that already had issues with MS, and get a lot of publicity and their browsers included in the system as a default, or as an option.

Now again don't get me wrong, I think it will be a GOOD thing to have an additional browser possibly preloaded into Windows if you would like(firefox would be best since it is the second most supported browser by plugins and software vendors). I am just completely against the way this was accomplished.

There was nothing stopping these companies from going to the major (and minor) OEM's and working out a deal for inclusion of their software. And if you have noticed, there hasn't been any report, (and they would have for sure had this happened), of any browser company being turned down for inclusion by the OEM's. THAT would have been justification for possible government intervention, but that’s not what happened.

In the end, this choice affects only a select few. The amount of new computers for home end users purchased online is much less than the amount (on average over the last 5 years) that were purchased in stores (in the USA). But since this doesn't affect the US, and I don't know the sales figures for other countries, perhaps this really will help alternative browser growth as a whole.

What will ultimately happen is that most systems will have "recommended specs" and will include IE (at the OEM's discression) due to the mass amounts of people that could potentially become confused with something different. Confused people potentially equal returns, and returns are never in the OEM’s best interest (in a world where education and knowledge are more accessible than ever before it baffles me that people become dumber and dumber, as a mass entity. …actually it doesn’t baffle me, society encourages the masses not to think for themselves, and ignorance breeds stupidity and false entitlement, /end rant).

Conclusion: While many OSS “evangelists” will herald this as a wonderful achievement, in the end it has accomplished nothing. Microsoft has not learned their lesson on standards compliance (even though IE8 was a huge step in the right direction); the vast majority of OEM’s will still have IE as the default browser to please the masses; and fighting your own battles and doing business the way it should be done (you make a product, you market your product, you reach a deal with a distributer to include your product), has been discouraged in exchange for running to mommy and throwing a temper tantrum until you get your way (see previous rant).

Will this ultimately benefit the end users? Hard to say, but it certainly isn’t being done to give them “choice”, it is being done because the companies doing it stand to make a profit by having their browser be the default (weather it be by market share, brand name recognition, etc…). The idea that this is being done to be “fair” is a fair tale, that’s just the way it is.

(first poundsmack post to use spell check. …also some words still misspelled).

It's fait that MS has the right to design their own product the way they want. On the other hand, Windows has such a "critical mass" that it could significantly influence the software and services market in its favor. Those who have difficulties to quit smoking, should probably know better that it's hard to get rid of old habits.

Here is a more fair solution to address the MS monopole issue. Encourage schools and public institutions to use open-source and freeware solutions. After may be 10 years, people & business will get used to and the WIndows "issue" will solve by itself as it will probably no longer in dominant position.

@ Joco, your comment to "encourage schools and public institutions to use open-source". Yes, sure, but that is already in place. Here where I live in Vancouver, Open Office is already the public standard, and in public libraries there are even free seminars showing people how to use freeware. The message given out (in writing) is that "any software you can pay money for, has an equivalent free software program available to you."

I don't know whether this does much good or not. It's a good idea for sure. Human nature being what it is, though, there are zillions of people who would rather brag about how much their jeans cost, rather than brag about how cheap they were.

Earth to US-bloggers/Journalists: USA is not the centre of the world. Deal with it! And if US-companies want to do business in EU: Respect the legislation!

That's all very well provided the rules are reasonable. As far as i can see there is one punitive rule for Microsoft and another for everybody else. If Opera and Mozilla or Google want to have their browser installed then it is up to them to convince users that they should go and download and install. As for Opera, if they just got their damn act together with regards to advertising they'd have more of a presence on the desktop rather than having to whinge and moan like they are now.
And no, i'm not from the US. I'm from the UK where the overbearing pencil knecks in Brussels cast a long shadow. And i'm writing this on Opera 10 Beta. Just to pre-empt your "you MS shill" comments as well!

"Do I like Firefox? On days when it doesn't crash, yes. "

Interesting. This just doesn't happen to me. FF has been quite stable on all 3 computers I use regularly for years. An unstable addon maybe?

Agreed. I have been using Firefox since before it was firefox and I cannot recall a single issue where it crashed. Not saying it never did, but apparently not enough to leave a lasting impression.

