I demand that every time Opera, Adobe Systems, IBM, Oracle, Red Hat, and Sun Microsystems software is installed it gives me the chance to choose an alternate competing product!

Are these companies frickin' serious?! I'm no MS fanboy, but it's already ridiculous that MS has to even allow the option...and these companies are crying all butthurt that it's not enough! Unbelievable!

Yeah. Do they realize its a MICROSOFT product?

A simple solution is for the user to select the default browser of choice, delete the shortcut, and the problem is solved. I would hope that just about anybody who is taking on the task of installing windows has at least a functional amount of working IT knowledge and can choose their own web browser.

I don't know for you, but I'd be damn pissed if someone would tell what and what not to do with MY product. It's not like they're forced to use Windows. Microsoft should stop this madness once and for all and stop selling Windows in the EU. "You don't want IE in Windows? How about no Windows at all? Have fun with Linux, EU!"

I don't understand the difference, they are all free products. Does Mozilla lose money when someone picks IE?

As long as it doesn't come with them all installed

It's like telling Ford they can't bring out a new model anymore with their own custom tires, because many users prefer Michelin tires!

First of all, I don't recall SnowLeopard giving you the option to NOT install Safari on the system, and that's not even the update engine it uses for the OS.

Anyway... this is probably the most worthless arguement in history. EVERY system comes pre-loaded with software. Norton/McAfee, WildTangent... etc. etc. Windows has been designed with an integrated browser for a very long time because it's considered part of having a software operating system. Can you imagine a Blackberry without the Blackberry browser, or an iPhone without Safari? Sure you can install others, but how would you get there?

MS, my advice, remove IE from the system, don't include an internet browser, and include a "free trial" disc with IE loaded on it. If the customer wants to download a different browser... uhh... through... uhh... someone else's computer... and then... uh... load that on a flash drive... then bring it back to their PC, they can do that.

Offer the OEM's an 'option' to include a "Free Preloaded" version of Internet Explorer at the cost of... say... $.01 (which is exactly what the retail value of say, a free trial disc of AOL is) and give them the option to not take it. Problem solved.

They probably want their product to be installed instead of IE. What if the user doesn't want that web browser? They uninstall it and they are stuck with no web browser. Unlike the people on this site most people are completly clueless, you need to tell them the exact, for THEIR computer, how to install the web browser. These companies want to increase there marketshare regardless of if the user knows what they are doing or if they mess up anything the user tries to do.

dam edit killed my post.

Anyways it's a MS product they already was forced to put your shitty crap all on their os why can't they just leave them alone already or ask that MS become Open source in the EU because obviously providing a product that isn't by nature harmful is no longer good enough to be left alone in the EU.

Hell give me the option to install WindowsLive toolbar or yahoo toolbar, I don't want to always see install Google toolbar that company has a like 70% monopoly on the search industry and all these programs offer if i would like to install google toolbar i find it's unfair to the other companies.

The only reason the EU is able to do this is because MS integrated the browser into the OS, rather than just included it. While OS X has Safari in the OS, it's not integrated, and can just be deleted. Same with Linux distros, Firefox is usually bundled, but it can be deleted.

This doesn't in any way affect user choice, it's just how they decided to do it. The problem with it is that it IS intended to reduce competition. There simply is no other reason to integrate the browser.

For those of you who don't understand why people are up in arms over a "free" product, it's because the browser makers get money when you use them to search. You may not be paying for it, but someone is.

If I were living in EU country, I'll file a lawsuit to VW, M-Benz and BMW by not giving the option of using Ferrari or Porsche engine for performance and option of Honda or Toyota engine for fuel economy.

A simple solution would be to include all the software from the companies that are crying with Windows and then get rid of some bloatware to make up for it.

@Groveborn: he is right when he says:
"The only reason the EU is able to do this is because MS integrated the browser into the OS, rather than just included it. While OS X has Safari in the OS, it's not integrated, and can just be deleted. Same with Linux distros, Firefox is usually bundled, but it can be deleted."
I agree, Safari can be dragged to the trash can and it is gone, unlike Windows.

yet another reason to be glad you dont live in europe

Actually, you *can* uninstall IE in Windows 7, so that solution already exists.

Solution:

MS: "Due to EU interference, we can't afford to continue business in these countries. As a result, we will be discontinuing both sale and support of all Microsoft products (including Windows and Office) as of Jan 1, 2010. If you would like us to resume business, then please contact your EU representative."

75% of population: "WTF DID YOU DO?!?!"

EU: "...I think we messed up."

This whole issue is just plain ridiculous.

"the user to confirm and answer threatening and confusing warnings and questions."

Really. Somehow I doubt that.

Are these guys really not going to be satisfied unless all of the browsers are pre-installed in Windows? This whole affair is completely ridiculous.

