Well. basically, there’s no great solution to this either way. However, with what the EU decided, I think the best option is to offer end users the option to choose.

Chris,

Very interesting, thanks!

The right decision was completely missed on this one which would be to let Microsoft put their browser on their operating system, but to make them change it so the user could easily uninstall it. Microsoft shouldn’t be forced to choose between selling a OS that is not fully functional or helping its competition.

In my opinion this has nothing to do with stopping anti competitive behavior but simply forcing Microsoft to be less competitive than they can be.

Yeah, it’s definitely far from optimal.

Just imagine what scandals OEMs can incur, when they’re suddenly responsible for choosing an appropriate version of IE to install. You’ll end up with hopelessly outdated, broken or even infected browsers.

Personally, I believe this is a really absurd move, and I am sure that some of the talented marketing wizards of Microsoft could come up with something a lot better.

How about this: After the computer starts up, you’re presented with a little guide, that shows you how you can tailor Windows to suit your tastes. You’re presented with options for installing browsers, media players, trial versions of all sorts of weird and wonderful stuff … all of it controlled and presented by Microsoft spindoctors. Perhaps that guide could be available at all times? A bit like an App Store for Windows?

Instead, they’re willing to put their browser dominance in the hands of OEMs?

Nuts

There are five de-facto web browsers, so I don’t really see it as an issue. Will people argue about it? Sure, but that is always the case.

My opinion is that this is just a childish Steve Ballmer-esque reaction, which will not hold. With Microsoft’s already poor reputation, one would think they’d be interested in pleasing end users, but this is yet another strategic mistake.

Will the European Union get what they want? Undoubtly, and I would be surprised if they don’t ask for more of Microsoft.

Why five browsers and not four? or three? or two? Why include browser X when it has less than 10% market share? What percentage is the cut off point? What justification is there for that percentage? When a browser falls below that value does it get deleted? Why does market share even matter? Lynx has been around longer than all these browsers. Why not offer Lynx?

A list (a) provides unfair advantage to those browsers on the list which is contrary to what the EU seeks (b) is unmaintainable as browsers enter and exit the market. Why should Microsoft spend resources keeping up with which browsers are currently in vogue? The EU is asking for a level playing field and now they have one. The lesson is this: be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.

I completely agree. It would be a very easy thing to offer people first time Windows start up. And definitely, making people aware of what a web browser actually is, and that there are options, is a very good thing!

I just don’t see any problems with having to choose one or more browsers as you first start up Windows. Usually you have to fill in some data anyway in a wizard or something. No average user will even notice something strange. So there is no need for OEM manufacturers to install IE8.

The good thing is that people will know that IE != the internet. Most of them will choose IE and that’s fine. But creating awareness that there is a market, a choice, stimulates innovation, which is good for everyone. (Even for Microsoft: when IE was more or less the only mainstream browser they got lazy and did nothing for 5 years.)

If Microsoft are sure that IE is as good a browser as its rivals, why are they so afraid of offering their users a choice?

I think it can be discussed back and forth whether this is really a proper demand from the European Union, but for the sake of argument, let’s leave that behind us, and try to pay heed to those requirements.

I hear what you’re saying about web browser vendors wanting to be on that list etc, but really, there are 5 major web browsers out there, and with the exception of Google Chrome, it has been so for almost ten years. So, my take is that it’s pretty obvious who should be on that web browser list.

In terms of practicalities, I personally think it would be easy for Microsoft to talk to the other web browser vendors, agree on static install links for respective web browser, and that’s it.

Regarding OEMs selling Microsoft’s operating system, which web browser do you think they will choose to ship? So, back at square one, with no balanced competition – it’s just the same problem, but from another angle.

In those cases where there is no web browser whatsoever, be it new clean installs upgrades or similar, it will make it harder for the end user. Also, even if people can install an operating system, it wil be more difficult to get it from a memory stick, CD or similar, than to just be presented with a Choose web browser(s) dialog after the operating system has finished installing.

It seems that the European Union think along the same lines, and from what I have heard and read, they do not deem this move by Microsoft to be sufficient or the best alternative for users.

Marc,

Yes, from the beginning it was probably a good thought/initiative, but at this time and the results we see, no one will probably gain from it – especially with all the loopholes that there seem to be.

Richard,

Yes, if OEMs, who closely co-operate with Microsoft, do that, then everything has been a waste. My take, though, is that if this legislation has to be followed, a dialog after the operating system has been installed/started the first time to offer the end user to choose web browser(s) is the least bad and most fair option.

And if not, I wonder if the anti-trust judges at the EU will be setting up a toll-free number to provide tech support?

Good luck, my European friends.

It doesn’t excuse the ridiculous lack of adherence to common sense web standards, along with a sleu of often undocumented IE ‘behaviours’ and bugs, though… At least IE8 seems to be catching up, for the benefit of its users and the relief of web devs. Apart from those who are critical of the latest round browser targetting, this time by strange meta tags!

I guess I don’t see how offering the end user some sort of list of browsers is practical or feasible. If Microsoft were to implement some sort of list, who would choose which browsers would be included on the list? If the list were a few of the current popular browsers, other browsers would complain for not being included. If every browser were included, imagine the number of browsers that would suddenly appear so that they would be included in the list. The only practical long-term option is the one MS is taking: no-browser.

No OEM will deliver a computer without a browser. They are free to choose which one(s) they want.

In order to end up with an OS without a browser, the end user must purchase Windows 7 in a box off-the-shelf from a retail store. Anyone who can install their own operating system will have the expertise to install a browser from a memory stick.

Yes, it gets absurd as soon as it analyzed more thoroughly. In line with the guidelines, though, if anything, I prefer some sort of option after Windows 7 install to choose between web browsers.

Chris,

Ah, but via direct EXE file downloads, performed via Windows Explorer or similar.

Stijn,

I think that’s the gist of this, though. People don’t know about options, and the EU is trying to make them aware. That’s why a list of available web browsers would be good to tend to that.

I do agree, though, that Microsoft would definitely get more support for things beyond their control, and that’s not good either.

Also, good point about the rendering engine. I didn’t think that far…

kimblim,

Yes, I agree. Having a web browser is vital, and the notion of shipping an operatig system without one is ridiculous.

Rodolphe,

Yep. Which makes this whole thing even more useless, since it won’t affect anything. Seems more of a matter of pride, if you ask me…

Behe,

I’m with you on this, although the Opera/Wii thing is a bit far-fetched…

Adrian,

Exactly.

Aldrik,

In my opinion, the Expression Web SuperPreview is not optimal, isn’t working completely yet and, in the end, is not really the real thing. Personally, I prefer Multiple IE, although the WINE route is also an option.

Mekk,

Yes, it has definitely gotten absurd.

Considering the idea that The only common sense here would to ship Windows 7, where the user can start a program to install any web browsers they want to. I also suggest that instead of notepad Ms should ship the text editor installer (and don’t forget Emacs you Redmond monopoly), instead of Paint prompt one to pick among PsPro, GIMP and others etc etc.

PS I am mostly Linux user, on Windows I used to switch between FF and Chrome and I avoid Ms products. Still, I hate absurds.

PS. There’s a typo in the first line of your blog post s/no/to/

I see no other option. Stupid EU laws.