Google offers EU help to nail Vole

This really annoys me. Part of Windows that you buy is a web browser, IE, just like the calculator and notepad is. If I made a calculator program, I wouldn't expect to be able to go to court and demand that Microsoft remove the calculator from Windows because it is unfair!

An analogy: TomTom make SatNavs, could they turn round to Mercedes and say stop putting your own SatNav in your cars because you then have an unfair advantage? No, its ridiculous.

For the life of me, I cannot see what the problem is with Vole bundling in their own web browser with their OWN operating system. At the end of the day, if the other web browser companies invested as much money and time in an operating system as Vole have, then I am sure they wouldn't be particularly happy about being told what they can and can't do with it - its like telling Ford or BMW that they HAVE to give proprietery data to 3rd party parts manufacturers about their cars. In addition to this - if the consumer is that interested in an additional web browser, all they have to do is simply download, and install it - its not like Vole are preventing users from doing this.

...if windows was to come without a browser, how would you get on the internet to download your favorite browser?

I think your sorta right, but not looking deep enough. In normal circumstances your right.
BUT years ago MS used dirty tactics to get where it is today, if it hadn't this would be a non issue.
How to you keep in check a company that really shouldn't be like it is if it was clean all those years ago?
A difficult one I feel.

The problem is that MS abuse their position - i.e. they deliberately try to F*** competitor's implementations (their word not mine)

Listen to about 40 mins in on:

http://www.twit.tv/floww14

MS should have been broken up into separate entitied as Clinton's administration wanted to do. They were only saved by that idiot W Bush who was persuaded by lobbyists that it would be good for US imports. The fact that China is now going with Linux because of how crap and overpriced MS products are shows how wrong this decision was.

To put it simply - if IE was produced by a separate company from the Windows company then they'd need to *compete*. Although this is terrifying for the mummy's boys at MS this would actually bring them into the man's world and would result in a better broswer.

Similarly, if Vista was separated from the Server company then we'd have better products.

Currently, how does Windows Server 2000/2003/2008 compete with Samba - by an internal phone telling the Vista boys to 'F***' with Samba by screwing with the implementation. They should be making a better product rather than over complicating their product in a pathetic and rather sad attempt to stop a competitor.

Do you get it now?

@Kevin Bailey: No matter what nonsense you come up with for us 'non-techies' Microsoft OS's do work. They wouldn't be so popular now if they didn't. The reason they are overpriced is because people are willing to pay that money for it. Why should MS be broken up just because it is successful? Face it, Linux is great if you want to fiddle about trying to make things work just as you want them, but if you want a OS that works out of the box, you go to MS.

If you think Windows is a good operating system then you've no idea what you're talking about.

Go to Dell - buy a machine with Ubuntu pre-installed - and prepare to be stunned. Whenever I show it to people they are *amazed* at the speed, multiple desktops etc etc etc. It makes Windows look like its running in treacle.

MS is certainly not successful in terms of the quality of its products.

People may or may not be willing to pay the prices - people pay whatever MS charges because MS is in a monopoly position. Everything is made to only work within the MS ecosystem - even if this is about 15-20 years behind other technologies.

For example - there is currently no MS safe way for Windows PC's to access file shares over the internet in the same way they access file servers in their offices. This is, strictly speaking, terrible.

And this is exactly why it should be broken up. Competition produces better quality products.

So other people should be able to produce Windows compatible servers which could be better and for instance allow file sharing over the internet. And how does MS respond - by telling the PC OS division to bork working with the competitor.

I'll put it as simply as I can.

If the Server OS company was separate from the PC OS company then they'd have to compete with other implementations/products. They would then get better.

Instead - they collaborate together to keep competitors out - and stagger along like a pair on drunks holding eachother up.

If you don't get it now then you're obviously a fanboy/astroturfer. Or someone who still belives in the Soviet model of massive monopoly industries. In which case go get yourself a Trabant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

People are willing to pay for it? Are you serious? M$ is REAL CRAP. M$ OS's are stuffed to Computer makers through their mouth and then dunged out to consumers without choice. Just look how VISTA is being dunged out to consumers that there are computers out there that you can't even install XP because the Fuckers computer makers don't make the drivers for Windows XP. That is called NO CHOICE, AND EAT OUR FECES. Computer Makers are as guilty as M$.

whilst I understand voles shady past, I do see and understand the arguments put forward here, but why is the issue centred around voles bundled browser IE ??, surely the issue should be with all of the products vole includes in their OS's - which when they move the goalposts in break 3rd party implementations of similar products.

exactly! how does nobody understands it beyond me. if IE is not bundled how are you going to download that FF that you (and me) like so much? do you really expect average user to FTP something down?

very good analogy with GPS manufacturers against preinstalled GPS in cars.
Ubuntu is ok , it does what it supposed to do but at home it has close to 0 use to me, it doesn't run games. it is not a universal solution, Kevin, stop positioning it as such.

