Comments on: Microsoft Makes Big Sacrifices but EU Still Not Satisfied

By: Microsoft Looks Offer Multiple Browsers in European Versions of Windows 7 | Hardware Canucks

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:42:35 +0000

[...] reported back in June 2009, due to pressure and a pending investigation by the EU of Microsoft’s alleged anti-trust violations surrounding the use of Internet Explorer in [...]

By: 3 of 7

3 of 7 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:44:19 +0000

I think a person has to look at what the EU is trying to achieve (or rather prevent in this case).
Anti monopoly laws are written to avoid the kind of pain the US is going through right now with it’s auto industry.
I’m pretty sure the average American wouldn’t mind if they could turn back the clocks and have their government stop GM from spending all of it’s money buying other companies instead of making a usable product.
In today’s world, if MS were to fail, we’d be in a bit of a pickle without third party software companies and we just won’t have them without reeling in Microsoft a tad.
MS could have avoided the fines by adhering to EU laws in the first place instead of challenging them.

By: tzetsin

tzetsin — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:36:07 +0000

I believe an operating system should be able to do EVERYTHING I want to do, right out of the box. I shouldnt have to buy/download a browser to cruise the internet, nor a media player to listen to music, nor an email program to check my email… look at everything that microsoft has added to a base program that barely costs more than 100 dollars. imagine how much more its going to cost people when you have to buy functionality seperatly.

If Microsoft went out of its way to make sure you HAD to use their product, then i’d be a little pissy, but really, what does microsoft have to gain by ADDING this functionality in for FREE?? Why are people upset about this??

Apple is one big ball of proprietary, they should have the anti trust litigation against THEM.

By: KeepSix

KeepSix — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:51:07 +0000

If I was Bill, I’d say “to heck with it” and pull out of the EU. He has enough money. Wouldn’t that be awesome? Pull every Windoze license on Earth. We ALL have to pay for the EU’s cash grab. Same as a car crash- the insurer just increases everyone’s rates. I’ve been using the car analogy to explain this to people, too. I used the engine as an example. I don’t expect a Ford engine to fit my Dodge, and it SHOULDNT! And personally, I don’t think M$ should even have to make their OS compatible with other browsers- it’s their product, period. Use something else if you dont like IE. Or use another OS.

By: Windows 7 Pricing Details Released | Hardware Canucks

Windows 7 Pricing Details Released | Hardware Canucks — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:57:34 +0000

[...] due to their recent decision to only offer retail, fresh installation editions of their branded “E” versions in Europe, (due to the European Commision’s medling) that pricing for retail “E” copies in [...]

By: stanley milgram

stanley milgram — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:20:40 +0000

so what exactly is EU being protectionist for? is their financial well-being tied to chrome? FF? safari? it’s not protectionism at all, if you can look up the definition for the term before spouting it that is.

MS treats consumers as cash cows regardless, i feel no sympathy in any way…. whatsoever, for the largest software developer/thief in man-kind’s history. Many ppl’s financial well-being is tied to MS in a big way in this country/continent, be it through demo software opportunities or advertising revenue. I think you’ll find much of the same “fair and balanced coverage” you’d find on faux news, in this case.

By: r0bc

r0bc — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:07:43 +0000

I wonder if the EU had this in mind, bet most residents would prefer to have IE bundled.

Even without a browser, Windows 7 users can download software via FTP by using the operating system’s file manager. In Windows Explorer, users can set up a new “network location” using a wizard-like tool, then specify an FTP server with the syntax “ftp://ftp.address.com,” such as “ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox,” where Firefox is located.

By: r0bc

r0bc — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:10:47 +0000

I don’t understand why its illegal and if it is illegal Apple and others are guilty to regardless of the percentage or market share.If its wrong its wrong.Just imagine Apples next OS comes with IE prebundled…not a chance.

Why would Microsoft include someones else product?
If we were forced to use only MS products on the OS I could see a problem but that isn’t the case, we can install and use whatever we like.

I’m not a MS fanboy but they are getting the shaft on this one IMO and I would love to see them release the OS without a browser cause someone in the EU didn’t think this through.

