Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Agrees To EU Browser Ballot Screen
An anonymous reader sends in coverage from Ars Technica of Microsoft's capitulation to the EU, after European regulators requested that Redmond bundle multiple browsers on new PCs. "Microsoft has decided that the last thing it needs in this economy is some combination of the following: fines, legal bills, and a delay of Windows 7. It has offered to adopt the European Union's preferred solution for browser competition: a browser selector screen at startup."
Go down fighting!
The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But but but......Apple and KDE and GNOME and Google don't have to bundle other browsers so the EU sucks and just wants to hurt a successful MERKIN company!!!!!
Yeah watch it have IE bigger than everything else by like 4 times.
My guess is most people will still choose to use Internet Explorer, unless they already use Firefox/Chrome/Safari or whatever. People like what they're used to, even when it's crap. I try hard to convince people to stop using Internet Exploder but they always tell me they like it because it's what they know.
I would select (if I was them)
IE8
safari (the first release for windows not the most recent)
firefox 2 or maybe even a pre firefox name chanage release
elinks
and konq
Try looking at this from the perspective of the dumbuser...
"Oh look, I can't browse the Internet without clicking on this screen and waiting for this f*ing statusbar to fill up!?"
either that or they'll look at the screen and the huge blue E will be the only thing they recognize. This would be a good opening for FF et al. to take advantage of, but to do that they need brand recognition. Who wants to pay for Firefox TV ads?
Note: I was 13 when I wrote most of this. Take with several grains of salt.
How about an OS selection screen when you turn on the PC for the first time?
While a risky move, Microsoft just needs to pull out of the EU and say "Piss off"
Seriously, they should have the right to bundle their browser with their OS. It's not like they are keeping other browsers from being installed.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
One might ponder how one can be 'taught', and thus *learn* to be 'dumb'.
No... I don't want to watch Opera, I want to the explore internet.
Here's something I think is interesting but haven't heard mentioned. Since Google Chrome is a likely candidate for the "browser ballot" I can see a scenario such as this: Most people have no idea what a web browser is to begin with as evidenced by: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ Clearly many people think that "Google" is a browser rather than a search engine. This seems like a great way to exploit that percentage of the population by offering this "browser ballot". Many people will see "Google" and think "Oh! That's what I normally use. I'll choose that" Thoughts?
"OK, Joe...which engine do you want in your new Chevy? A Chevy, Ford, Toyota, Chrysler, Nissan, or Honda engine?"
I (sort of) understand making them not tie IE to windows. But actually using MS resources to provide other browsers?
Is MS now on the hook to provide the source code for the open source browsers in this bundle? Since they are providing the binaries, I'd say yes.
they complied, now stop the fucking microsoft hating you unwashed basement dwellers
European regulators requested that Redmond bundle multiple browsers on new PCs
Excuse me? I can understand requesting IE to be unbundled, but telling MS to bundle other browsers is just stupid. Let the OEMs do that. I hope the summary isn't having a rare moment of accuracy.
Someone on another forum brought this up. Microsoft should offer a list of about 100 browsers in the EU version of Windows. Literally 100. Put IE first and then put the rest in random order.
Then tell the EU to put that in their pipes and smoke on it.
An operating system ballot screen.
Please select one of the following:
1. Microsoft Windows NT ....
2. Microsoft Windsows Vista
3. Microsoft Windows 2000
4. Microsoft Windows 98
5. Microsoft Windows
N. Microsoft Windows Whatever-Nonsensical Name-Ballmer-Chooses-For-A-Crap-OS
Yours In Communism,
K. Trout, C.I.O.
They'll solve the problem of "how do you download a browser without first having a browser installed?" by providing a minimal front-end whose only purpose is to download a browser:
To allow this, each browser will need to provide a stable, standard URL that will download the latest version of its browser. Hopefully this can be standardized enough that other OS's can use these stable URLs as well.
Now if they would just impose the same conditions on computer manufacturers regarding the OS.
Wow. How hard was that, Microsoft?
You'll get used to it eventually, playing by the rules I mean. Just like the rest of us, you're not above the law.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
There is no reason for a browser (or a media player for that matter) to be part of an operating system. Windows can have a HTML rendering widget and a media infrastructure, but the applications should not be there. It is an OPERATING SYSTEM, not an application collection.
