Windows 7 to ship without Internet Explorer in EU

[zappaDPJ]

European buyers of Windows 7 will have to download and install a web browser for themselves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8096701.stm

[Rik]

I wonder if it will happen. I'd bet OEMs will install it as routine, whether it's separated or not.

[vitriol]

Doesn't Windows Update require IE?

[Rik]

It has done in the past, but I don't think that's for technical reasons.

[Noreen]

However, Microsoft said that even if it did not ship a copy of Internet Explorer with the versions of Windows 7 that it supplied its partners with, there would be no guarantees that those partners would not install the program themselves.

"Computer manufacturers will be able to add any browser they want to their Windows 7 machines, including Internet Explorer, so European consumers who purchase new PCs will be able to access the Internet without any problem," said Heiner.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jun/12/windows-7-internet-explorer

[Rik]

IOW, OEMs will be quietly encouraged to add IE back in to the installation. 

[Noreen]

Just seen this in the online New York Times.

Europe Cool to Microsoft's Offer on Browser
By KEVIN J. O'BRIEN
BERLIN — European regulators, wary of repeating an earlier mistake, signaled this week that Microsoft's offer to sell a browser-less Windows system on the Continent did not go far enough.

And the decision has left some antitrust lawyers in Brussels scratching their heads.

"Microsoft is offering to sell Windows in Europe without their own browser — you would think this is what the commission wants," said Alec Burnside, a competition lawyer at Linklaters in Brussels. "You would expect them to say 'Thank you' and close the case."

Microsoft made an offer Thursday to sell Windows in Europe without their own browser, the latest move in a case that was initiated in December 2007 based on a complaint by Opera, a Norwegian browser maker.

But the commission, in a statement, dismissed the offer, saying the move would not further its goal of promoting browsers that compete with Internet Explorer.

Instead, Microsoft and European authorities appear on course for another legal collision over the software maker's bundling of major applications into Windows, which, according to the research firm Gartner, runs more than 95 percent of computers in the world.

One reason for the quick rejection, according to competition lawyers in Brussels and a commission spokesman, is that the European Commission did not want to repeat a mistake of the first Microsoft case, when it ordered the software maker in 2004 to sell a version of Windows in Europe without its media player.

Microsoft responded by selling its so-called "N" version of Windows for the same price as its full version, and consumers rejected the stripped-down system. The remedy also did not significantly improve the lot of competing media players. Microsoft said it sold only a few thousand copies of the "N" version.

This time, the commission has indicated it may want Microsoft to distribute Windows with competing Web browsers pre-installed and then allow retailers and computer makers to decide from a so-called "ballot screen" menu which browsers to install. About 95 percent of computer operating systems are sold pre-installed on new computers.

"Our focus in this case is that consumers should effectively have the chance to choose from an array of browsers," a commission spokesman, Jonathan Todd, said. "The remedy with the 'N' version software didn't work."

In hindsight, Mr. Todd said the commission should have required Microsoft to sell only a Windows version in Europe without a media player and not allowed the parallel sale of the full version.

In Europe, Microsoft is offering to sell a browser-less "E" version of Windows 7, its latest operating system version which is scheduled to be introduced worldwide Oct. 22. "This means that computer manufacturers and users will be free to install Internet Explorer on Windows 7, or not, as they prefer," wrote Dave Heiner, the Microsoft deputy general counsel who disclosed the offer, in the company's blog.

Denis Walbroeck, a competition lawyer at Ashurst in Brussels, said the commission's rejection indicated it was not looking to settle quickly with Microsoft.

"I am struggling to understand the commission's behavior here," Mr. Walbroeck said. "It appears this is headed to a big decision from the commission, a big fine and perhaps a lengthy appeal."

Since the complaint initially filed, many of Microsoft's biggest commercial rivals — Sun Microsystems, Google, Nokia and others -- have signed on to the case as legal adversaries.