It's about time the EU bureaucrats butt out of this stuff. They stick their oar in at every conceivable opportunity. Be it weights and measures, working hours, shape of bananas (i kid you not).
I would LMAO if Microsoft just said, right we're gonna bin it. If people want Windows 7 they can order it in the post from a US company. I'm sure we'd see the EU paper pushers scrambling to mend the fences, especially with all the lost tax revenue that keeps their gravy train going.
Death to the EU.

http://www.channelregist...oft_windows_7_ie_europe/ explains exactly what is going on - perhaps the author of this opinion piece should try some journalism ;)

Even though i've always been a diehard Netscape -> Mozilla -> Seamonkey -> Firefox user, i still find this whole bundling issue to be funny. I think it would be great if MS didn't bundle a browser in th EU, just to see all the hilarity that ensues!

It just doesn't get much more amusing than this....

"We're investigating you for unfair bundling of a web browser product with your OS product."

"Ok. We strongly feel the two are intertwined, but we'll be preemptive regarding this and offer a version of our next OS without a browser, as was agreed upon for the last product bundling issue (WMP)."

"What? No! That's not fair! You can't unbundle the products we're investigating your for bundling! Are you nuts!?!?!"

*laughing*

It's like watching Monty Python, only without the naughty words....

Those EC politicians are stupid.
How many times "fool me twice..." do they have to see this happen?
MS just complies with removing IE and there is no choice,
now the people are going to be mad at the EC and not MS.
Haven't they learned that MS won't be kind to them and won't cooperate the way they want!

They should make OEM's have to add alternative browsers, they already like to add so many extra's anyway. Why don't let them do this?
The moment the OEM's realize this can be advertised as a feature, every OEM will do this and it will be a good business strategy. Deliver some extra/alternative/free software and be better than the other OEM's! How easy can this be, very easy it sounds and is!

I agree with your arguments against the European Union, but strongly disagree with your arguments against Microsoft and Internet Explorer. These are the arguments of an anti-Microsoft demagogue and should have been debunked years ago.

I am not presenting a marketeer's argument against IE. I am presenting a developer's argument in favor of IE.

"Does any technical reason remain for a Web browser to continue to be tied to, or bundled with, an operating system?"

"A Web browser is an Internet utility, a class of program, an application."

Here's a technical argument. IE is a stack of DLL's, not a single monolithic program, as you probably well know, having researched browsers for years. Many programs, besides IE, use the underlying DLL's for rendering and for communication over the Internet. HTML, XML, and XSLT are common languages used by many apps that have nothing to do with IE, but they use the same parsing engines. Remove IE and all its component parts, and many programs, written by legitimate 3rd party developers, such as myself, simply do not run. There are other programs for rendering, TCP/IP, and parsing, but must programs, including most 3rd party programs, expect these common MS components to already be present on the machine when these 3rd party programs are installed.

An operating system is supposed to provide a common level of functionality which all applications can use. The problem, apparently, lies in determining how much of this functionality is common and necessary, and how much is provided simply to lock out the competition.

Using these same components, and some technical knowledge, a developer can quickly create his own browser on top of the IE components. An example of this was the Slim Browser, a tabbed browser, that came out years before Firefox or IE even thought about tabbed browers. IE could have implemented tabbed browsing in the top layer anytime they wanted to. You could have have a tabbed browser based on the underlying IE engine years ago. What was the big deal?

"Microsoft's 1990s arguments that the Web browser and the OS must use the same rendering engine, have been irrevocably debunked."

I think I just debunked the debunkers, but since I am a developer, not a marketer, a lawyer, or reviewer with his own website, my voice isn't loud enough to be heard by many. IE contains vital components which are used by other applications, including 3rd party applications, as well as the HTMP Help files (.chm) files used by most applications that run on Windows. The HTML Help engine was developed by Microsoft, but is universally used. Remove IE, and you have removed the ability for applications to use a common help facility which is familiar to users.

"Should Microsoft be allowed to continue to make a Web browser? Yes."

Definately, yes, and Microsoft should be allowed to bundle Internet Explorer and its components with every version of Windows. Believe it or not, some people still use dial-up as their primary IE interface. Others may have to use a dial-up connection to download their broadband connectivity software. These programs must be kept as small as possible, for faster downloads. One way these programs can be kept smaller is with the expectation that their rendering and communication components are already on the machine. Without these common programs already on the machine, what is now a simple 1 Meg. download would have to ship with its own copy of the equivalent of Internet Explorer.

"Should Microsoft be responsible for restoring balance and equity to a market that it nearly destroyed?"

What market? If browser software is given away for free, how can that be considered a "market"? If people want alternative products, let them buy them and use IE to download them. Like many, I use alternate backup software, media managers, disk fragmenters, media players, text editors, explorer shells, in addition to Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. But, I still have, use, and heavily depend on Internet Explorer.