They can't stop selling their product in the EU, too much money to be made it would be ridiculous. They can, however, pull out all Microsoft jobs - any development sites, packaging factories, offices, etc... Then the EU can put that in their pipes and smoke it. Their socialism is already coming home to roost, and unemployment is skyrocketing in most of the EU. What now, b*tch*s?

How about Mozilla, Opera, and all those other whiney nutjob organizations make their own operating system, with which they can include their own browser, and shut the fuck up already?

Nice one. +1 :-)

From the comments here I see that most people totally miss the point the EU is trying to make. As a result of the fact that Microsoft bundled internet explorer for years it gained such a big market share that most people don't even know other browsers exist. I am not talking about the TH visitors but the average users. Even putting a shortcut on the desktop will give MS a competitive advantage because users will choose it. Not by choice but because they don't know better.

I think Mozilla is paid by Google when somebody uses the search from Firefox's default home page. So when somebody uses IE instead of FF, Mozilla "loses" money.

Internet Explorer was integrated into the Windows OS. You can not, not have IE on your Windows computer. You can delete all desktop icons, and links to IE... but it's there buried in the Windows folder. But you know what, if you don't like how Microsoft and their near Monopoly on OS installed on computers... you can just sue them in the EU. But maybe there is some unfair practices going on with Microsoft. Look at what Intel was fined for, again by the EU. Intel and Microsoft are somewhat unique, they have a near monopoly on what they do. Steam launches IE on my computer when I click links, and it annoys the hell outta me that it doesn't use FF, my default browser.

The vast majority of people using computers don't know how to use them properly. Is that Microsoft's fault? What the EU should do in my Enraged Opinion is make the manufactures install a few browsers, there's plenty of HD space, and/or pay a programmer to make the ballot ( or who said it was entirely ineffective could try to do better). Better yet! Make a law that says there can be no fine, fees, or retaliation (read: price increases) from Microsoft to install a competitors program on a Windows PC for OEMS. I like that idea, you could select your web browser like you do other options from Dell or HP customized PCs. But does that mean that the OEMs have to support whatever browser you have installed just like they do support for Windows?

Last point, my boss is tech savvy, but not up to date on all technologies. He has FF installed and it's his default browser, but he uses IE everyday to view his homepage because the link is on the desktop. Now, he didn't WANT FF installed on the comp, but when there was a scare about virus' and malware hiding in picture files I got him to install it, and slowly he's using FF more and more. Old habits die hard for a lot of people, this will not kill IE's browser market share domination. The foundation is laid for FF, Opera, Chrome, hell even Safari, and all comers to take more and more market share from IE.

"Microsoft has cunningly found a way to accept the commission's suggestion of a ballot screen, but to do so in a way that will be entirely ineffective."
It seems that they do: they say that MICROSOFT has worded the questions in a way that can be confusing or threatening.

This mess is starting to get out of hand.

They asked for ballot, then they refuse it, what's going to happen next?

It's not that the browser is "included," it's that there was no way for people to uninstall IE from Windows (until Windows 7, which is coming out several years after this complaint was filed).
There is also the monopoly facet of this: Google, Apple, etc. do not have a monopoly on operating systems the way MS does with Windows, and according to the EU MS unfairly used that advantage with its OS marketshare to give IE an unfair advantage over competing browsers. And even though most browsers today are free (they weren't always), there is competition among them that drives things like the acceptance of existing web standards and the generation of new standards (WebGL, HTML 5 features, etc.). We can see what happened when MS had so much share of the browserspace during the IE6 years: stagnation in the browser, lax security, use of non-standard markup and abuse of proprietary web technologies. There's a reason many web pages to this day are still "IE Only" or "Best viewed in Internet Explorer," and it's mostly not because the other browsers are lacking.
So that's some of the reasoning the EU Commission used to determine that MS violated their anti-competitive laws and levy a fine against them.

MS should make a version that is just the OS. Remove everything that has third party support, ie no built in network support, no built in graphics support, no built in audio support, no built in desktop. Let the EU deal with that.

I think for the average user they would still pick "Internet" Explorer. If I didn't know any better I would look at Mozilla or Firefox and be like. "What the Hell is this?" Then throw it away cause it didn't have internet in the name.

The ballot is a good solution, the problem is that it's a poorly executed one. You shouldn't have to go through extra confirmation if you choose a non-IE browser, and IE shouldn't add a desktop icon if it wasn't chosen.

In any other circumstance, it would seem like competing companies are just whining, but when 90% of all computers out there are running your competitor's OS and they're giving your product the short end of the stick, then it's completely understandable to be pissed. It's basic business ethics, there's nothing to argue.

I wonder if this is why they only offer the Zune HD in America. Maybe MS is finally afraid of the EU.