Windows 7, the next major operating system version from Microsoft, is set to release Thursday, October 22nd. While this release of Windows has been received fairly well by the IT community and enthusiasts, it has presented a headache for Microsoft’s EU launch. Microsoft has been involved in EU anti-competition hearings and litigation since 1993. As a result of the litigation, Microsoft created special EU versions of Windows to comply with the rulings. Windows XP N was the EU version of Windows XP, which contained links to third- party instant-messaging and media-player software. Windows Vista N simply did not contain Windows Media Player.
For European consumers, Microsoft has moved toward something that will provide options and functionality.
The development of Windows 7 has been very public with free downloads of the beta and RTM (release to manufacturing) versions available to the public for limited times. Microsoft has also been public with their plansto offer “E” editions of Windows 7. These proposed editions would not include Internet Explorer, Microsoft’s web browser, as a pre-installed program. The bundling of Internet Explorer is the most recent aspect of the Windows product line that has come under EU scrutiny. At first this may seem reasonable and in line with previous moves by the software giant. The difference is that this would have put a lot of consumers in an awkward position.
Imagine you install Windows 7 E on your computer. Everything works fine and you are happy to no longer be using Windows Vista. Then you attempt to surf the Internet but you realize you don’t have a web browser. This doesn’t concern you at first, because you always downloaded Firefox before. But wait; you can’t download Firefox—or any other web browser for that matter—because you don’t have a web browser. Users would be forced to download their web browser of choice from another computer and install from a USB drive or other similar portable media. This is far from ideal.
Thankfully for those who would fall under the EU umbrella, Microsoft has moved away from this plan to something that will hopefully provide consumers with both options and functionality. The proposed plan is to present users with a “ballot” system where they can choose which browser—Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Apple’s Safari for Windows, or Google’s Chrome—they wish to install on the first boot. This would be similar to the current feature in Internet Explorer by which a user can choose their default search provider from a list of Microsoft’s competitors. The EU has responded favorably to this proposed plan. Neelie Kroes, the EU Competition Commissioner, said, "I am very positive about this initiative. Microsoft's commitments would indeed address our competition concerns [and have] a direct and immediate impact on the market." This is certainly good news for Microsoft and the general IT community of Europe.
The web browser debacle wasn’t the only issue Microsoft faced when determining which applications they could bundle with Windows 7. In order to preemptively comply with anti-competition laws, Microsoft has created what they call Windows Live Essentials. These are applications which can be downloaded and installed from Microsoft for free but do not come preinstalled. The list includes an email program, instant- messaging software, photo-gallery software, video-editing software and parental-control software. One has to question the fairness of placing Microsoft under such scrutiny for bundling productivity applications with their operating system. Microsoft’s biggest competitor on the consumer-facing operating-system fronts is Apple with their newest release, Snow Leopard. Apple has always advertised the fact that their machines come pre-loaded with all of the software you need, that is, a media player, photo software, web- and video-editing software, among other programs.
It is worth considering the fairness of artificially maintaining a competitive advantage for one company, Apple, through the courts to the detriment of another, Microsoft. With Apple market share increasing, it may finally be time to reevaluate which company needs to be closely monitored.
Comments
Microsoft and Europe
The criticism that many had in the 1990s with Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows was the fact that uninstalling IE was virtually impossible. Doing so was extremely complex, and risked rendering the operating system itself unusable. That is, Internet Explorer was so inextricably tied to the operating system that end users had no choice but to leave it installed. Of course, they could download their own browser of choice, but Microsoft was essentially forcing consumers to keep a copy of IE even if they didn't want it. As a result, IE was the default winner of the browser wars simply due to its automatic presence on Windows machines.
However, I think Microsoft learned its lesson. I say this both in terms of the settlement in United
States v. Microsoft, as well as from a business standpoint. In the former, Microsoft had to begin the arduous process of rewriting its source code to allow future operating systems to allow the safe removal of IE, and in the latter it got rude awakening from third party browsers. Since IE was enjoying being the #1 browser, it spent very little on innovating the application. Indeed it was years between IE 6 and IE 7. This lack of caring gave rise to competition from Firefox and other third party browsers-- a costly and embarrassing mistake for Microsoft.
So now we get to 2009 and Windows 7. I think Stephen brings up some interesting points. No one, I think, would want the result proposed by having no browser installed on an operating system. So to what extent should Microsoft "cripple" its operating system?
I think Microsoft is taking a very safe and cautious approach by having the end user pick which browser to install on first boot. And to be frank, I'm shocked they aren't including any e-mail, calendar, or photo-editing software-- basic applications that are standard fair nowadays for every computer. It'll be interesting to see if this will actually annoy consumers. Is the interest of avoiding any potential antitrust issues worth more than the customer convenience? A balance will have to be struck, and for once, I'm not sure if Microsoft is getting its fair deal here.
-Isaac
Srisailam
I tested Windows 7 beta. Very nice, best of all windows OS. Finally forget nightmare of Vista. Enjoy Windows 7.
- Srisailam
It sounds like a bias against
It sounds like a bias against Microsoft. Microsoft can't include its browser (which would lead to not having a browser) because of competition issues. So they include several popular web browsers with a choice in install one when installing. Good news for the major competitors, but what about other web browsers who aren't on the list? It appears to be a simple fix forcing Windows to share their market share but doesn't necessarily address the core issue. It appears to be a feel good measure that increases software bloat. People are just as likely to use an installed browser to download their preferred browser if that isn't already installed. I'd love to see evidence that a measure of this sort would increase use of a browser that a person would not normally use. If anything, it will save some people a step between accessing the Firefox website via Internet Explorer. Ultimately, more legislation/regulation where it isn't needed or even particularly helpful.
Post new comment