If a developer wants to write another browser to demonstrate the failings of IE, let them go ahead and write it, and you and I will download it and test it. And, if it's good, we will use it. But, these developers have no right to whine about market share, or the fact that they are not making any money on it. There's no market here. So, rather than complain about the lack of a market, let them find or create a real market, like Google has, and let them dominate it.

"Microsoft's response to that question yesterday was that the true answer lies with the Euroean Commission itself, the legislative body responsible for the latest Statement of Objections."

EC is no legislator.

Basically Microsoft cannot blame any action it takes and was not ordered to do on the Commission. And if Microsoft does riddiculous actions it is Microsoft which does riddiculous actions, not the Commission.

Nescape lives, it is called Mozilla now.

The devil's in the details.

Scenario 1: MS wants the browser list to appear in market-share order, in other words to have IE listed first with Firefox second, and the percentage of global users listed next to it. Of course Firefox would want to have the percentage be a country-percentage since in some European countries they're gaining fast on IE.

Scenario 2: the commission agrees that a static alphabetical list is NOT FAIR, so they'll agree on a randomized list per install on the assumption that people who've heard about Firefox would find it on the list regardless of if it was 1st or 5th... MS again will want to add some info next to browser to "help customers make a choice" and the arguments will now s*** to which pieces of info are critical (amount of new users on the browser in past 3 months? amount of users LOST in past 3 months? IE5-IE7 include on IE8 statistics??).

Scenario 3: MS makes 99% of browser sharable DLL's part of Windows 7 so an IE8 download will take 10 seconds, while a Firefox (or another competitor's) download will take a few mins for most users. NOT FAIR.

Scenario 4: as mentioned in my previous post on the matter - MS includes latest-IE in their Service Packs "to assist administrators".

Scenario 5: MS will (rightfully) claim that 90% of people who try certain browsers (Chrome) are coming back to IE anyway, so will want to "help" customers by giving some nagging screen on how easy it is to switch to IE every few days... Or it will force you to be on IE to get "Genuine Software" like Live Messenger or some new expensive software (ACDSee Pro clone) which they'll buy-out and hand to you on a silver platter ONLY IF you're on IE...

Possibilities are endless... The war will never end...

Very well said.

Just another reason why I voted for a nationalist party in the European elections. The sooner Britain gets out of the farce that is the European government, the better.

It should go back to being a trade body and leave the laws to the countries that form it.

Sheesh, first they complain its unfair of MS to bundle its own browser with the install. So MS decides okay we''ll just avoid the whole mess with Win7 and just not bundle a browser and let the user pick what they want and the EU whines thats not fair either.

You just cant please people

What on earth kind of crap is this so called story? Do you not do any kind of research whatsoever? Did you not read that the EU 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,".

Now lets' get this straight - M$ is pre-empting the decision of the EU Commission even though no decision has yet been reached. M$ in a fit of pique, are basically throwing down a challenge to the EU by threatening to throw out the baby with the bath water. All this does is make M$ look like a spoilt child who can't get their own way. And you blame that decision on the EU - it is an M$ decision, not an EU decision. C'mon and give us all a break now Scott.

Sorry, but you are doing revisionist history. The EU had been asking Microsoft to unbundle the browser. The best way to unbundle a browser is not to have one installed. This is the ULTIMATE way to comply. Microsoft did was it was told, and this is not good enough?

And I don't buy the choice of browsers as the ultimate remedy because ultimately, by putting some options instead of others, you are going to hurt some obscure browser by not giving it it's fair shake. Let me put it this way... if they are really not trying to help Opera (which I think is a good part of the point the EU commission is really trying to push here), then they could come up with a decision like "the consumer can have the top 3 browsers in the market by overall usage". Then the choices would be Explorer, Firefox and Chrome. Don't you think Opera would cry foul then?

I say at this point in time, whatever decision they reach will be a moot point in terms of the original intent and can have harmful ramifications to the consumer. The browser has become such a generic tool in the last 10 years that it really won't affect any company's business model as they won't make money off of it directly. I say let IE (or whatever browser is bundled with the OS) be your starter browser kit and have it go to a homepage with the links to all the browsers available for people to know the choices out there, so it can be recycled and renewed and have ALL the OS (linux, OS X, Windows) point to it.

MS should go with that "ballot screen" idea but they shouldn't include IE, Opera, FF, Chrome or Safari. They should include Avant, Crazy Browser, Maxthon, Lunascape5 Genesis, Slim Browser, and TheWorld Browser. How's that for consumer choice? As stupid as this might sound I'd love to see them include these browsers with the more notable ones. That be awesome for the consumers to have 11 browsers to choose from.

"Rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less,".

Since when are they bound by law to *provide* choice?

If the problem is bundling unbundle. If the problem is "choice"...the problem isn't Microsoft's.

They are not bound to provide choice - are you an idiot? Did you not read what I originally posted?

*laughing*

Why yes. Yes I did. Idiot. (See what I did there?)

"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,"

Hmm... Lots of "potential" and "if" and such. No final judgment, no final decision. Yeah...sounds like it's *not* a law....just a possibility.

Point being, no such "law" has yet been enacted, and even *I* don't think they're stupid enough to force this issue.

Do you honestly think the government should have the ability to force *anyone* to bundle competing products with their own?

Seriously?

Whatever PC_Tool - the name says it all - a tool on the pc. [shrugs]

*laughing*

Nice. Never heard that one before....

You're almost as bad as that blithering idiot who claimed the deal was done and that MS was guilty...before proceedings had even begun.

Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

No judgment has been made. It was an *example* of what *might* be decided.

Of course, rather than admit that, you "whatever" and dismiss any argument that might imply you've jumped the gun a bit.

No answer on the government control issue, eh? Just don't have it in you today? (Of course, not, why discuss it when you can just dismiss out of hand any dissenting opinion, right?)

Yeah... *I'm* the tool. [rolls eyes]

Whatever. [shrugs]

I agree this should have come ten years ago. I agree that this could (and should?) also be applied to notepad, calculator and perhaps some other applications in Windows. I agree that Firefox has gulped down a healthy chunk of IE's market share.

But the fact remains that the EC is investigating this matter of monopoly misuse and it is not up to Microsoft to decide what the remedy should be. In any case, the remedy should *not* be a same-price version of Windows without IE.

What would Firefox's market share have been if MS never had bundled IE with windows from the day it hit 90 percent market share? Would IE even exist? Would Firefox exist? Would Firefox have 90 percent market share?

I don't know about that. The Macintosh OS has included a calculator even before Windows 1.0 was available. Should they get sued too for monopolizing? How about the fact that they bundle Safari, or iChat and iTunes?

If you are going to ask a company to do it, then all should, regardless of their size, because unless you have a crystal ball, you don't know who will be the dominant force in the market in the future.

I personally think that if they are willing to offer bundled products in their OS which are free and do not add cost to the application, then they should be allowed to do it. At the end of the day, the consumer wins two-fold: they get basic functionality at no charge, and it forces those companies who sell solutions similar to the bundled one to come up with a better product and a competitive price range (and it does work... otherwise we wouldn't have choices like winamp, foobar, power dvd, nero burning rom, etc etc., which are beefed up solutions to some bundled features found in Windows or Mac OS X).

Why doesn't the EU let genuine healthy competition teach Microsoft a lesson for their past misdeeds? The fierce renewed browser wars are exactly doing that, teaching Microsoft a lesson that what they did by integrating IE and after IE6 was not correct.

I have to agree - Governments, when saving people from themselves tend to hurt more people than they help!

http://begginmutt.spaces.live.com/

Why don't Operas & Mozillas of the world try to get a free ride on there own version of Linux instead of a proprietary operating system from a company responsible to its share holders?

I am sick of software bundled by Dell or HPs and do not want more crap from Real Network, QuickTunes, Opera and Mozilla. And where does it stop - browser, media player, firewall, anti-spyware, networking services....

Hey I spent years developing a far superior version of Calculator, yet because Microsoft bundled their own calculator program I can't compete. Maybe the EU could help me out? What a bunch of morons the EU honestly. This is nothing more than agression towards US companies. Shame on Google and Apple, itunes & ipod that's not bundling? And with regulators spending more time noticing Google's dominant share of the search world you'd think they would support their competitors in the spirit of compeition without having to fear these American hating EU regulators who need money. This makes me sick.

"How does the old saying go, "Fool me twice..." translated into your language?"

Since the case is headed by Neelie Kroes (a dutch politician) the saying should be (in dutch): "Een ezel stoot zich niet tweemaal aan dezelfde steen."

In any case I aggree. Just install IE by default and upon first internet access ask the user if he might want to change browsers. By putting that online you can even easily add browsers or have the individual companies make up their own marketing bulls*** about why their browser is the greatest. But don't saddle up Microsoft with supporting products they have no control over, that's just unfair business. Also, 90% of the people on the internet don't even know what a browser is. All they know it that if they click the blue "E", they can get to their pr0n. Like the article said, how are they supposed to make an informed decision on which browser is best for them?