By: FiXT

FiXT — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:15:36 +0000

@r0bc
Primarily it is the injustice of it all that has people talking. Most likely (as with WMP) Microsoft will be sued an exorbitant amount – not that they can’t afford it, but for the EU it seems to just be a money grab.

As well is sets a very lopsided precedent. Basically stating that what Microsoft is doing is illegal, but other companies such as Apple, are free to mimic the scheme without penalty. Apple has been doing it for years, with virtually every program on their OS. No the EU will not be going after them for Quicktime or Safari, or the iLife suite nor anything else.

I feel that the “Apple does it too” card is a bit cheap though, as this is between MS and the EU

By: r0bc

r0bc — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:53:17 +0000

I don’t see what the big deal is. We only have to use IE for updates and we need something to DL firefox with.
Are the EU going after Apple for including Safari with there OS?

By: Relayer

Relayer — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 01:19:38 +0000

This doesn’t seem to be about compliance. It smacks of good old fashion European protectionism, to me.

By: bojangles

bojangles — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:31:09 +0000

Having the option to choose a browser during install would confuse new users. Instead, I would prefer a pop-up upon first opening of IE to say that there are other “options” out there for browsers to suit that person’s needs. They can’t just leave out a browser. It’s ridiculous. IE8 is actually pretty good in terms of speed, and it gets the job done. I, however, use Firefox because of it’s customization abilities.

Changing the install would cause a lot of headaches, but by implementing a choice upon opening the browser could provide information of the different browsers for the user.

By: Ogdin

Ogdin — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:21:42 +0000

Ya i think you nailed it right on the head FiXT.

By: FiXT

FiXT — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:05:37 +0000

@ H-F

Hey H-F. The article is definitely more of an “opinion” article, no denial – but solely based on facts.

Just for the sake of discussion – What and Why exactly do you agree with the EU on this issue? Arguably they are pursuing the purse, under the guise of equality for all browsers. MS has preemptively decided to abide by the EU’s request but seemingly that is not good enough. They want it their way or the highway, and want to prove that in their eyes, Microsoft has done wrong and should be punished.

If you were to invent a product, say a car or something and you also happened to be in the tire business. You would THINK you would have the right, to put YOUR tires, on your CAR that you had developed, built and sold. It would seem a little ridiculous to offer to include other competitor companies tires on your vehicle, would it not? Especially if there was NO incentive for you, no kickbacks, except that you will now loose potential profit on your tires.

If other browsers want to be featured in the Windows OS, they should have to pay/work for that privilege.

Don’t get me wrong. I would LOVE to install Chrome straight off the bat during my install, but ethically, I think the EU is focussed on the wrong things. There are far more pressing anti-trust violations being committed by many other companies – they just don’t pay out as well as Microsoft.

@RJ

Excellent points. The EU has stated they want MS to include other browsers during install (see car analogy above). Otherwise users will be up a certain creek without a paddle. I haven’t seen any browsers producing install disks lately either.

That said, the option of NOT including a browser at all, would only hurt consumers – but it would put the onus on the browser developers to properly market their own software in order to attract consumers, instead of making Microsoft responsible for their products. I would say this is the most “fair” solution, if there is one…

By: RJ

RJ — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:35:00 +0000

Someone elsewhere pointed something out: if you buy an off-the-shelf copy of Win 7 with no IE, how do you go about getting another browser? This is going to cause terrible headaches for the average user. Not a problem for those of us with other access (say, to download a different browser to a USB stick), but it’s limiting to the average user and it WILL happen.

Also, does the ruling even matter anymore? There are plenty of well-known options out there for browsers; monopolistic or not, MS’s behavior at least allows users onto the net by default. The people in the know about other browsers may or may not choose another one; everyone else simply doesn’t care (either through ignorance or choice).

I agree with the author – at this point it seems about money and punishing MS rather than actually making a difference to the EU consumer.

By: H-F

H-F — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:14:31 +0000

I have to say that the author is pretty biased siding with Microsoft. As a consumer, I totally agree with the EU.