How Europe's Mandated Browser Ballot Screen Works

CWmike writes "After an 11-month legal face-off, Microsoft and European antitrust officials signed off yesterday on the ballot screen concept that will give Windows users a chance to download rivals' browsers. But now that the battle's over and the ink has dried, it's time to look closely. Some FAQ examples: What's Microsoft promised? How will it work? How many browsers will be on the ballot? Who decides which browsers? Who will see it?"

Comments

Re:Quit making it so complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Write a 'Portable Application" that is not integrated with Windows System files to web browse to any web site and download any file and then run it. Default the startup page to a Google search for "web browsers" and let the user pick which link to follow and download. Then the 'Portable Application" can be deleted if the user so desires.

Gee what would we call this innovative portable application? How about "browser"?

Re:The proper Solution:

[plasmacutter]

Makers of x86 applications should have been mandated to produce a (Generic) Linux, Windows, and OSX port of all their software.

that will swiftly and very effectively kill off most FOSS projects, as OSS developers do so as a hobby, and often have no clue about the operating system they DONT use.

Re:How about the same - for computers?

[causality]

I really think the EU is missing the point in this "anti-trust" case: the fact that the consumer doesn't have a choice in what OS comes with his computer doesn't bother anyone?

I think the reasoning is that it's not illegal to have this sort of monopoly (on OSes), but it's illegal to abuse it in such a way that you leverage it in order to dominate other markets, like browsers. Since they leveraged the Windows monopoly to make IE a dominant browser, the government is focusing their anti-trust efforts on browser choice specifically. At least that's what I think their reasoning is, though I'm no lawyer.

Not fair if Lynx is missing

[wiredlogic]

Their hegemonic empire will not be torn down in the name of equality if Lynx isn't included in the list of choices. They should also be forced to include alternatives to Paint and Notepad. That they have the audacity to continue bundling these applications is a slap to the face of every righteous EU official. They may also want to look into rumors that Apple is bundling a single web browser into their own OS at the expense of other meritorious alternatives.

Re:Not fair if Lynx is missing

[arkhan_jg]

And yet again, someone misunderstands antitrust laws. If you accept that a free market is a good thing, then you also need to accept that regulation is required to keep it free. Without competition, free markets cannot function; monopolies are dangerous and anti-competitive, and mean prices rise for customers in the long run.

Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Having two monopolies isn't illegal. Bundling isn't illegal. Having one monopoly, then using bundling with that monopoly to gain a second monopoly, and to prop up your monopolies via mutual lock-in IS illegal. A monopoly isn't 100% of a market; it's a large enough share such that it is utterly dominant. 90% of the market is more than sufficent in microsoft's case.

Apple does not have a monopoly in the desktop OS market, nor is safari a browser monopoly so bundling is ok. Neither paint or notepad have a monopoly in the image editing or document editing markets, so again bundling is A-OK. Free market competition is not threatened by them at this point.

Microsoft have a desktop monopoly. By bundling IE as the default 'free' browser (i.e. the price is included in windows) they gained a monopoly in the browser market. This in itself is not nececessarily a problem, but given microsoft's habit of also including custom extensions to the spec that promote lock-in, i.e. ActiveX it becomes a problem. Take a real world example; in Korea, online banking almost invariably requires activex, because 'everybody' has it. By having activex tied to the IE monopoly, which is tied to the windows monopoly, it means in order to do online banking there, you need to buy windows. Browser competitors and OS competitors are almost entirely locked out of the market, damaging customer choice and competition. And with no competition, microsoft can charge what the hell they like.

The same applies to the proprietary codecs bundled as part of media player; there was a real danger a few years ago that streaming video and audio online would gravitate to the WMV and WMA standards, which defacto only work in windows (patents providing lock-in), and mainly in IE. So by bundling media player's proprietary codecs with windows 'for free' there was a danger that microsoft would also gain a monopoly in the streaming video/audio market, and again harm competition and ultimately prices. As it happened, flash ended up winning, but it could have gone very differently, and may still if agreement cannot be reached with HTML5 for cross-platform support.

Providing a popup choice at first install may not be my preferred solution, but at least it means microsoft don't get an automatic free ride from customers with windows and IE who don't bother to look into the alternatives because they already have a bundled solution.

Re:How about the same - for computers?

[jasonwc]

As a law student that has taken Antitrust law, I can confirm that that IS the logic. Essentially, it is not illegal to maintain a policy by historic accident, market preference, or even government fiat. However, it is illegal to leverage your monopoly in one area to create a monopoly in another field or to use anticompetitive tactics to maintain your monopoly.

For example, if MS refused to sell Windows 7 licenses to companies that also sold pre-installed Linux computers, that would likely be an antitrust violation, because MS would be maintaining its monopoly by anti competitive means rather than maintaining it as a result of mere customer preference.

However, IE would not be in the dominant position it is today if it weren't for MS's use of its OS monopoly to create a monopoly in the browser market. The EU wants users to have a choice of browsers to prevent just this behavior. Europe also generally has much higher Firefox penetration than the US, so I would not' be surprised if this does have an impact.

Re:more to the point, is this really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

It has taken a couple of years, but my brothers and I have managed to train our father - although now he keeps looking for 'Mozzarella Firefox'...

Re:The proper Solution:

[RoFLKOPTr]

Makers of x86 applications should have been mandated to produce a (Generic) Linux, Windows, and OSX port of all their software. That means Quicken, that means Adobe, that means, everyone else. Makers of hardware needed to be mandated to make a Windows, Linux, and OSX driver for their device.

I don't think that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.... but it's damn close.

Re:more to the point, is this really necessary?

[TorKlingberg]

My computer experience tells me you've got two kinds of users. Idiots and non-idiots.

This is a common mental mistake of Slashdotters. Of course there is a scale of various levels of knowledge. Perhaps even more importantly, a person can be an expert in some subjects and an idiot in others.

No Opt-Out in Europe

[andersh]

In Europe, there's an "opt out" system with 80-90% participation.

Nonsense, there is no such thing in "Europe" because each country has its own system! Europe is not a country, not even the EU member states have central administration for transplants. You are just making things up.

You cannot possibly claim 80-90% participation when there is no European common ground on transplants. And there certainly is NO "opt out" system in Europe as a whole. There are only national systems! Your claim is an outright lie. I also checked with the European Transplant Coordinators Organisation.

Further research shows that just within the EU (27 out of 50 countries in Europe) there are wildly different figures. The Nordic countries show a high degree of willingness to donate organs, but there is still no opt-out system. In fact you absolutely have to choose to opt-in and get a donor card!

I quote from the European Union's report on organ donations: "Donation rates and transplantation activity varies widely between the Member States, ranging from 33.8 deceased donors per million of population (pmp) in Spain to 1 deceased donor per million population in Romania. Only Spain and few others Member States have succeeded in increasing significantly the number of donors. These increases are linked to the introduction of better organisational practices".

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_threats/human_substance/oc_organs/docs/fact_figures.pdf