European Commission Welcomes New Microsoft Proposals on MSIE and Interoperability

[Mussels]

to the people who are bagging out IE, dont forget... w1zzard uses it.


Sure, IE is a terrible browser by many definitions. but for millions of users, it does everything they need it to.

 

[timta2]

Uh, I don't know if some of you are just too young to remember but Microsoft got in trouble in both the US and the EU for its abusive business practices. These were rulings by courts. They got in trouble for (in the US) integrating the browser into the OS so that it couldn't be removed. Apple doesn't integrate Safari into the OS so that it can't be removed and never has. So your comments about Safari and Apple have absolutely no merit in this discussion. It sure was a good thing for Microsoft that Bush got elected in 2001 since the case literally disappeared in the US.

 

[Dimi]

So u would buy a car without an engine? You can get an engine in ANY garage, u pick!

 

[alexp999]

Uh, I don't know if some of you are just too young to remember but Microsoft got in trouble in both the US and the EU for its abusive business practices. These were rulings by courts. They got in trouble for (in the US) integrating the browser into the OS so that it couldn't be removed. Apple doesn't integrate Safari into the OS so that it can't be removed and never has. So your comments about Safari and Apple have absolutely no merit in this discussion. It sure was a good thing for Microsoft that Bush got elected in 2001 since the case literally disappeared in the US.

You do realise that Windows 7 has the option to remove IE?

Dont talk to me about no merit.

 

[R_1]

So it will be like it was before, first M$ is convicted and later on court decision will not be implemented. They did it again !

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Uh, I don't know if some of you are just too young to remember but Microsoft got in trouble in both the US and the EU for its abusive business practices. These were rulings by courts. They got in trouble for (in the US) integrating the browser into the OS so that it couldn't be removed. Apple doesn't integrate Safari into the OS so that it can't be removed and never has. So your comments about Safari and Apple have absolutely no merit in this discussion. It sure was a good thing for Microsoft that Bush got elected in 2001 since the case literally disappeared in the US.

In USA, it was just "strongly recommended" that they not make IE an integral part of the OS. There was no fines.

The court simply couldn't mandate (like the EU court did) that Microsoft not offer IE inside of Windows.

 

[xtremo]

Silly laws... everyday Europe is getting more and more boring thanks to its EU politicians.

Since when in a civilized free market you're punished cause you wanna offer addons. I get perfumes that include the same brand aftershave, I get cereals with chocolates wrapped up, I get Nero which includes many unrelated software. Recently, I bought a Samsung cellphone and the company gave me the Samsung bluetooth headphones for free, no one wouldn't have thought about complaining because they didn't have "options" of headphones from Ericsson or Nokia.

For instance, maybe I'd appreciate if M$ bundled a free antivirus with Windows, whether I like it or not, it'd be just fine if I'm given the power to blow it away anytime.

 

[Mussels]

To be honest, i'd like the OS installer to come up with a thing "here are some of the most common web browsers and chat programs - tick what ones you'd like to install"


Firefox, IE, safari, chrome

MSN, yahoo, AIM, skype.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

That's a lot of work for Microsoft and what does Microsoft gain by offering those?

Microsoft would have get distribution authorization from Mozilla, Apple, and Google. In order to do that, those companies are probably going to want something in return too (like reporting which choice was selected).

We also can't forget that if you embed one of these browsers into the OS and it has a vulnerability, that makes Windows have a vulnerability too when installed from scratch (e.g. Sasser/Blaster worms). Instead of the problem being Google's, Apple's, or Mozilla's, the problem is now Microsoft's. They have to get on whomever is responsible and get a critical update out on their update software (major PITA especially considering these rivals aren't likely to be cooperative).

It just goes on and on and on.


Most likely, the Windows 7 installer has some kind of Internet Browser although it isn't a browser per say. It is merely code the facilitates Internet networking (in effect, an unwindowed Internet Explorer). This internal networking code is also used to get updates from Microsoft.

When you make your selection of what browser to use, the code will fetch the most recent version from the provider and either launch it once you are in Windows or run it right then and there. Internet Explorer is still there, you just can't find it. It isn't a windowed application unless you choose Internet Explorer which in turn installs the GUI.

Internet Explorer is still the only browser packaged with Windows (this violates the EU ruling which is why you still need an E version) but it makes it easy to get the other popular browsers too.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

That's a lot of work for Microsoft and what does Microsoft gain by offering those?

That would be the point of Laws™ and FINES. This isn't supposed to make Microsoft more profitable. Hence the whole court/EU commission.

Duh.

