Google Chimes in to EU vs. Microsoft Fight

This is getting ludicrous. Of course Google is complaining, chrome sucks and they're mortal enemies of MS. Why is a free component such a huge deal? Last time I checked, I don't have to buy a free browser, I use it based on it's merit. MS being a monopoly is a cop-out to sue MS for more money. If some other OS vendor would step up to the damn plate with a worthwhile easy to use OS, this wouldn't be a problem. The fact is that the only other OS that fits into this category is OS X and that isn't going to be unbundled anytime soon. Why aren't manufacturers being held accountable? Every new computer I've seen comes bundled with a hundred useless, redundant apps, but no alternative browsers. Don't tell me HP, Dell, Gateway, etc can't include a 20 meg browser in their image. This is abuse of power, plain and simple on the EU's part.

Wow there was probably no way I could have said it better. Good Job

"Windows operating system occupies most of the world"

I can tell that you were typing this article so quickly that you forgot to proofread, or think ...

Without IE preinstalled, how would I download Firefox?

Google Chrome is a great browser. However, to remove a browser from the operating system is a lil' stupid. As the article pointed out, how the hell will you be able to download another browser without a browser. Heck, if this happens wouldn't Apple, KDE and GNOME have to stop bundling browsers too?

It just doesn't make sense...

You would have to use FTP within a command prompt probably which is doable, but most people don't know how to do it so they would have to be shown how, and obtain the proper FTP addresses of said browsers.

@hellscook:

I don't agree that Chrome sucks, but that's besides the point.
If Microsoft has it as one of their conditions that no competing software be included on machines installed with Windows, then this is antitrust behavior. So it's not really that ludicrous.
Removing IE from Windows would actually be a fantastic move.
1. It would keep morons off the internet.
2. It would mean that IE usage will drop (which is what every web developer wants)

The tricky part is figuring out how to get a browser when you don't have one. You gave one solution: bundle it with new PC's. Browser developers need to push manufacturers to let them bundle their browsers with new PC's. The other is via Window's install process.

I also see no reason for Microsoft to remove Trident from Windows, so apps that rely on IE's html renderer could continue to work without any problems.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with bundling IE with Windows per-se, even though that was done as a monopolistic move to push out Netscape. Back in the 90's I'd consider it anti-trust, but not today. Now, every OS comes bundled with a browser, so it's not really fair to say that everyone except Microsoft is allowed to bundle a browser. I still want IE (especially 6 and 7) to die quick deaths, and if it's done unfairly, so be it. It would give them a taste of their own medicine, and all the peoples of the earth will rejoice....

In Ubuntu for example and other debian based Linuxes you can enter a command like "sudo apt-get install firefox", or simply find it through the package manager. Since Windows is also for noobs (noob userbase is greater than 90% from my experience), this could only cause trouble.

A first move could be to really have the option to uninstall Internet Explorer after you have installed another browser (like in Mac OS X, you can do this with Safari) without causing problems to windows update and other dependencies, in Win XP if i try to uninstall it just deletes the shortcuts. If I want Internet Explorer out I should be able to do it. This is the best solution.

Giving an option to get the kind of software you like in the installation process like choosing your media players (ticking them): 1) Windows Media Player 2) CCCP with media player classic with/or zoom player 3) VLC 4) Movist and so on. The same would apply to Internet Browsers and other programms. Some of them would have to be downloaded which creates other problems like which software comes bundled, which software is Microsoft approved to be in the list and so on. What happens next with the preinstalled machines that come with lots of crap and their respective manufacturers choises (My last laptop PC was a Sony Vaio and I went through a clean install of Windows XP after I downloaded only the necessary drivers to get rid of the mess).

The last option is IMHO a utopia not applicable to real life, I would be satisfied with just the first option. Keep it simple keep it clean

@dmuir lol I was also responding to the same message but you were faster the funny thing is that we wrote about the same things

Although I may be repeating remarks above....Um how is something that you supply free considered as a market?

The reason the EU is so after Microsoft is not because of browser bundling, but because the browser is a requirement for windows updates and the browser itself is part of the Windows OS.

You know, this must might convince me to switch from using Firefox and Google search to IE8 and Live Search. This is really starting to piss me off.

