Khaotic Musings
Random musings on Linux and Free and Open Source Software.
Monday 15 June 2009, 2:38 AM
Unbundle IE in Europe? Why stop there?
My interest here isn't in what Microsoft and the EU agree to as an appropriate remedy for Microsoft's market dominance in web browsers or past legal transgressions. My interest is in ensuring an increase in the global competition in operating system platforms. In short, unbundle IE in Europe? Why stop there? Why not unbundle the whole of Windows from all OEM PCs shipped in Europe?
This isn't a new argument; I, and others, have made this suggestion before. In short, the best thing that the EU regulators can do to increase competition in the computer platform market is to ensure that consumers are offered a choice of operating system for every computer they buy.
At the moment, pretty much every computer that a consumer buys from a brand-name vendor comes mandatorily pre-installed with one of Microsoft's operating systems. Furthermore, there is no viable way for that consumer to avoid paying a licence fee for that Microsoft software, even if they know they aren't going to use it.
It's now time for the EU regulators to step forward to stop this grossly unfair market-dominating mechanism which benefits Microsoft to the detriment of its platform competitors; players like Canonical (Ubuntu Linux), Novell (Suse Linux), Red Hat (Fedora Linux) and Sun (OpenSolaris).
There are a number of models for how this can be achieved, without creating needless impact on those consumers who do want to purchase and use Microsoft's operating system.
One approach is to ensure that consumers are offered, at the point of retail, the option to have their new PC 'imaged' and shipped with either a Windows OS or one of the competion platform, or with no operating system at all.
Another, possibly less impactful option, is for the EU to require that Microsoft ship zero-cost copies of OEM Windows for use on new PCs, which stop working after a certain number of reboots. Microsoft has already been embedding this kind of technology in Windows for years, as part of its product activation anti-piracy technology, so we know that the vendor is perfectly happy to include 'lock-out' and 'sunset' machinery in Windows.
At a desginated point in time, this free version of Windows will stop working as a functional desktop, and instead offer users an option of pulling out a credit-card to purchase a real Windows licence, to allow ongoing use, or offer pointers to download alternative operating systems, like the aforementioned Ubuntu, Federa etc.
Yes, I know there are arguments raised as to why such changes in industry behaviour are difficult or impossible, but these arguments are spurious.
The EU regulators have to know that forcing Microsoft agree to change its practices in order to increase competition in web browsers or media players will mean nothing in the long run, if Microsoft enjoys a near 100% monopoly on pre-installed operating systems on OEM PC hardware. The only thing which brings long-term relief to this ongoing market strangulation by any single vendor, is to make sure that that vendor's "PC bundling air-supply" is switched off.
So, EU regulators, are you up for this, the real battle to stop anti-competitive practices and open up the platform market to consumer-benefiting real competition?
PreviousComments on this post
Re: Browser domination, perhap's ive missed something but..
If Windows is to be supplied without IE, how is it that users obtain any browser, i.e. Chrome, Firefox, Safari if they have no means to browse the internet "out of the box".
I would presume Windows would be shipped with competitors browser/s? In which case, does that not hand over the browser monopoly to someone else...?
I don't think i've read enough about the "unbundling" but after reading this article this was the first thing that popped into my head.
@koqenz
You said:
"If Windows is to be supplied without IE, how is it that users obtain any browser, i.e. Chrome, Firefox, Safari if they have no means to browse the internet "out of the box"."
This is a good question, and only one that Microsoft can answer, as they're the ones who have said they will ship a version of Windows without a browser. I don't think anyone asked them to do this.
If one was less than charitable, one might suggest that they've pulled this stunt to maximise the chances of this approach to compliance with the EU competition edicts failing.
Many have suggested that they did exactly this with the Windows Media Player fiasco.
I think it will be down to the OEMs to offer the choice of browsers, maybe on a separate disk.
Microsofts way of sticking two fingers up to the EU.
The charitable thing to do would be to have a thin client installed that took you to the home pages of each browser vendor.
Just out of interest, I tried booting off IE8 from program files using the unlocker application and found windows picking on my sony USB drive as an invalid system drive! Went into OS repair so I could re-boot and IE8 had been restored to program files, though still disabled. I'll have to try this next without the thumb drive in the machine.
This reply was posted via Ubuntu NBR.
@roger
I agree with your comment:
"I think it will be down to the OEMs to offer the choice of browsers, maybe on a separate disk.
However, as we don't know what happens at the negotiating table behind closed doors, we don't know what kind of pressure Microsoft can apply to OEMs to stop them from shipping alternate browsers.
In fact, we know that they've done exactly this in the past.
How tedious these articles are. Didn't Dell offer PC with Linux as an option ? If there was such a pent up demand from NORMAL, EVERYDAY people for alternatives to Windows then the market would address it. The reality is that people don't care about it. They just want a simple, easy to use PC which has an almost limitless list of applications and games they can use on it. Why would I want to have Ubuntu or Fedora ?
There is a niche market for these systems to be pre installed or the PCs to be blank, BUT if you're not expecting to pay for UBuntu then equally don't expect to call Dell Support (or whoever) to help you with any problems
evansdg1.
I have found plenty of support available from the linux community itself.
As for OEM linux, It's just a matter of finding the right distro to put on. From what I've seen of mint that could be the one.
A lot of people that aren't tech knowlegeable do care and are often frustrated with the windows/crapware mix found on new laptops/PCs.