Microsoft would have get distribution authorization from Mozilla, Apple, and Google. In order to do that, those companies are probably going to want something in return too (like reporting which choice was selected).

And you're gonna say NO?

Mozilla would probably give an arm up for that chance.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Apple wouldn't. If just one refuses, it creates a whole different set of problems which ultimately lead to more lawsuits down the road.

This is what happens when you try to legislate everything. Everything gets muddled in legalities to a point of collapse.

 

[Mussels]

no it doesnt. MS can say in court "we offered this to all major web browsers: these ones refused, and therefore were not included"


MS cant get in trouble, for someone else saying no.

 

[Wile E]

Yeah, but it could've all been avoided in the first place if the EU just kept their noses out of somebody else's IP. In terms of silly court cases, this is up there with the Intel case.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

no it doesnt. MS can say in court "we offered this to all major web browsers: these ones refused, and therefore were not included"


MS cant get in trouble, for someone else saying no.

Right now, this is true. But 10 years from now, it is likely to come back up. For example, if like XP/Vista, Windows 7 outlives its successor but a new browser is offered after the release of Windows 7 but before the successor, the new browser might trigger a lawsuit mandating that Microsoft re-release Windows 7 with the new browser. Excluding the new browser is anti-competitive when Microsoft goes down this path. Microsoft already had to do this with Windows XP Home Edition and Windows XP Professional Edition for EU customers.

What stops Microsoft from getting swamped by a horde of unheard of browsers that also are excluded? This is an all or nothing situation and the legal ramifications of this in the long term are almost incomprehensible.

In effect, the EU is inviting Microsoft to be hammered by lawsuits over and over again until the end of time using the previous rulings as leverage.

 

[Mussels]

lol they should just make IE take you to a website when the OS starts, with a list of the most popular browsers and chat programs

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

Right now, this is true. But 10 years from now, it is likely to come back up. For example, if like XP/Vista, Windows 7 outlives its successor but a new browser is offered after the release of Windows 7 but before the successor, the new browser might trigger a lawsuit mandating that Microsoft re-release Windows 7 with the new browser. Excluding the new browser is anti-competitive when Microsoft goes down this path. Microsoft already had to do this with Windows XP Home Edition and Windows XP Professional Edition for EU customers.

In effect, the EU is inviting Microsoft to be hammered by lawsuits over and over again until the end of time using the previous rulings as leverage.

It should be pretty easy to just say that a browser should have a reasonable user base before such claims could be made, as including every browser is not feasable.

This is why Microsoft pays lawyers, afterall.

Intergrating IE so tight that the OS breaks with it's removal was not reasonable. Thus it was forced changed. The EU was not happy with the results of the required actions, and thus is requiring more.

Not really that hard. If it was fair game to begin with, it wouldn't get this far.

Not expecting the EU to do this is like expecting a field commander in a war to give instructions for an initial attack plan and then never re-assesing the situation as it changes. It's blind and stupid. For once, a Government is doing something right (Regardless of whether M$ should be changing it or not).

 

[Wile E]

It should be pretty easy to just say that a browser should have a reasonable user base before such claims could be made, as including every browser is not feasable.

This is why Microsoft pays lawyers, afterall.

Intergrating IE so tight that the OS breaks with it's removal was not reasonable. Thus it was forced changed. The EU was not happy with the results of the required actions, and thus is requiring more.

Not really that hard. If it was fair game to begin with, it wouldn't get this far.

Not expecting the EU to do this is like expecting a field commander in a war to give instructions for an initial attack plan and then never re-assesing the situation as it changes. It's blind and stupid. For once, a Government is doing something right (Regardless of whether M$ should be changing it or not).

Even with extreme integration into the OS, the EU had no business telling them not to do it. If you don't want it, don't use it. Nobody said you had to buy Windows.

MS's IP should not be the business of ANY govt body, unless there is copyright infringement involved. They should be allowed to code their software however they see fit, not how the EU deems acceptable.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

lol they should just make IE take you to a website when the OS starts, with a list of the most popular browsers and chat programs

It already does that for default search provider. They have a feature to create your own search too satisfy the need for the current and future unknowns. Moreover, it is completely webbased so they can update the list server-side.

Intergrating IE so tight that the OS breaks with it's removal was not reasonable. Thus it was forced changed. The EU was not happy with the results of the required actions, and thus is requiring more.

Sure it is. Windows needs Internet access in order to activate and update. In Windows 98-Windows XP, that capability was built into Explorer (not Internet Explorer). Internet Explorer was a GUI that hooked into the underlying Explorer code that facilitated intranet, local, and internet traffic. Everything involving the Internet, therefore, revolved around that core codebase on Windows 98-XP.

