Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Microsoft, OEMs forced to bundle Firefox, Chrome by the EU?
The answer: more bloat for the end user! Yes, the European Commission is considering forcing OEMs to distribute alternative browsers with their systems. As someone who works in the retail computer business, I cringe at this news.
Don't get me wrong - I load Firefox on every system I build, if for nothing else but backup when a customer overloads IE with toolbars and rogue ActiveX controls. But that doesn't mean I'd want a government body forcing me to install software that I might not otherwise.
Let's think about this for a minute, EU guys.
Windows also includes some other things that have competitors: Wordpad, Paint, Media Player, Defender, and Remote Desktop Connection, to name a few. Does that mean that a new PC will have to include Jarte, AbiWord, Gimp, Paint.Net, WinAmp, VLC, GOM Player, Media Monkey, AdAware, SpyBot, MalwareBytes AntiMalware, Kerio, Comodo, ZoneAlarm, PC Anywhere, VNC, TeamViewer, and a slew of other apps whose functionality Microsoft has built in to Windows?
Where does it end?
And why do I get the feeling that, ultimately, the consumer is going to get the short end of the stick?
Comments
37
Subscribe to commentsjimjobeJan 29th 2009 11:32AM
This is almost laughable. The big three car makers can't make a profit BECAUSE of government requirements. Plus, union contracts (which are the auto companies fault for signing) make cars cost way more to produce than the non union using competition, further decreasing profitability.
"I think its about time governments started putting in legislature that actually gives the consumer a REAL choice. I'm sick of seeing firefox being used by only savvy internet users."
I've used FF for years now. Unfortunately, the problem is not choice, but consistency. EVERY OS comes with a browser installed. Microsoft = IE, Apple = Safari, Linux = Firefox (typically), and of course each entity includes the browser that benefits them (if there is one). But with each of these, you have the unrestricted ability to download whatever browser you wish and install it as you choose. The problem for me is that this is not about bringing the other software up, but bringing Microsoft down. Why wouldn't the EU make it easier for non-profit software devs to advertise and get the word out instead of just try to do what you can to punish a company that has invested millions into their own software.
This is not to say there should not be any regulation...I agree that practices like trying to discourage OEMs from installing competing OSs should not be allowed (which Microsoft certainly has been guilty of), but that's where people can benefit the most. Let the OEM decide which OS to install according to what their customers want, and let the end-user install whatever software they want. If a computer user has no clue that alternative browsers even exist, then that person probably isn't using the internet in a way that even requires a better browser.
zippyJan 29th 2009 12:49PM
No matter what the unions say at the end of the day each and every American car that has been sold, was sold at a profit.
Alas the number's of sold cars is what decreased, because consumers evolved from wanting gas guzzling cars the size of Kansas. In that Market, Dodge, Ford, Chysler et al. have VERY little to offer. Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, VW, Audi etc etc, the list goes on and on.
The EU will always try to bring companies like MS down, ecause they do not tolerate market dominance the way we do in the US. Look at the uproar that was caused when MS announced they would be implementing the .docx file format as the international standard word processing format, effectively securing the sales of their latest Office Products world wide. Who cares aboput the schools and small businesses in Africa, India, and the developing world huh? It's okay, the children that do manage to get an education there can just come over to the US and work 70 hours a week on a contract basis for MS huh?
And why can't I call up dell and order my new PC with Ubuntu on it? I live in a free country don't I, oh no that's right, when it comes to computers and information systems I live in Microsoft country.
Expect the EU to take a very strong stance against the strongarming capitalism of Microsoft for MANY years to come.
EricJan 28th 2009 1:11AM
Internet Explorer is an essential part of Windows, due to the connection to Windows Explorer.
Safari and Finder are completely separeate applications.
I don't know the details of the EU's problem with Microsoft, but that is a big difference that is apparent to me.
TranscontinentalJan 28th 2009 6:21AM
I'm an European myself and a rather enthusiast opponent to monopolistic attitudes, but I think this time the European Commission is overdoing it. The only alternative is Window with or without Internet Explorer, and not this new dummy "with but then with more", close to insanity.