I know this because I'm always out fixing the things!
evansdg1 said:
"Didn't Dell offer PC with Linux as an option ? If there was such a pent up demand from NORMAL, EVERYDAY people for alternatives to Windows then the market would address it."
I had a link in the article to a discussion paper which would likely be instructive on this, and other related questions.
The pertinent question and response from that article goes like this:
But Dell (and others) aren't selling as many Linux boxes as they're selling Windows boxes. Doesn't that mean that there's less market for desktop Linux?
Yes, for now. But the market for alternatives to Windows will never be given a chance unless competition regulators force that market to be open and free to competition. The best and fastest way to do this is through unbundling Windows from PCs. If consumers still want Windows, they'll be free to elect to acquire it at the time they purchase their PC, but this should be through conscious decision-making, not through forced bundling.
......And that will also open peoples eyes to the cost of windows when they buy a new PC.
I've taken to describing this approach as "malicious compliance".
It appears to have become Microsoft's favored approach to dealing with firm, clear, "written down in black and white" restrictions or obligations; follow the letter in a manner that actually contradicts the clear intent of the standard, license or court decision that would otherwise interfere with their ability to abuse their position.
We've seen this in the Microsoft-Novell agreement to subvert the GPL2, the implementation of ODF in SP2 that actually reduced interoperability between office suites and compatibility between document-format implementations, and this ludicrous "leave them stranded" approach to complying with consumer-choice regulations.
Following the EU requirement for genuinely, equally available consumer choice regarding a web-browser would be trivial to implement -- if Microsoft had the slightest interest in doing so.
For example:
have a simple little script, with a simple GUI front end, to ftp the customer's choice of browser (or browsers) as a pretty little "install BrandName Web-Browser" icon(s) on the desktop. Plant a "Download a Web-browser" icon on the Desktop, a menu item on the menu, a checkbox in the "Add/Remove Programs" wizard -- and it's done.
The GUI front-end would have check-boxes for MS Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Opera, probably a few lesser-known browsers, and a text box where more adventurous or technically inclined users could enter or add one or more ftp addresses to the server/browser of their choice. Behind the scenes the script would identify its outgoing ftp-request by the specific version of Windows originating the download, to allow for sustained compatibility.
Mozilla and Opera would fall over themselves to make sure that the target address was constant and reliable, as would anyone else hoping to supply a browser to the Windows market.
I'm sure that their are other ways, but this strikes me as something that uses already present, readily available, standard "technologies" (as Microsoft likes to call these things) that even a hobbyist could easily implement; I'm sure that there are other simple and robust solutions that would do the job just as easily and just as well.
I have been banging this drum for years. I feel like I'm getting screwed everytime I buy a new laptop. The first thing I do is install Linux and wipe windows. But, it still counts as a sale of windows, and I am considered a user of windows, IE, and other of their crap. I always request that the store remove windows and they always tell me they can't due to their contract with MS. This is inherently wrong, forcing someone to pay for something they don't want, and are not going to use. It is the same as stealing money from a customer at gunpoint.
It is a sham. As long as you don't activate windows online, I wonder what the legalities of using the OEM liciense on a fresh PC build would be. After all you paid for it, someone could use it, and I bet you it would activate to the new hardware and become married to that instead.
Otherwise everytime windows is booted off a new purchase, MS are getting money for nothing, and recouping the energy it would take to patch the machine.
Much better if the license could be put to use for something creative.
It'd sure make an interesting court case.
Roger said:
"It is a sham. As long as you don't activate windows online, I wonder what the legalities of using the OEM licence on a fresh PC build would be."
Unfortunately, for us mere consumers, Microsoft's got the situation sewn up fairly tightly.
You see, most people believe that when they purchase an item of Microsoft software, that they're actually buying a product; in effect, all they're really doing is paying Microsoft a fee for the privilege of using that software, a licence fee, in effect. Microsoft can dictate the exact terms of that usage, even to the extent of disallowing re-installation on another new/naked PC.
To get more of an idea of the difference in 'usage' rights between a Microsoft-style licence and a FOSS licence, you might want to read the following:
A Comparison of the GPL and the Microsoft EULA
ator1940 said:
"This is inherently wrong, forcing someone to pay for something they don't want, and are not going to use. It is the same as stealing money from a customer at gunpoint."
Many countries have consumer or trade practices laws which prevent what lawyers call "Exclusive dealing and third line forcing". This happens, and I quote:
"when a supplier places a condition on the supply of its goods or services that the customer must acquire goods or services of a particular type from a third person nominated by the supplier."
What's interesting is that, to my knowledge, none of the countries which have such consumer laws, have ever taken action against PC OEM vendors and their policy of having forced-bundling of a Microsoft operating system with all new PCs sold.
After having spent many years trying to get various national competition bodies to see that we have a problem, I think I've reached the conclusion that these bodies just don't 'grok' the computer industry and its specifics enough to see how forced OS bundling is indeed illegal.
And right on cue, to emphasise just how much monopoly power Microsoft wields in this industry, power which prevents alternatives such as Linux from gaining a competitive perch in the desktop OS market, is this item of intelligence from Groklaw:
Linux on Netbooks: The Smoking Gun
The US DoJ seems to have 'lost focus' on this market-stifling issue since George W. Bush was elected US president. Europe is probably our only hope.