This is most bizarre. As a Windows user I have all the liberty to choose whatever browser I desire (now it's Chrome, before it was Firefox). A person installs Windows and gets a browser - like anyone installing an operating system from the Internet age. Then one surfs the net and may decide to switch browser if that person is technically oriented and if there is some evident incentive (like a feature desperately needed). Where is the problem here?

The answer is that in the picture above there is no problem as long as one works with Windows. The real problem shows when one works with Linux, Mac or with any of the mobile platforms that have a browser. And what is the problem? it is that some significant number of sites and services (still @2009) do not work well or not at all unless you have IE.

Now how does untying IE from Windows helps here? It doesn't. My mother that runs Ubuntu would still have problem accessing that medical site that only supports IE. One needs to remember that, in fact, the problem the EU set out to solve is not the problem I mentioned above (which is the real problem for real people) but instead, the problem of a European company called Opera who could not compete on merit (like Firefox) and now called EU-Daddy for protectionist help.

If the EU really wanted to solve the real problem, they would have forced Microsoft to open source and fully spec any technology used in IE so that other vendors would be able to offer it to (one solution to mother's problem). Then they would force Microsoft to ship IE in a standards-only mode and allow Microsoft to offer a manual download of a BadBrowserSupport package that would add back the quirks of IE. This way, web site owners will feel the pressure to fix they sites and web applications as downloading that extra package manually (OEMs will not be allowed to bundle it) will be a chore the normal user may be reluctant to run (another solution to mother's problem).

When I install Windows or Ubuntu I want a browser and I want the browser to be fully functional on any site. That's my problem. Selecting a browser is not my problem and is definitely not the average-Joe problem. Selecting or switching browsers has never been so easy. No need for EU's help, thank you.

Since when has it ever been required of any company to make sure that its competition succeeds? Firefox/Mozilla doesn't seem to have had much of a problem taking 20 some percent market share from IE WITHOUT microsoft's help. So my question is: Why is it Microsoft's job to "help" Opera's crappy desktop browser succeed?

Also if this gets posted twice, my apologies, didn't appear to work the first time

Err this will make a much better picture in europe because when the EU got the media player removed XP was already out on the shelves but with windows 7 it will only be available without IE from the getgo. I am all for this move not only because IE is bundled and was originally there just to out netscape which was the better browser then but because I just dont agree with Microsofts strategy in this part of the world at all

I think that you are totally wrong. Microsoft's action is at best the action of a petulant child taking his ball home when he doesn't get his way, or even worse an attempt to twist the EU's ruling against it. They should behave in an adult, decent manner and increase choice for the consumer, as the EU ruling intended, by including more browsers or a choice of browser.

Microsoft's focus should be the consumer who buys their product not themselves and/or the EU. As a consumer, I find their behaviour repulsive.

So you really think Microsoft should have Opera and Firefox on the disk. Should they push updates to these on Windows Update too. Some idiot would get hacked because he choose Opera and Firefox and didn't get updates from Microsoft then he would sue. By the way the court systems work these days he would win.

One element of this soap opera (or hilarious dark comedy of errors, however you want to view it), is that the European consumer ended up getting screwed.

Think about it... now that Internet Explorer is not available, they will either have to go with the choice planted by the manufacturer, have to sort through a cd filled with outdated versions of a browser, or will need to go to their local electronics store to get the CD version.

Say what you will about Internet Explorer and Microsoft's practices, but if your reason for buying a computer was to hook up to the internet, you could just waltz right in with IE, and then read information in places such as this about other choices at your pace and upgrade to the browser of your choice.

Now, not only is this process going to be more cumbersome, but you will not get the "free browser included" either.

From a market stand point, who is going to decide which are the "right" browsers to include in the mix? Will this requirement be imposed to other OS as well (if that is what the EU wants from Microsoft, it should be a standard practice across the board)? How often will they review the state of the browser wars and update the choices?

This has to be the most stupid ruling ever. Now that the judges finally figured out that they made a HUGE mistake in the rulling, they are packpedaling like crazy and are now imposing undue hardship to Microsoft to correct their mistake. Two wrongs don't make a right.

You're forgetting ftp is included with Windows. The end users will just have to grab the latest installer from the Opera, Mozilla, Google, MS, or Apple ftp site. Now, Microsoft will just have to include instructions on how to load alternative browsers on a website to complete the Kafka-esque joke. :)

Damn, you beat me to it! In reality Microsoft has more than complied with the EC by unbundling IE and since Microsoft has included a command FTP client have also left EU consumers a way to download any web browser of their choice without ever having to use IE...hey, no one ever said they had to make it easy or give instructions on how to do it.