A browser selection at installation time is just plain retarded. It's never going to be complete or up-to-date.
This is good, but don't include Opera. IE/Firefox/Chrome... maybe even Safari, but tell Opera to fuck off. I think including the top 4 browsers around is more than fair? Opera's demand for the top 5 browsers is driven by the fact that they are stuck at #5.
nice one.
1. Microsoft Internet Explorer 8
2. Lynx
3. Mosaic
4. None
That will fill the requirement while shoving a boot up their collective asses
-SaNo
Learned helplessness
Never say never.
Steve Ballmer's happy face at the news
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Who gets to decide which browsers are included in this "ballot screen"? Based on what criteria?
If it's simply going to be the top 5 or whatever based on current market share then this is simply cementing the status quo rather than helping competition and innovation, and if any any every browser gets a look in then what's to stop SuperSpywareBrowser2009 from appearing in the choices?
Seriously, Microsoft should just pull out of an economy of $18.394 trillion GDP? While in the meantime, the governments involved would most likely invoke the "national security" clauses in copyright treaties to allow piracy of Windows and Office, whilst simultaneously launching accelerated projects to switch to Linux asap? What do you think this would do to the MS stock price? And why should any corporation have the right to violate the laws of democratic nations anyway? Microsoft is not the only corporation to have been fined by the E.U.
Will they be the binary distributions? Or just links to download? So while MS's update system is integrated into OS, they might be bundling an old, insecure version of Firefox. (It took *how* long for 3.5 to be shown as vulnerable?)
And is it *only* the big players - IE, FF, Safari, Chrome, Opera? This seems blatantly against the spirit of competition. Shouldn't they also include accessible browsers as well?
Say somebody starts up an incubator company with a couple of million dollars. They start 200 companies, $10,000 seed capital each. Each company is really just a sole proprietorship: a halfway decent college CS student. Each company is tasked with writing a browser, using various HTML renderers (Trident, Gecko, WebKit, etc). Each of these 200 companies would have a legitimate claim to be included in the ballot screen.
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
I was sort of hoping Microsoft would stand up to the EU and refuse their ridiculous demands. Or, at the very least, take the alternate approach of just not bundling a browser at all, but adding some "wget" or "curl" like command that installers could use to pull down the browser of their choice.
it is like: well lets regulate something, because we have no idea what we are doing, and our efforts could be spend else where. lets bug MS about windows. pretty funny, harhar. well it is THEIR operating system, as long as it doesn't invades your privacy, they should be able to put everything into a fresh install they like.
It is like telling people which gender their child must have.
"Oh a girl again, either you pay a huge fine, or you abbort!"
oh how I like unneccessary regulations... (there are quite some more)
All of these browsers are open source, so they could compile them all with new names and icons. They'd technically be Chrome, Firefox, etc. But who could tell while they're installing?
Thank you. I've always wondered why the fuck it's important to regulate software that's free.
Why is browser market share even important? It's not worth any money to anyone. Do browser companies get a cut of money for every ad their programs load or something? It seems like this is a huge developer e-peen measuring contest.
Time to write a browser (well, do a quick fork of Firefox...) where it defaults to a monetized home page, and then try to get on the list.
Expect to see 200 "new" browsers available shortly...
Internet Explorer
Yeratu
Swallow
Tires
I made these up of course, but to your average user, that's exactly what they'll see when they see:
Internet Explorer
Firefox
Opera
Chrome
What browser do you think they will choose? Hmmmm?
Basically yes.
Have a look at Mozilla's accounts. http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/
They make quite a lot of money.
Next up, Apple concede in EU by displaying a start-up menu on their new PCs featuring OS X among Windows and 12 other flavours of Linux
Because while it might be free for end consumers, there is a genuine market there which needs competition. Money changes hands for stuff like search boxes for example.
I shouldn't have to mention what happened to web progression after Microsoft crushed the competition. Being dominant in the browser share would give Microsoft leverage on other web technologies. I shouldn't have to mention all the things that happened (or rather didn't happen) with the web after Microsoft crushed the competition.
It's the same reason Microsoft need should be regulated with Windows, despite the fact that it's practically free for end consumers, and there is basically no non-free alternative.