AniruddhJan 28th 2009 7:39AM
In China Government trying to apply controllable internet ,here EU trying to controllable computers..
What the hell... I think whatever company giving with the package it not means that user gonna use it anyway..I'm having IE but i know that Firefox is very good for my use so I'm using it and its my default browser...
EU working very good and its needed that it looking after Microsoft who wanna rule the internet and our computer but this time i think EU doing too much to Microsoft, Looks like open reap of Microsoft by EU...
All organization should know their limits and power..I think Now Eu is becoming Devil and replacing the old Devil(Microsoft)
zerockJan 28th 2009 7:05AM
I delete IE when I can
dfgdfgdfgdfJan 28th 2009 7:30AM
All these complaints about alleged socialism are ridiculous.
1. @Lee: Wordpad is no competition for anything, neither is Paint.
2. @Mac comparison makers: The Mac is far away from any monopoly, so it can't abuse its monopoly. End of argument.
3. I would appreciate it a lot if Microsoft were forced to remove IE. Why? Because there are still many Windows applications (especially from Microsoft) that, when they want to launch a browser, will NOT launch the system default browser, but will ALWAYS launch IE. That sucks.
4. IE can never be completely removed from the system, because for example the rendering engine is used by a lot of other applications as a component (e.g. through ActiveX or similar). The only thing that could be removed is the GUI of IE.
5. Considering point 4, a very easy solution presents itself: Remove the GUI, keep the technological basis of IE, and use that basis to offer a very minimal browser that, after installing Windows, will offer you a selection of browsers to install. Then everyone can install Firefox.
JohnbonJan 28th 2009 8:56AM
Either we have a classic case of astroturfing going on here or people genuinely are quite ignorant of antitrust laws.
1. It is not bundling a browser with your OS that is illegal--it is abusing your monopoly in one domain to hamper competition in another domain that is illegal. See browser wars
2. MS were accused of abusing that monopoly to hamper competition in other markets (e.g. web browsers, media players). They were found guilty of those actions in multiple jurisdictions (US, EU, ...). That is why action is being taken against them.
3. Since MS is a monopoly, and as such is regulated by a different set of rules and standards. NOT regulating a monopoly leads to disastrous consequences for any industry.
4. Antitrust laws are not fair. they are not supposed to be fair. they should not be fair. they are equalizing moves that are used to whack down on the biggest shareholder in a market if they do anything wrong, illegal, or unethical. any corporation that is vying for the top market positions has to make peace with that fact, and get its act together. Microsoft didn't. it doesn't have an affinity for coherent, orderly, ethical conduct.
Lastly this is what Mozilla had to say:
"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."
RocketboyJan 28th 2009 9:19AM
That picture is pure win.
But really, what do you expect from the UberGov't that made everyone redesign their cars because when they run into people, the people get ouchies?
supernova_hqFeb 5th 2009 8:35PM
Thank you Johnbon.
For anyone that still doesn't get it, consider this situation:
Ford == 90% of browsers
GM == MS
Ford starts making cars (browsers).
Cars need roads (websites) that are used by their wheels (html), so they convert them to work with cars.
Everything is going fine, until GM shows up, creating IE.
With GM's pull, they are able to get 95% of users using their cars.
GM changes their car desing, making them not work on the old roads (tires have spikes, so they wreak the pavement).
Road designers start making roads using cork.
Ford's cars start sliding all over the place.
Ford was there first, but GM (being so big), decided to change their wheels (html rendering) causing all other cars to stop working properly. This is called "monopoly abuse". Using one monopoly (OS) to destroy any competition of another market (browsers).
