EU-version of Windows 7 will come without browser
 

In the EU, Microsoft will release Windows 7 without any integrated web browser. Neither Explorer nor any other browser will be part of the package.

This is a reaction to the ongoing dispute between Microsoft and the EU over the claim that Microsoft is abusing a monopolistic position to keep rivals out of - or small in - the business. The argument that only Explorer is part of Windows, but neither Opera nor Mozilla are included by default, is part of that dispute.

In parts, in the past I supported the EU proposal. However, now that that Microsoft has radically changed it's strategy (to avoid certain legal consequences at the last minute) and now will not include ANY browser in windows 7 for the EU market, again the EU criticises them. They insist on that Microsoft should instead offer a diverse collection of browsers - that are in direct competition to Microsoft'S Explorer.

In other words - and this is where I have a problem with the EU demand - they want Microsoft to promote and distribute the products of their rivalling competitors.

I always argued against a totally liberal capitalistic market. I also always argued that some regulations of the market are needed in order to turn predatory capitalism, that functions at the cost of too many people only, into what in Europe is called "social market economy" that tries to acchieve a balance between the interest of the one and the social responsibility to protect basic interests of the many. As much regulation as needed - but as little as possible.

To prevent a company abusing a de facto monopole is one thing, and is okay for the sake of the superior common interest. But wanting to order a company that it should actively distribute the competing products of it's rivals, is absurd, and a serious distortion of the basic principle of market economy: the principle of competition.

I think the EU is overstretching its demands. On this detail it needs to step back.

Heh sounds like they are just protecting their citizen's computers from viruses.

So this is the safe mode of windows????:06:

Microsoft clearly has an anti-competitive clout in the marketplace.

Shipping the OS with IE and WMP was a little like a supermarket giving every
shopper a free mobile phone. It's good for the supermarket because they sell
more phone credit and get their brand logo out more, but it is bad for the
other mobile phone companies because they can't possibly compete. Even if
they gave out free phones they couldn't possibly hope to reach the vast
number of people that pass through the doors of a supermarket.

It would be daft to ship a OS with no browser, so forcing MS to offer
alternatives is the only workable solution.

SB: You have the same all or nothing attitude to the marketplace as you do
to warfare and morality.

Sooo, if the OS ships without a browser, how does a user download one? :doh:

yea... you got a point... (maby you have to buy one in a store.):hmmm:

well, I aint gotta worry about it. lol, I dont live in the European Union. lol

download the a browser, put it on a disc, instal after you put new OS on yer pc.

My understanding is that either you will select the browser you want when
you buy the OS or you will be presented wit an option to download the one
you want once you have internet connectivity.

You install Windows, and then download and install the browser of your choice. Which probably is the most healthy, fair and unmanipulative solution anyway.

Microsoft was wrong when claiming that Explorer was integral part of Windows that could not be extracted and kept separate. Obviously they can extract it. ;) It was a decision to make that argument in an attempt to establish Explorer in a dominant market position. But that argument never had any substance. It was aiming to make benefit from psychologic effects: that people would not care for other browsers if Windows comes with a browser already.

Letum, you do not know the market functionality if you find it okay to expect one competitor to actively distribute and spread those products of his direct rivals that are in direct competition to his own products, nd to do so without compoensation and to his own disadvantage.

Rivals shall not use unfair cheats to limit market access for other competitors. But they also must not actively assist the other to distribute his own stuff. Demanding that makes mockery of markets' functionality.

Preventing Microsoft to manipulate market access for compoetitors and abusing its monopole, is one thing, and the EU was right to break that. Monopoloes should not be allowed, never. Demanding Microsoft to actively assist competitors to bring their stuff amongst people, is something very different - and here the EU stepped over the line, and now is riding on a moral crusade - and towards the direction of state-governed enterprise.

You could as well demand Mercedes to sell Toyotas in their own shops.

I know the market well enough.

I see no better solution than requiring MS to promote and distribute it's
competitor's products.

The company I work for follows similar rules to encourage competitiveness.
We are obliged to offer parts of our service to our competitors at a reduced
rate so that they can sell them on.

A competitive market is not an ends in it's self.
The only purpose of the competitive market is to provide benefit to the
consumer. When monopolies abuse their position in such a way that this no
longer happens it is right and proper that any rules necessary should be
enforced to ensure that a competitive marketplace is maintained.


The closest car analogy I can come up with is:
(if it is tenuous that is only because cars are very unlike browsers)

Lets say it is the year 2050 and car production is so efficient that each car
is practically free. The only money to be made is from selling car batteries.

Mercedes is now almost the only company in the world that sells houses.
With each house they sell, they give away a free Mercedes car. This is
good for Merc. because they sell more batteries and get their logo out
more.

In this market Toyota can't possibly compete. Even tho they also give out
Toyotas for free, fewer people will take them, even if they are slightly
better, because everyone already has the free Merc. they got with their
house.

The only way to bring back competition is either to stop Mercedes sending
out any free cars with each house or to require them to distribute and
promote other manufacture's free cars with each house. The latter option
being far more practical for the consumer.

As I said, breaking and preventing monopoles, is okay, since monopoles prevent competition and allow the monopolist to abuse his dominant position to dictate porices and conditions that are no longer dynamically settled by competition, then.

But demanding one company to get engaged in assisting it's rival in selling his products, by that damaging it's own competitiveness - that is something very different.

Why is that a bad thing?

The alternative is to ship the OS with no browser and no way to get a
browser other than through buying a CD with one one. That would be no good
for anyone, least of all MS.

Nonsens.

You can download the browser of your choice freely from the web. Choose Firebird, if you want. Or Explorer, if you prefer. Or Chrome, if you do not care for privacy. All that is okay with me.

Just that Microsoft is expected to help distributing competing Chrome and Firebird, that is what finds my rejection, since it seems to establiosh a dangerous, unwanted precedent.

I expect supervising authorities to prevent companies establishing monopoles. I do not expect companies to damage themseolves by selling/distributing the products of their rivals.

Well, you can, but most people just stick with whatever the first browser to
come along with. Microsoft abuse their position as a software distributor by
guaranteeing that that browser is IE.

I expect companies to do what ever is good for competition and thus good for
the consumer.

I guess the thing I find odd is that now Microsoft will continue to be the villian even though the EU anti-trust system manufactured the issue and now doesn't like the outcome. Didn't they see this coming or did they think it would never happen? Boggles the mind.

Another example of mis-management by crisis. The EU regulators seem to be as good as US regulators.

Yes, and the EU was right to end that. Now, Microsoft leaves the choice of browsers to the user of windows, since they must download one anyway.

Or do we now expect Microsoft to bundle Windows with Linux...?


Me too, but in capitalistic thinking, competition is not really wanted, while having a monopoly is the ideal. Consumers and producers are natural enemies over this point.

However, it is unreasonable to expect one competitor to assist his direct rival. That's like one runner helping his rival over the hurdles. We can demand him to not hinder the others, and not to use bad tricks, and by creating fair market access for all (in ideal situation: equal market access for all). But while we should make sure that all horses find the way to the water, I doubt that we should try to make them drink. That'S something each horse has to do all by itself. And if it doesn't - that's its own problem.