As much as I don't like IE, I like lawmakers mandating what developers can and can't put in thier packages even less. With IE losing market share every day, the market was well on the way to correcting the issue all on it's own.
OK, this may make a bit of a dent in MS market share for browsers. But the government sponsored radio stations and television broadcasters are still requiring windows media player to view anything online. Communications between companies and the government is still using .doc/.xdoc format. Nowadays you can get mac and linux tax applications, but before that it was Windows only. Nowadays many services are provided by government related companies and services. So even if the government itself does allow other OS, media players and browsers, you won't get some services.
As long as the government itself is making sure that MS is required there won't be any change in the market share. Instead of asking MS they should be reforming themselves. But of course fining MS is an easier thing to do. Now they need to take action themselves as well.
For goodness' sakes, just kill IE! How bloody hard is that?
Yes, but they were the one for you, New England!
Once they were absorbed into NYNEX that just didn't have the same ring to it...
Bow-ties are cool.
I like IE8 quite a lot, actually. If given the choice, I'd much rather have IE8's interface at this point.
Should they also put up an OS selector the first time the computer is booted?
What do you think? Provide a crippled version of Firefox (would that be a Firefaux) and Opera? Or some other kind of "Magician's Choice", for example other applications screwing up if you choose anything but IE?
In past versions of the OS, pretty much every application's Help functionality was provided with IE. Did they standardize the API and make it so that other browsers will still properly render the help files?
your dad should have pulled out
The number of people buying a Mac to run anything but Mac OS X is negligible. The machines are overpriced, underpowered, pointlessly quirky, only redeemed by the OS... which makes the Mac Tax worth paying after all.
After feedback, Microsoft actually -changed- the IE8 behavior to make the default browser setting an -explicit- option on a separate page. The user HAS to choose either IE8, or their existing browser, with neither selected by default.
By far the majority of the responders are whining ftards.
"I bet they'll make IE presented in bigger font". Well it -is- their product, I don't see why they can't declare their favoritism.
"Internet Explorer sounds more like a browser than FireFox!". Well, too bad for FireFox for not calling their browser "Web Browser", then, isn't it?
"Whaaaaa it probably won't have my favorite browser, 158-Users-Total-v0.01a, in the list! It's unfair!". Yes, well, it's going to be unfair to SOMEBODY somewhere. I daresay it's certainly un-friggen-fair to Microsoft to be forced to offer alternatives when it's really not their place to do so, but the OEMs'.
"Man, people will still just pick Internet Explorer anyway 'cos it's what they're used to. This does NOTHING to help alternatives at all!" So, what, you suggest they don't offer Internet Explorer in the list at all? Based on, what, your own personal vendetta, strengthened by the house of cards that is "just look at how they hurt the industry, how they're holding back standards, if they were forced to abandon Internet Explorer altogether, that would only be a Good Thing!". Unnngh gain some perspective.. ask Netscape ca 4.07, was it, how perspective feels.
Most of the opposing words are pretty hilarious, too... based around the EU doing this to an American company. Woo, I guess principles wielded against Microsoft disappear like snow in hell the moment it's some Foreign Thing aiming at an American company.
No, really, people have wanted Microsoft to offer choices - despite that being retarded - for years now. But apparently that should have come from the U.S. Government only. Now that it's the EU forcing Microsoft into this... zomg! USA USA USA! RAHHHHHHHHH! pathetic.
The above not aimed at the others who think rationally. You can accuse me by saying that what I'm really thinking is "others who think like -me-", but I can't help it if I'm one of the few rational voices in this thread.
Excuse me, but...how is this different than caving in -- except that they also didn't write the EU a huge check for being such huge jerks to start with?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Come Hell or high water.
The EU should should not be forcing MS to include other browsers, the EU should have told MS to remove, per the MS diagram below, MSHTML.DLL and recode all their apps to not use the solution-in-search-of-a-problem Internet Explorer.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa741312%28VS.85%29.aspx
How many bugs will this feature introduce?
Who will get the blame for all of them?
How many years will each take to be corrected?
All because the EU wants something fancy.
If I were MS, I'd open a huge README.TXT at the completion of an installation with a URL to a Windows-Live or Bing search that finds "alternative browsers."