China is looking toward linux not because MS wrongdoings and such - they simply want to build a custom OS that will allow them to spy on their citizens better.

The only problem I see is that I.E. is not "bundled" as every body says. If it was I could uninstall it if I wanted to. It is hardwired in the windows OS. I would like the option to uninstall I.E. after i install another internet browser. Give me the option.

Geeks who know about FF and other browsers or competing products to MS will certainly go get what they want. For the people that barely know how to turn on the PC, they may as well get a browser with their OS. If Windows didn't come with an OS, their would be tons of support calls complaining that their new PC was broke because it couldn't browse the web.

...at the thought a huge, sometime abusive company being deliberated over by another, especially when both are in competition. And yes, I did just say Google are abusive. Privacy is dead, get over it? Fsck you, Brin.

Impartiality? I'm sure they've heard of it.

What those who say there is nothing wrong with IE being bundled with Windows
cannot see is that Windows would be a far better & leaner OS without it.
Secondly, installing a browser, should be like installing any application on a computer, a matter of choice,NOT compulsion.
By all means supply IE 'along' with Windows,but NOT included in the system itself.
The same should apply to Windows other app's.
If there is one thing Windows needs,it is less 'Bloat'& better app's for installing,through choice of the user only.

@Anthony

Because Microsoft single handily killed the non-free browser industry. No one can charge money for a web browser and expect to gain a large market share because Microsoft, in an effort to snuff out Netscape, infected Windows 95 with IE4 and didn't charge a dime for it. This caused Netscape to lose revenue and market share because Microsoft began bundling it with every successive OS since then. This is a problem because Microsoft was already a Monopoly in the OS market and was using this unfair advantage to stick a dagger into Netscape by bundling IE, even if they lost money on the deal. That is unfair, anti competitive and wrong.

Now all you dipsh1ts(@RichM)out there think that it is acceptable for an OS to come with everything you'll ever need*. There used to be a ton of money in software, people would pay you money if you wrote a decent application. Nowadays it is harder and harder for independent software writers to compete because every other day Microsoft and crApple are bundling a new Application with their OPERATING SYSTEM. Look that up on Wikipedia and see what the definition is, does it say anything about an OS needing a Media Player to function? an Internet Browser? an E-mail client? No an OS is not supposed to be a jack of all trades that comes with everything, an OS is a starting point, it's main function is to provide an interface, hardware support, filesystem access and do them well. I would go so far to say that in Microsoft's effort to make their OS do everything, the quality of what their main focus should be, the OS, has been seriously lacking.

*or what Microsoft tells you you need.

In principle, yes, you're right... there should be no legitimate reason why MS can't bundle applications with their OS.

However, IE is not just an application, it's a gateway to the internet that other people have to code for. When MS use their monopoly position to force non-compliant tags, CSS and frame rendering into their browser it's a pain in the arse for everyone. The other browsers and web developers are then having to code for two different sets of standards.

Just ask anyone who's used Firefox, Chrome, Safari or Opera who's been to a webpage that's completely broken because it's IE only.

This isn't about the bundling, it's about the inevitable abuse that comes with it.

And to use your comparison, it's similar to MS deciding to change the laws of mathematics by making Calc do it's calculations slightly different, or coding Notepad to use a non-standard character set.

Well the problem is for some users that is impossible because of some setting in IE that is blocking downloads. Normally it would not be a problem but I just discovered that to some users this advice is impossible for them to do..

Downloads are being blocked in IE and to try to explain to less than techy users how to fix it so they can download Firefox or some other better browser is impossible for them to do..

Look at this crap steps that need to be explained to a none techy..

Click on Tools (in the menu)
Select Internet Options
Click on the Security tab
Click on the Custom Level button
Scroll down to Downloads: Automatic prompting for file downloads
Click on Enable
Click OK

So telling them to use something else than IE is not going to solve the problem..

IE should be banned period from the operating system as true punishment for allowing this abuse to go unchecked for so long. That will hurt them and teach them a lesson. Nothing else will.

People want choice! The day you can choose the browser you want from an install list at first OS boot up... Then we will have peace!

