Buy Now!
Why Microsoft is innocent with IE.

The never ending browser wars: Firefox is gaining, Chrome is here, Safari hits version 4, Internet Explorer should be canned. So many opinions, so many rulings.

Microsoft this week announced that it would not ship Internet Explorer in Windows 7 for the European market. No thanks to rulings and regulations by the European Union, Microsoft would face big fines if it decided to bundle IE with Windows 7. Still, Windows 7 shipping elsewhere will have IE--and thank goodness!

I understand the need for competition. But this bashing against Microsoft by the EU is getting out of hand. Because of the nature of the operating system, it's a matter of convenience for the user to have a browser shipped along. Imagine installing Windows only to find out you can't even get online to grab a 3rd party browser.

To be frank, I like to use Firefox. After a Windows install however, the first thing I do is go and grab the latest drivers. How does the EU expect me to be able to do that without a browser installed? Does the EU expect me to use possibly old drivers from the CD that came with the motherboard, graphics card and whatever else I have? No thank you.

How can I even get Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, or whatever else I wanted without getting to each browser's respective website to begin with?

Here's the kicker though: almost all recent operating systems ship with browsers. Flavors of Linux, Mac OS X, etc., all ship with browsers already packaged. And why does the EU think people lack choice if Microsoft includes IE? I don't. I can still use whatever I wish. Microsoft never forbid me and doesn't forbid anyone from using a different browser.

Removing the browser from the operating system is a disservice to the customer, not a favor. Please EU, get your heads around this. If you're going to force Microsoft to remove something that is a matter of great convenience for me and everyone else, enforce this rule for all operating systems. Imagine getting your Mac home only to find that you can't do jack without Safari installed. Imagine building your custom rig, booting up, only to find that you can't grab the latest drivers because there's no browser.

Is that called choice?

Sorry EU, that's called moving backwards.

I am sure the EU recognizes this issue. So what's the cause then? Could it possibly that companies who develop other web browsers are crying over the fact that their release isn't as popular? Could they possibly be making the claim that they're not shipping enough because Microsoft has an unfair advantage?

Let us be reminded that a long time ago, IE was the arm-pit of browsers, and Netscape was king. What happened there? What occurred was that Microsoft came up with a better and more convenient solution for end users. Period.

Technology and advancements often will make certain business go out of business or become unpopular. But so what? If you can't adapt, you're going to be phased out. That's just the nature of, everything.

I want a browser in my operating system. If I want or need to, I will go grab something else. But don't force me to, EU.


Posted Mon, Jun 15 2009 1:25 by admin

Comments

Wout wrote re: Why Microsoft is innocent with IE.
on Thu, Jun 25 2009 12:19

I'm afraid you don't have your fact straight. It was the EU wish that microsoft would let you choose the browser. As a reaction to this microsoft removed IE all together. Probably because this is easier but also to get exactly these reactions. Also 90% or more of all windows licences are EOM or business. So If you buy a pc the manufacturer can choose what browser to include. Whit big companies PC will be preinstalled by the IT departmend so no issue there. If you are building the PC yourself or upgrading from another os you probably won't have an issue ether. As You say linux distro's also include a browser. The only real sollution to this would be a chopped up windows , where others are allowed to configure distro's including different browser ,virus scanners , media player , ...  This however will only work if MS plays ball and prices the pieces reasonably. If you look at Windwows N (the one without mediaplayer) did not sell at all. This was another one of those FCK U EU things from MS . If they price Windows N at exactly the same price as the normal version why would anyone buy this and how can this help the competition situation.

admin wrote re: Why Microsoft is innocent with IE.
on Thu, Jun 25 2009 14:52

The point is though, that we cannot expect Microsoft to include a "ballot screen" offering non-Microsoft products. That's like going to buy a new GM vehicle and being offered a BMW, Mercedes or Chrysler steering wheel. Never going to happen.

As for building your own PC and purchasing a retail copy of Windows 7 in Europe; from my understanding this will be different from the N releases as the E release will be the only distribution available in Europe.

Talking about OEM boxes, the OEMs have had a choice to install third-party internet browsers for years, yet no-one (well, hardly) has decided to do so.

What the problem really is, is that the EU (after extensive lobbying from Opera software back in 2007) decided Microsoft was not allowed to bundle their browser with their OSes without a way to uninstall it - now that Microsoft, in a "ploy", decided to "remove"(*) IE completely from the OS instead of allowing for a ballot-screen Opera software again throws a hissyfit and the EU follows suit. (If you google some of this you'll find a blogpost from Opera software the day after Microsofts "announcement").

In any case, if a browser can not be seen as part of the OS - what about Media Center (surely including this in W7 is a hinderance to XBMC or Meedio?), Outlook Express (if there's a email program included with the OS why would anyone purchase another one?) etc etc, the list goes on.

(*) Also note, IE is still not fully removed from Windows 7 E. The core is still very much in the 'kernel' as it is used by Windows Explorer and other parts of the OS. All MS is really doing is removing the UI for Internet Explorer, something you could do even in previous versions of Windows with a few hacks.

Wout wrote re: Why Microsoft is innocent with IE.
on Thu, Jul 16 2009 13:53

This depends of cource on how you interpret the laws. In the EU special rules apply for company's that have a near monopoly on a market. Basically the european commission can make MS do whatever it seems necessary to  balance out the market. In IE you get to choose your internet search engine so why not give a choice of browsers when first starting the OS. I do agree with you that it is an awkward situation a government making a company do stuff to its products but I can see the benefit in this. As I wrote before , the only way this discussion is going to end is if the EU makes MS charge for every component separately , this will make self builders and OEM builders choose alternatives as it give them a financial incentive. This would then include media players , media center , windows defender , IE , msn , ... . Imagine a Windows 7 without any of these for 50% of the price , that would definitely pull OEM builders over the line to sell PC with alternative , especially on the netbook market where this price difference matters even more. Without this financial incentive i think no measure will have any other effect than annoy people with the EU.

You car comparison would make sence if 95% of the  sold cars would be TOYOTA , and then the EU might impose a law that makes TOYOTA let you choose the brand of car radio, tires, satnav or even the engine. (with of cource forbidding TOYOTA to give you those for 'free')

pjkiaqzo wrote re: Why Microsoft is innocent with IE.
on Fri, Feb 12 2010 1:16

Mmh2u4  <a href="tegmrplyfqlq.com/.../a>, [url=http://zblljcixxwjp.com/]zblljcixxwjp[/url], [link=http://opxmthwxbscy.com/]opxmthwxbscy[/link], http://ixyayswtkyhf.com/

Add a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  
Remember Me?