As such, its removal was very unreasonable as it created a lot of problems for Microsoft and more knowledgable users. Instead of Explorer/Internet Explorer practically being the same, they now had to send all internet requests to Internet Explorer and all other traffic requests from Internet Explorer to Explorer. As proof of this, open up Explorer (aka My Computer) and type in http://www.cnn.com. It will open a new instance of Internet Explorer 7/8 or create a new tab in an already exisiting Internet Explorer and open the site. Likewise, if you type C:\ in Internet Explorer, it will open Explorer and point it to C:\. In IE5 and IE6, both would do everything--they were practically one in the same.

In this sense, Internet Explorer was just a marketing name because most users wouldn't think to type "http://" in My Computer to get web access. They gave it that name and the pretty picture to assist users in the usability department (I want Internet -> "Internet Explorer" might satisfy that want).

To respond directly to your statement: The OS breaks when you remove Internet Explorer because you are also removing Explorer (the kernel). No operating system works without a kernel so it should "break."

Even with IE7/IE8 not installed, you still have Explorer with 99% of the features of Internet Explorer. Explorer still needs Internet access to activate and update. Effectively, the previous ruling and this ruling changes nothing except handoffs between Internet Explorer and Explorer for different types of requests. The only thing the "E" version doesn't have is the Internet Explorer GUI.


Google is going to try to do the same thing with Chrome OS except, instead of starting with Explorer and adding Internet capability to it, they are going to start with Chrome and add Linux kernel capabilities to it. Chrome OS, in every way, should be in the same ball of wax Microsoft is currently in.

Not really that hard. If it was fair game to begin with, it wouldn't get this far.

It wasn't fair game to begin with. It wasn't then, it still isn't now. Consumers are getting screwed by this because now you need more apps to do the same tasks that could have been done with one previously.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

It wasn't fair game to begin with.

The law says you're wrong, apparently.

Sure it is. Windows needs Internet access in order to activate and update. In Windows 98-Windows XP, that capability was built into Explorer (not Internet Explorer). Internet Explorer was a GUI that hooked into the underlying Explorer code that facilitated intranet, local, and internet traffic. Everything involving the Internet, therefore, revolved around that core codebase on Windows 98-XP.

And internet access requiring IE is bullshit. No other OS requires X browser core pieces to access networks.

 

[Wile E]

The law says you're wrong.

The law is a useless piece of legislation aimed at nothing more than attacking the big corporations to suit the personal needs of the EU.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

The law is a useless piece of legislation aimed at nothing more than attacking the big corporations to suit the personal needs of the EU.

Isn't that what all laws/rules essentially are?

Laws/rules to fit the personal needs of the organization regulating?

This is why there is a seperation between the law making body, and the Judicial branch. To keep things like this in check. If it were unconstitutional in any form it should obviously be unenforcable.

If this system is not functioning, this case has a bigger precident than just impacting the Browser market.

 

[Wile E]

Isn't that what all laws/rules essentially are?

Laws/rules to fit the personal needs of the organization regulating?

This is why there is a seperation between the law making body, and the Judicial branch. To keep things like this in check.

Doesn't seem to be working that way over there.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

Doesn't seem to be working that way over there.

I'm sure it's working fine.

They just have the same problem we have in the US.

Laws do not accomodate modern technology(Because there is a loophole around every corner). Welcome to Earth, year 2009. The Digital revolution awaits.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

And internet access requiring IE is bullshit. No other OS requires X browser core pieces to access networks.

Mac OS X has update software integrated:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1338

And where there is the word "update," it is most likely utilizing an underlying, GUI-less internet codebase integrated into the kernel. Hell, Internet is just hyper-text on TCP port 80. Anything that handles TCP/UDP could and should have the ability to render HTTP pages. There's no need to separate the HTTP renderer and label it as a "browser." That same "HTTP render" could be used to also render the GUI for local folder browsing.


My point: we don't need laws that dictate how an application is implemented unless, as Wile E stated, there is a copyright or patent infringement. EU is well on its way to driving good applications out just because it isn't convenient for two people.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

Mac OS X has update software integrated:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1338

And where there is the word "update," it is most likely utilizing an underlying, GUI-less internet codebase integrated into the kernel. Hell, Internet is just TCP port 80. Anything that handles TCP/UDP could and should have the ability to render HTTP pages. There's no need to separate the HTTP renderer and label it as a "browser."

What does the system software updater have to do with anything? There are no anti-trust issues with providing an "update" component inside of your software.


You're trying to argue a network stack is the same thing as a browser?