Scott, I'd say this is the first time I've unequivocally agreed with an opinion piece on this site.

You could have titled this "Damned if you do, damned if you don't".

There really is no other way to say that the EC is wrong (as usual), but it is as simple as that. There is absolutely no justification for their latest comments. It is NOT Microsoft's job to educate the consumer or provide a leg up for its competitors. The EC's place is only to prevent Microsoft from harming competitors, not to force Microsoft to assist them, but that's basically what they're suggesting Microsoft do.

The EU Commission argument holds water insofar as it makes sense for the heirs to the Stanley family misfortune to now sue Ford in Europe for building it's own internal combustion engine and quashing the automotive use of steam boilers.

Mr. Fulton is 100% correct. It was not for Microsoft to make the next decision on behalf of consumers. Their announcement was precisely in accordance with the mandate set by the EC politburo. Apparently in Europe it is appropriate centrally plan that which is exceeds the expectations of or 'delights' EU consumers. If they determined a ballot screen was what the proletariat required then they should have said so in the first place.

well, the eu demanded that ie not be included in windows.

so now they can have cake and eat it too.

"Microsoft getting pissy, rather than doing what it knows was the spirit of the ruling will only cause them further problems at a later date."

Good one. Microsoft only has to following the Letter of the ruling. They unbundled IE as per the Ruling.
I can not remember who said it Quote " In a Court of Law, you get law not Justice"

If you want Microsoft to included the other Browsers in Windows 7 I guess they should paid Microsoft to have them included, for something you can get for free.

Guess you going to have to download and save to disk your install of whatever browser you want before install Windows 7.

BTW, ask your member to the EC what happen to 1.14B US fine. I bet not one person got any of that money in their pockets. Only pocket it filled was the EC. Guess they are going to have to find another Cash Cow to Fund them.

sorry, but fines get redistributed over the membercountries using their member contribution as division basis. The more you pay, the bigger part of the loot you get.

"Speech, liberty, and equality are worth dying for. Opera (the browser) isn't."

Great line.

Citing its January Statement of Objections which accused Microsoft of inciting harm to consumers and to the Web browser market by offering them no choice for Web browsers, the European Commission's contention this morning is that Microsoft's decision does not provide a remedy for that infraction: essentially, that giving the consumer no Web browser still gives that consumer no choice.

If u sell in the European markets, the European Commission would prefer that the welfare of the Europeans should come first and the welfare of Microsoft after that.

Everyone including the European Commission knows that if Microsoft had provided a browser ballot screen earlier, the most dominant browser today would not have been either Internet Explorer or Opera or Safari. The most popular browser would have been the all-american Firefox. So this is not an "opera" issue at all. Moreover nobody is trying to make the browser selection for the European web-surfer. Rather the real issue concerns improving accessibility for and educating those of the European web-surfers, who are not so net savvy.

Re Firefox: I have been using windows for 23 years, and have learnt that if your applications are unstable, the system is more likely to crash. Similarly Firefox crashes if the combination of add-ons selected are cumulative unstable, and not at all if the add-ons are selected wisely.

@ ibraiz61: Most people buy computers as a bundled hardware/software package, and anyone who has to worry about a bare install of Windows will have enough sense, and resources, to work around the issue (e.g. FTPing to ftp.mozilla.org or have a copy on a flash drive). In fact the biggest problem with a vanilla Windows install is network drivers, depending on the age of the hardware and OS version, not a web browser at all. Anyway, new PCs are just going to get stuffed with whatever browser crapoid the manufacturer gets paid to push, so people are not going to be without a browser.

And, I'm thinking he's using a bad extension as well. Unless, he's using a nightly build, then he's using a nightly and should expect that.

@ portablenuke: Oh no! Its not my firefox that crashes, its the firefox build used by Mr. Scott M. Fullton. Please see line 3 of article above. (:

The European Commission is not occupying a "grandstand"!?! It is occupying the "judgement seat" in this case. Question is not if Microsoft will comply with the ballot screen requirement, rather when it complies it will be able to sell Windows7 in Europe. And among European Windows7 users the most popular browser of choice by far will be Firefox, and not ie8, which has essentially been mostly crafted in the image of Firefox.

It seems most modern browsers render sites similarly and there is not much in it these days when you compare the major players.