Controllers want to Rule! The day we borg-afy all aspects of peoples lives... Then we will have peace!

Have yourselves a piece of war! After the rebellions are done by all the groups, tired of fighting... Then we will have peace!

Generations to Generations! New things, new conflicts... Then we will have peace? Only for the peaceful!

windows has its problems...no OS is perfect, i use FF, but microsoft should be allowed to bundle what they like with the OS. IT IS THEIRS. Soon kevin, another car idea, you will be complaining because it comes with a cd player and its not standard size so its uncompetative, shouldn't come with wheels...list goes on... Mozilla could do something simple...advertise. Tried ubuntu....cant game for sh*t, better for programming than windows but windows can do both.(jusr)
Deek, i swear ubuntu comes bundle with crap, so should they lose all of their stuff aswell?
as for wallpapers....all os's should start with none.not its job.

i really don't see the problem. i can say i have a bit of experience in installing various operating systems, or at least different flavors of windows and linux distributions. each linux distribution HAD and still has at least a web browser. konqueror and mozilla (seamonkey, firefox). that's their choice. microsoft bundles internet explorer. windows is their product, they HAVE THE RIGHT to put anything they want in it. probably if they bundled firefox all of you writing + the EU and the US government would not comment at all. is that normal??? in your opinion their os called windows should contain nothing. no browser, no file manager (because all of you like total commander), no media player, no ftp client, no picture viewer, no text editor, BUT any linux distro should have all of the above. how in earth would the user install any of the above? i know how to do all that, i use firefox for "production" purposes, although i keep IE as default browser for the simple and single reason that it loads faster, i use vlc, total commander, but office instead of open office. really, what is the problem. i really think all of you are really frustrated that they make the most money out of this business. because it is all about making money. why not tell BMW of Mercedes use third party engines and gear boxes, instead of making them in house?

The EU needs to move on. This isn't the 1990s, it's nearly a decade later. The browser wars are over, and we we've all *benefitted* from it in the form of open source browsers, free browsers, and a different set of standards for PCs. In the 1990s browsers were a product you could sell, nowadays it is *standard practice* to include them in your OS as a free addition. Windows, OS X, Linux, Solaris, even mobile OSes all have browsers included with them. It is simply a fact of life.

Browser companies like Opera whine and bitch that they can't get any market penetration because of bundling. They claim that IE is too entrenched in the OS. But do we EVER see Firefox or Opera offered on new Windows PCs anyway? We all remember seeing AOL and other icons on our desktops when we first installed; the same thing can be done with alternative browsers. It works too. Afterall, most "normal" users will simply click on the first browser icon they see on the desktop to launch the browser, and it is easy to remove IE's icon and insert Firefox's or Opera's, or whomever's. IE would then just be relegated to Windows Update jobs.

Even if IE were unbundled, would OEMs even bother with alternative browsers? Doubtful. Not without an incentive. These browser companies don't bundle their browsers on new installations, they rely on people to go out and download them. But has anyone considered that there is little reason for anyone to bother seeking out alternatives? Firefox, Chrome, Opera, etc. offer little additional functionality that IE doesn't already offer.

So what exactly is the point? Do these companies want Microsoft to have a little application that pops up during the installation and lets you choose what browser to use? That's pretty ridiculous, because how would anyone know what is a good choice? Most people would choose "Internet Explorer" anyway since it is made by the same company who made the OS, and doesn't have stupid names like "Firefox" or "Chrome" or "Safari" which convey little meaning about their functionality.

Furthermore, if there is such little value in seeking out "alternative" browsers, doesn't that imply that the market is already stagnant and that Microsoft's "tactics" are really not at fault here? Certainly not in 2009? Wouldn't we expect that if Microsoft were so hell-bent on suppressing these alternative browsers, that these alternative browsers would have extremely threatening and superior features? They don't. What's the point in "choice" if your choices are virtually the same?

The EU needs to move on and stop trying to extort money for dead issues. They're a decade too late, and we've all seen the failed results (Windows XP N) of their idiotic witchhunts. Maybe Microsoft should release Windows F-EU edition with little functionality (and at the same price like XP N) and see how it fares.

Why does Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer have to be mated as one ? For example I once used my firewall Zonealarm to block Windows Explorer from acessing the net(figured the inet has no business seeing whats on my HD) well doing that stopped me from being able to do things on certain webpages (like buying from newegg). Is micro$oft mating the two so it's easier to find out all the OTHER software you use on your pc by spying through IE into your Windows Explorer ? Surely by knowing what other software people use/buy they know what to invest in to get more $$$.