Microsoft canceled the only hearing scheduled in the case, scheduled for early June, after complaining that many European antitrust officials who could attend the hearing as observers were unable to do so because of a competing conference in Switzerland.

The commission is under no timetable to release its ruling in the browser case, but in the past, it has publicized crucial decisions, fines and sanctions before leaving for its summer break in late July.

[Rik]

This could be one long money spinner for the lawyers. Unless the EU gets its way with a choice being offered, I fail to see the point in separating IE from Windows. IAC, I suspect that the vast majority will plump for IE come what may.

[Noreen]

This confuses me, are the  retailers and computer makers the consumers?

This time, the commission has indicated it may want Microsoft to distribute Windows with competing Web browsers pre-installed and then allow retailers and computer makers to decide from a so-called "ballot screen" menu which browsers to install. About 95 percent of computer operating systems are sold pre-installed on new computers.

"Our focus in this case is that consumers should effectively have the chance to choose from an array of browsers," a commission spokesman, Jonathan Todd, said.

[Rik]

I think Mr Todd is confused, Noreen. The Commission seem to be saying that the retailer/manufacturer should be able to make the choice, which seems pointless to me.

[john]

"

Our focus in this case is that consumers should effectively have the chance to choose from an array of browsers," a commission spokesman, Jonathan Todd, said.

Surely they do have a choice of an array of browsers now but it's just that many people can't be bothered to seek them out.

Forgive my naivety but I can see that the cost of producing IE can be paid for by sales of Windows but how do other companies make money from writing and distributing free applications like firefox ?

[Rik]

I've always wondered that, John. I know Mozilla gets money from Google, I suspect others do too.

[john]

I've always wondered that, John. I know Mozilla gets money from Google, I suspect others do too.

Yes but why is it in their interest to produce a free browser which may ultimately be paid for out of Google's profits ?

[kinmel]

Doesn't Windows Update require IE?

No I get the updates using Firefox

[kinmel]

how do other companies make money from writing and distributing free applications like firefox ?

Quite the opposite, no profit making company is involved in writing and distributing firefox, Ubuntu, Open Office, VLC and a myriad of other open source software, it is all done by unpaid enthusiasts.  
One big advantage is there is no Marketing Dept trying to rush unfinished work; Microsoft may allow a developer 3 * 35 hour weeks to sort out a problem due to the need to meet a deadline, Open source has no such constraints and Firefox 3.5 has just been delayed because of bugs in the latest RC version -  "better late than buggy" as the saying goes.

All the major freeware producers need some financial backing to enable them to organise themselves on a global scale and all are supported by donors. Some donors, such as Shuttleworth with Ubuntu, are enthusiasts pursuing  a hobby, while Google (Firefox) and Sun (Open Office ) see it as a public service with great publicity and advertising.

[Sebby]

It has done in the past, but I don't think that's for technical reasons.

It's probably because MS had to mess with the code so much to get it to display correctly in their non-compliant mess called IE that it won't display properly in other browsers.

[Simon]

I wouldn't mind if it did come with IE on board, providing it could be fully removed, if the user chose to.  Otherwise, if it comes with no browser at all, and one doesn't happen to have a Firefox CD lying about, how do you go about getting on the Internet in the first place?

[Sebby]

That's true. I'm not sure what you'd do.

[Rik]

These days, fire up your second, third or fourth machine.

[Gary]

These days, fire up your second, third or fourth machine.

Or pop in your backup disc, or external hard, drive or usb drive....

[Simon]

Yes, but some people don't have those.  What if someone is buying a computer for the first time?

[Rik]

They get the store to set it up for them, which is probably what's going to happen in the main.

[Ray]

They get the store to set it up for them, which is probably what's going to happen in the main.

Which means it's going to have IE on it, I doubt if PCWorld or the like have even heard of FF or Opera. 

[Rik]

Exactly, Ray. In practice I doubt anything will change.

[Sebby]

These days, fire up your second, third or fourth machine.

That's true. Actually, I keep Firefox Portable on a flash drive.