Ever heard of Vista Update? You don't need IE for that. They've proved it themselves.

when google will have an operating system better than windows then i will use their browser

google should take care of their browsing and add business not of microsoft and internet explorer.

"browser market is still largely uncompetitive (despite Firefox's huge adoption rate), thus making it hard for other companies to be innovative"

i dont care of google being inovative or making money.. just wanna use my IE to browes the web

I also dont give a sh.t on live search from microsoft and I use google.
Google = search engine
Microsoft = OS, Internet browser etc

If your browser is better or offers something the other doesn't have guess what people will use it. If IE does everything people need it to do guess what? They are going to use it. If Mozzila or Chrome actually were these outstandingly better products consumers would flock to them for a better internet experience. In general a browser is a browser to me. Even if I personally do use Mozzila for most of my browsing at home its not like I want to rip my eyes out and walk away from a computer if all it has is IE. Google and Mozzila need to stop wasting time and money on b1tches and complaints and use that energy to develop an internet browser that actually improves upon the current standard. Is it so much to ask 3rd party companies to be innovative to bring consumers to thier products?

microsoft is f**ked. eu is going to force microsoft to include google chrome browser with windows, ah cr*p! the first scroll has been opened, the apocalypse is near. their is no hope, the world is doomed.

With regards to everyone wondering how would we download a browser...one option that is suggested is that windows installation asks you which browser do you want, and then installs it.
Again, the problem with that is that sooner or later there will be way too many browsers on the market to be able to do that.
In any case, I'm sure they can come up with a way...
I entirely agree that this is necessary and that it would really stimulate the browser market and innovation.

So the U.S. government and the European Commission are saying most people are to stupid to browse the web or talk to friends to find out that there just might be an alternative to IE and maybe even Windows? So then why is IE losing market share?

I guess companies like Google, Mozilla, Apple and any one else want what's best for the user. It's not about power! It's not about marketing! It's not about making money! It's about... uh... about... um... ah...

I heard GM is in financial trouble because they were forced to offer Ford cup holders as an option.

Usain Bolt is also being forced to wear a 50 pound weight when he runs.

this is freaking retarded !!!!!


"you have a monolpoly of soemthing that is free... LAWSUIT !!!!"


1. lets define a monopoly

this is the definition according to www.dictionary.com a site often refered to in oline and on campus colleges.

"Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently ... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.

A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
A commodity or service so controlled.
Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.

Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly."


given this definition MS is NOT a monopoly ,

1. they don't make the only OS
2. they don't make the only internet browser
3. internet browsers ARE NOT a paid for service or item

also of note the windows operating system does not even prevent you from installing and using other internet browsers.


any juge that rules agaisnt microsoft would be atotal idiot , granted i'm nto always on MS's side but in this case these companies needs to take a hike and quit trying to force MS to pay for ther advertising via law suits. they should start advertising with thier money and show peopel WHY thier itnernet browser is better , instead of whinning foul at MS for making their OS more functional.

windows products bundled with a windows product; don't see anything wrong with that. Sure IE is one of the worst browsers you can use, but being the crapware that it is, its allowing room for firefox, opera, and others to move in.

there needs to be a decent OS to rival M$, I'm still hoping for a google one; even though their ads are becoming more and more intrusive.

It is totally absurd to expect that Microsoft would bundle another companies browser software on it's OS. The other options are out there, and can be downloaded and used in place of IE. I'm not really sure why Google would have stuffed their noses where they don't belong. I could see this ruling by the EU if it goes the way Google hopes, could eventually backfire, and any future OS that Google puts out, would have to include other companies web browser like IE or Mozilla.

"Let's be honest: companies such as Google, Opera, Apple and so forth have good reason to complain about Microsoft's dominance in the browser market. After all, the Windows operating system occupies most of the world, bringing along its built-in flashy sidekick, Internet Explorer. How can third-party companies have any kind of footing" Simple answer, build their own OS that ocupies most of the world, not knocking at MS door that they want to make $$. This coming from Google ... well seems corporate greed to other has no boundries ... humans ...