Including alternative browsers inside the installation CD may not be legal and I wouldn't want to bother looking into it.
No doubt that IE will have that magical Recommended description next to it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
My take on the whole story is just that: Neelie the Bringer of Gold for the EU sees the fine, as well as the browser ballot requirement, as yet another means to tell MS that they are not really liked here in Europe. And if they keep wearing out their welcome, fine (reminiscent of what I see in Brighton buses: "Don't have a valid ticket? Fine").
There is, also, a rather nuanced, largely unspoken of directly, intuition that goes with NK's message to be taken across the pond. By way of example, recall poor Floyd Landis and the litigation he had undertaken, in 2006 and onward. What he had striven so hard to achieve was, "to prove his innocence", and do it the American way, i.e., in court. In all appearance, he has conceived it and carried it out right, and as Armstrong would say afterwards, in honest belief he was not guilty--except that, as some other riders opined, litigation just isn't a proper way to prove anything in cycling.
Likewise, by imposing this fine or that requirement EU doesn't want MS to change, be it to assure a better competition or obey EU rules or whatnot. Seeing Linux take ground wherever local people find themselves able and willing to take local (up to municipal, in Munich) IT operations in their charge, and seeing perhaps less and less reason to assume the end-user role as the American way of life paints it, Europeans are only logical gradually to rid themselves of MS.
And if MS doesn't get that nuanced message, let them pay.
What about our browser?
If EVERY browser isn't included on the list, then the EU is forcing Microsoft into a collusion arrangement with the other big name browsers that get on the ballot. By having a 'selective list' it seems there would be worse legal ramifications for Microsoft, especially in other parts of the world.
So the giants get bigger and other newer technologies are forced out. Thanks EU... Brilliant...
Just put in a screen somewhere in setup for the EU to do whatever they want and give them an api/hook to do it with. Browsers, textpads, calculators, media players, games..hell click start, then programs on any fresh windows install and see all the monopoly going on there that need ballot screens...
I really don't understand the issue. Microsoft is offering an operating system. They ship a toll with it that allows you to browse the web. Great. I personally don't favor Internet Explorer, so the first thing I do when installing a new system for personal use is downloading Firefox. So, I already have a choice. It's not like Internet Explorer is forced on me.
If I had the option somewhere in Windows to install a different browser than Internet Explorer than that would just be a different interface for what I have been doing all along. I guess one could argue that this is a nice feature to have but I fail to see how this can be such a big problem for anyone.
I totally get how it can be a problem that a product which is seen as inferior has a large market share just because it's users don't know of the alternatives. Yet, I doubt that giving a choice to the users in question will make any difference. If they didn't care until now, they won't care when given the choice now.
It's like forcing tobacco companies to print health warnings on cigarette boxes. The problem is not the product, it's the person using it.
Please stop being a bunch of douches, asshats, and twats.
"Oh, those nasty Euros are only doing this because they don't like successful American companies!"
Give it a BREAK!!
Only the most fanatical of the fanbois can deny that Microsoft is a monopoly. And, only half of those can do so with a straight face. The US government was first to say so, the EU made the same finging, and any homo sapient with an IQ larger than the number of digits on his hands has to be able to see that.
If AT&T could be broken up years ago, there is absolutely no reason that Microsoft can't be broken up as well. Short of being dismantled into several smaller companies, they will abide by court rulings around the world, wherever they do business. That is the nature of being multinational, after all.
And, no, Microsoft is NOT an American company. No matter what it says on paper, Microsoft has offices and subsidiaries around the world. They are multinational, and they take advantage of every loophole that exists in international taxation, money transfer, etc. Microsoft has all but dictated terms to national governments - "take it or leave it" deals.
All the whining and excuse making on Microsoft's behalf makes me sick. And, whining that the world is picking on an "American" company is worse than anything. Microsoft needs to be put in their place, once and for all.
Screw 'em all. If Microsoft were all that successful, they would be making all the money they want, and every little peasant among us would be HAPPY to give them all the money they wanted. They've spent a couple decades alienating people, and making enemies, by one means or another. Let them pay the price, and stop whining.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
If people finally have the choice on installation then they need to know what they are choosing. Otherwise they will stick with what they know and MS will start crowing that most people choose IE even when they have the choice.