The example is not perfect, but you get the idea.
old nagJan 30th 2009 7:20AM
Some say this may be something of a horse's-arse, but here's something from the horse's other mouth:
"While computer users and OEMs are already free to run any Web browsing software on Windows, the Commission is considering ordering Microsoft and OEMs to obligate users to choose a particular browser when setting up a new PC. Such a remedy might include a requirement that OEMs distribute multiple browsers on new Windows-based PCs. We may also be required to disable certain unspecified Internet Explorer software code if a user chooses a competing browser. The statement of objections also seeks to impose a significant fine based on sales of Windows operating systems in the European Union. In January 2008, the Commission opened an additional competition law investigation that relates primarily to interoperability with respect to our Microsoft Office family of products. "
More on USA actions:
"and several state attorneys general have requested information from us concerning competition, privacy, and security issues. Antitrust, unfair competition, and overcharge class actions. A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits have been filed against us in various state, federal" etc etc
More:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/download/FY09/Q2-09_10Q.doc
From:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/SEC/default.mspx
gikkuJan 29th 2009 9:51PM
"Does that mean that a new PC will have to include ... Paint.Net, VLC, AdAware, SpyBot, MalwareBytes AntiMalware, ZoneAlarm,..."
I don't understand why Microsoft wouldn't want these apps in with their systems.
old nagJan 30th 2009 6:02AM
Microsoft's Automatic Update - the way to browser competition?
Chrome, Firefox, and Opera ride with IE
"Opera Software's chief technology officer told The Reg that the inclusion of rivals to Internet Explorer in Microsoft's software update service would mean Microsoft reaches millions of old PCs - in addition to new machines - offering choice to new and existing users."
"IE 8 is one step forward and two steps back" Lie said. "IE 8 doesn't fundamentally change anything here. We need to have the regulatory authorities step here."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/29/microsoft_browser_download/
ElysiumJan 31st 2009 5:22PM
This whole thread is ridiculous. I'm all for open source and innovation but this opens a pandora's box as some other folks have pointed out.
@gikku:
And who decides what bloatware will get installed on the systems? And then manufacturers of competing products will sue because software isn't being installed.
@oldnag:
I do agree there are some issues with Microsoft handing out new versions of IE over Automatic Update (like IE7->IE8). They should follow what Apple has done and only update it with each OS revision and if they want to make it available to others for download on Vista, XP, etc. - they can but they have to download it manually.
@dfgdfgdfgdf:
I can't believe how dumb your whole argument is.
1. Where does the line get drawn for improving things for end users and it becoming "Microsoft again leveraging its monopoly for its own benefit". Have you seen the substantial changes Microsoft has made for Paint in Windows 7? It has a ribbon and can do some basic spiffy effects now. So I guess I should expect Adobe to file a lawsuit now saying they are encroaching on their market share for say Photoshop Elements since it does basic things like that. Oh and I guess then we should put GIMP for Windows on too. Oh and ironically WordPad is getting updated too - whoops on you huh? http://www.debenu.com/blog/windows-7-paint-wordpad-and-the-ribbon-interface.html
2. Look at it from the end-user perspective. The result is the same on either Mac or Windows: If you are an avid Mac person you will continue to buy into the Apple market share (which is increasing). If you are an avid Windows junkie you'll buy into Windows market share. In either scenario you have a browser pre-bundled that is being updated with each update to the operating system to be made to do advanced functions all other browsers can do. So basically you are saying Apple is OK to have an advanced web-browser but Microsoft can't just because people happen to have been buying their products longer - and they had to legitimately increase functionality for users as people demanded it to avoid losing market share (which IE still slowly is anyway) - imagine that.
3. This just gets me. You are blaming Microsoft for a programming fault. Clearly the developer INVOKED Internet Explorer intentionally. That just means they coded it incorrectly to not look at the default web browser. Hardly Microsoft's fault.
4. This is also strange. So since they developed a technology and developers actually started using those (strange I know) this is also Microsoft's fault. If a developer decides to use a control in an application that happens to be ActiveX based - again is that Microsoft's fault?
5. So people should basically suddenly be deprived of a product they have gotten familiar with and many developers at Microsoft have coded over huh? What about the people who actually like IE and want to continue to be able to use it. And so I guess going back to the new WordPad and Paint thing - maybe the EU should force them to revert to including the original XP/Vista versions also and handicap IE too. Its a slippery slope and you are basically talking about opening the door to pulling a product apart bit by bit in the name of "competition". Reduced functionality only hurts consumers not helps. Apple introduced Time Machine, which no doubt hurt developers of some commercial backup software as now Time Machine can be implemented in corporate environments to protect end users via network backup. They also improved iChat. So where are all the people complaining that Apple is trying to squeeze out Adium's popularity - its bundled after all and Adium isn't.