A couple points of interest:

If Microsoft bundled other browsers with Windows, they would either have to VERY clearly notify users that Microsoft isn't responsible for any updates, security risks, incompatibilities, crashes, etc that may arise by using the browser, or they would have to provide support for a competitor's product themselves. They obviously aren't going to do the second option, and the first would cause lawsuits that they were biasing people's selection.

If they don't include IE, it will frankly be a nightmare for end users with no computer knowledge to deal with. Most people want a computer 100% ready to use when they buy one. I suppose they could give out free cd's with it or something that oems and retail outlets could choose to give out whenever someone bought an OS.

Regardless, I can see these issues getting out of hand very quickly. Under the same logic, what is to stop someone from claiming that no computer manufacturer is allowed to install an OS on the computer, or that every manufacturer must offer every computer configuration with every OS as a choice. That would cause hardware manufacturers problems, because only manufacturers who's hardware worked perfectly on EVERY OS could be chosen to have their parts in the computers, and that would likely include the need for hardware manufacturers to include drivers and software that worked on every OS as well. It would potentially CREATE monopolies rather than resolve any.

As far as I'm concerned, they should be able to include anything they want in their OS as long as it can be completely removed if desired, and as long as competitors have reasonable ability to create rival products that will not be gimped by running on Windows.

If Ubuntu didn't bundle Firefox...
They'd create a big 'E' icon on the desktop, which by clicking would give you a menu with a choice of Firefox, SeaMonkey, Chromium (whenever it's ready), Epiphany (GNOME's default), Konqueror (KDE's integrated browser), or Lynx (text mode browser) to download and set up as your main browser. In another section, you'd have Opera and IEs4Lin, as 'proprietary'.

What technical hurdle prevents MS to do the same? After all, they used to do just that with AOL, Compuserve et al. in Windows 95...

Complete & utter bs. How do free products compete w/paid for stuff? I use Chrome, used to use FireFox & ie. Chrome works great, rarely ever crashes, & is quick; ie is slow & bloated. That said, I think that windows should have an uninstall feature for ie & media player...or at least give the illusion that it's uninstalled. This would allow integral things like windows explorer & windows update to continue to work . If you wanted to play a media file but had no player then

so even thow IE and Media player are integrated many ppl use third party programs like FF / opera/ chrome / winamp etc .. so why bother to sue MS for the integration of those in their own OS ? they put waht they want inside you don`t come to them and tell them don`t put that... it is plain stupid.

[citation]... would you feel that an OS like Ubuntu Desktop should remove Firefox as well?[/citation]
Ubuntu is not a OS, it's a linux distribution, which includes the Linux/GNU kernel/system apps which form the OS part and a lot of other applications, including browsers - the default one is FF, along many others.

Simply because they are not allowed by m$'s "Lu$er OOB experience" licensing terms.



Because as a m$ windblow$ lu$er you never heard about ftp - yes it was/is included as a system command even on that crap "OS" - of course you don't know. For those incapable of using a command line app, a small script could be provided, with a nice link on the desktop, to click.

Ubuntu is not a OS, it's a linux distribution, which includes the Linux/GNU kernel/system apps which form the OS part and a lot of other applications, including browsers - the default one is FF, along many others.Simply because they are not allowed by m$'s "Lu$er OOB experience" licensing terms.Because as a m$ windblow$ lu$er you never heard about ftp - yes it was/is included as a system command even on that crap "OS" - of course you don't know. For those incapable of using a command line app, a small script could be provided, with a nice link on the desktop, to click.[/citation]
then stick to your command lines in Linux and don`t use Windows. Simple as that you have a choice not to use Windows, why do you see it`s ok for othe people to make money from others ? D

If you wanted to play a media file but had no player then it can prompt you to install or reinstall windows media player AND tell you that there are other options on the internet; if you click on the "internet icon" then it can do the same for ie. It would be silly for ms to bundle competitor software w/windows BUT vendors should be allowed to bundle competitor software w/their windows machines.

Vendors Yes, but forcing MS to include competitors in their own software is plain stupid. Why don`t they attack Apple with this ? because there`s not much $$ that can come out of it but here uuuu $$$$$$ politics(and religion) kills this civilisation ...