I know adverts are hopelessly expensive and Firefox isn't able to pull one off very often but now is a good time if they can. Also, is there any way to trigger a timely browser shoot-out review in some printed PC magazines?
Things to highlight to the public may be features that IE doesn't implement such as the video tag, java-script performance, conformance to standards, plug-in availability. Obviously put across in a way that most people will understand.
Does anyone else think the whole affair sounds a lot like Communism? The EU needs to ensure that all companies operate on the same playing field, so they need to bring down a company to the other players level??? So when does it end? Can we expect yet more lawsuits to extort yet more money from companies? This whole whole situation stinks, and exposes the EU for the conniving money-grubbing whiners they are.
Windows XP SP3 full install does install Flash 6, yes you read right, SIX and it was released in 2008 (or 2007?) while Flash 10 exists with possibly 2-3x better performance and impossible to compare compatibility. For example, you install XP SP2 CD and run SP3 full install as you should get rid of update circus. You got everything new except Flash. IE 6 is another matter, IE is not a backwards compatible thing since V7.
When asked for the reason, they claimed they did it for compatibility. That is a complete joke since you can say anything about flash but you can't claim anything regarding backwards compatibility. I actually tried viewing "Futuresplash" (version 1, even before Flash name) using Flash 10 and it worked.
The reason was? They couldn't update their competitors product (like Apple does) as they have their lame ass flash wannabe Silverlight. Basic as that. Apple on the other hand, maintains version 9 (recently 10) of Flash while they have no obligation to do it.
BTW, I was one of the mods modded you as funny but I thought I should really remind EU officials and Moz/Opera/Apple about the monster they are dealing with. Be very careful about version numbers.
they should (i) check ms oem contracts and why is is nearly impossible to find consumer (or corporate) pcs without ms installed (ii) prohibit proprietary of corrupted standards for public services (including video, docs, databases, etc)
Not an a.f.p'er (or even a DW MUD'er) by any chance?
Nick
the originally wanted to unbundle IE to show the EU. Then they saw the EU didn't cave so MS caved.
Pity ain't it, when the fanboys talk thougher then the thing they are defending.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm pretty sure that a good percentage of people have read or heard about either Firefox or Chrome in the past year or so. Firefox has made the mainstream news in a number of papers. It will definitely be interesting to see which way people choose if they're given the choice. Here in Europe, there are countries where Firefox already is the majority browser (in Germany it's close, in Finnland I think it already is), and that is a good thing in a number of way, I think.
Back in 2001 there was really only IE6 as a working browser. Mozilla hadn't even come out of beta yet and IE6 was the de fact standard. There were very many sites on the net which only catered to IE6 and Microsoft, having achieved their goal of dominating the internet, had even closed down their IE development team. That's how cock-sure they were.
Fast forward to 2005, where Firefox's user share started climbing, Microsoft, never one to let a potential competitor rowm freely in any market, restarted IE development and firstly, we were presented with pop-up blockers in an IE6 update, then, as Microsoft realised that web-standards were not going to go away any time soon and were becoming a must-have for web developers, released IE7, then IE8, both non-complete in their implementation, but still incrementally better than the preceding version.
But even IE8 is slow and clunky on certain simple features (the blank page isn't blank for example, and takes a long time to load the unwanted information it presents), and the rumours on the web that Microsoft is contemplating dropping IE to adopt webkit aren't helping IE's user share. In very much the same way, Microsoft's opposition to HTML5 will only hurt them in the long run.
The main reason Microsoft drags its heels with IE so much is because Microsoft wanted to use the .Net WPF/XAML foundation to broadly lock users into a Microsoft platform, once again. This hasn't exactly met with success and even Microsoft's Silverlight, which is as good as and better in some respects than Flash, is basically dead in the water. The future is open standards. Google may make a royal mess of it, but their claim that computing is moving to the web is not far off, and I think that most customers/users don't really care either way as long as it's a)cheap, b)compatible c)convenient.
So, I don't think the future is quite as closed as you say.
When I switch on my computer, I get a screen for choosing an operating systems.
Europe has laws, Microsoft thinks it does not have to obey them. It has found out it does and even the DOJ says Europe does a better job and has more teeth to enforce legal good behaviour.
I want to select Lynx as my browser.