The point on this final note is that Apple is doing the same thing Microsoft has - but they get away with it because of their supposed market share. But again, from the perspective of old users who have bought into Apple and continue to do so, these alternatives might make it less compelling to download Adium or purchase alternative backup software, or download Thunderbird instead of using Apple's overhauled Mail program in 10.5. And for new users - well they might not even seek out alternatives. Its these pleasant surprises that build market share and take it away from Windows. If Microsoft can't legitimately improve to match then they are a lame duck. If that becomes the case I guess it is only a matter of time before Apple gets its due in antitrust court. But then it'll have been too late by then - damage done.
dsfsdfdsfFeb 25th 2009 5:49AM
1. Does not matter what happens in Windows 7. You can only fine people for wrong that they have already done, not for wrong that they are preparing - whoops on you huh?
2. Yes, that is basically what I am saying.
3. I'm blaming all application developers who made that error. In many cases that developer was Microsoft, e.g. in MSN Messenger that problem existed. But yes, there are other developers making the same mistake (as I made clear in my initial statement).
4. I haven't said with a single word that this is Microsoft's fault. On the contrary, I think it is great that they included this technology with Windows and that other developers can use it. If you managed to read any MS-criticism into that part of my statement you must really be a paranoid Microsoft employee.
5. "What about the people who actually like IE and want to continue to be able to use it." If my suggestion were implemented, these people would have to make a single click to get their beloved IE. "Depriving" might therefore be a *slightly* too strong word...
ElysiumFeb 25th 2009 2:18PM
1. Well, it is about Windows 7. Since that is what this ruling is about. From the source article: "Should Microsoft be charged, the penalty could come into effect in time for the release of Windows 7, which is expected either later this year, or early 2010." So clearly, they are hoping Microsoft fix this before the release. As well, the EU already has its hands on Windows 7 betas and is investigating other antitrust issues. This was really referring to your quote referring to Lee's opinion in the article where you said that WordPad and Paint aren't competition - well they will be now right? Essentially this opens the door for them to say "oh yep we don't like those Paint and WordPad changes either so if you are going to do that you should bundle something else."
I honestly feel like MS should just release Windows 7 without any browser in Europe so everyone can figure out how to download anything without one.
2. Well part of running a business profitably is ensuring it continues to profit - as such Microsoft is defending their market share by remaining competitive with alternatives such as OS X and Linux which include flagship advanced browsers (for consumer distros with regard to Linux) with functionality users expect out of the box.
3. It doesn't really matter who you believe you were blaming. You said: "I would appreciate it a lot if Microsoft were forced to remove IE." This would break a lot of applications where developers coded this behavior and upset users unless said developer updated the application to fix this - some apps which might be really old and no longer updated. Although I suppose your "minimal IE" idea might still work so the core functionality to view the pages works.
4. I see your point as you did acknowledge its uses in point 5.
5. Well, that was not what you were saying. You said to offer a "very minimal browser" - people don't know of IE as a very minimal browser and they use its features. I don't like IE and its standards-compliance issues as much as the next person but I do think people will in fact be "deprived" of it. Anytime you suddenly take away something people are used to - whether it sucks or not - you are depriving people of it. If you are instead suggesting that people use a minimal browser and then FROM there they can choose to install "full blown IE" (instead of being stuck with the minimal IE you want to see) or Firefox, etc. then this might be reasonable. But removing it entirely like it sounded like you were saying is just ridiculous I think.
So thanks for the response dsfsdfdsf. Sorry if I sounded upset earlier - your post just hit a few nerves with me but I see things a bit differently on a few of these things obviously.
old nagFeb 9th 2009 10:43AM
Here's an interesting perspective or two:
Firefox exec: we don't want to be bundled with Windows
Firefox architect Mike Connor says he doesn't want the browser bundled with Windows, whilst launching a scathing attack on rival Opera's tactics.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/246913/firefox-exec-we-dont-want-to-be-bundled-with-windows.html