Microsoft rivals critical of browser 'ballot screen'
Mozilla and Opera are both unhappy with Microsoft's proposed "ballot screen" to let Windows users in Europe select their default browser, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
Microsoft's proposed browser ballot screen is its attempt to satisfy the antitrust investigation from the European Union over Internet Explorer's dominance in Windows. The screen would present the user with a menu to install other browsers, including Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome, and Safari, and let the user pick one as the default.
Microsoft became open to the concept over the summer as an alternative to removing IE from Windows for the European market.
At the time, the idea appealed to Opera CEO Hakon Wium Lie, who declared, "It's a happy day for us. We certainly think the ballot is good news and think it will give users a genuine choice." But Mozilla Corp. CEO John Lilly adopted a more wait-and-see approach, saying he wanted to see the specifics before reacting.
EU officials asked rival browser makers among others for their input on Microsoft's proposal, sending them questionnaires over the summer, according to the report.
After checking out the ballot screen and the proposal from Microsoft, the European Union for Interoperable Systems (ECIS), which includes Opera Software ASA as one of its members, said it presents too many hurdles for the average user.
According to Sunday's Wall Street Journal (subscription required), ECIS and Opera attorney Thomas Vinje said that selecting another browser requires "the user to confirm and answer threatening and confusing warnings and questions. 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."
In response to an e-mail from CNET, Vinje said that Microsoft's current ballot screen falls short of having any effect on competition since it fails to offer users a seamless and unbiased choice of browser. However, he felt the problem could be fixed with some trivial changes.
He said that despite choosing an alternate browser through the ballot, Internet Explorer would remain turned on and that only an additional procedure would allow the user to deactivate IE. So the ballot screen is simply installing another browser in addition to IE rather than offering users a choice of a single browser.
Adding an alternative browser is unnecessarily complex, according to Vinje. The ballot screen, set up as a Web page in IE, requires many unnecessary clicks, displays threatening warnings, and poses confusing questions before another browser can be downloaded and set up. He believes users will be discouraged from selecting an alternative browser.
The ECIS feels that a powerful, yet trivial change to Microsoft's proposal is needed: the ballot screen must be designed to offer users a seamless choice in which a single click for an alternative browser is sufficient to download and install that browser, without warnings or questions, and without leaving Internet Explorer active and visible.
"Choosing an alternative browser must not be more cumbersome than choosing Internet Explorer," said Vinje, "which can only be accomplished in a real ballot screen application--not in a Web page."
Countering with suggestions
Mozilla has said that a ballot screen is a good step, but as currently proposed, it's not good enough. A blog written August 18 by Mozilla's general counsel, Harvey Anderson, examined Microsoft's specific language and functionality in the ballot screen proposals. Anderson addressed several concerns and countered with his own suggestions.
Anderson praised Microsoft's effort to not include links or shortcuts to IE inside Office 2007 but said it should be expanded to include all Microsoft software. "If Microsoft applications need to launch a browser, they should only launch the user's default browser," he wrote. "The proposal should be modified such that this provision applies to all Microsoft desktop software, and certainly to the already announced Office 2010."
Anderson also expressed concerns about the ballot screen itself, saying IE could automatically become the default browser in a number of scenarios. It could end up as the default if the user ignores the ballot or can't figure out how to use it. It could also wind up the default if the user runs into problems trying to install one of the other browsers. But in this case, his only suggestion was that the ballot require the user to make a choice.
Finally, Anderson said that the ballot doesn't educate the user as to what a Web browser is or how each browser differs. "The ballot should introduce the user to at least a simple definition of what a browser is before offering the user a choice in browsers," he wrote. "It should probably go one step further and explain that the different browsers compete for superiority in the areas of ease of use, security, and customizability. "
Other voices have chimed in to criticize the ballot screen. Mitchell Baker, chair of the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation, detailed her concerns in a blog on August 17. Despite the user's ability to choose a different default browser, Baker said she believes IE would still have the upper hand with a prominent position on the Windows desktop and Taskbar.
"Choosing another browser as a 'default' does NOT mean that the other browser takes the place of IE," stated Baker in her blog. "For example, the IE logo ("shortcut") still remains unchanged on the desktop. The shortcut/logo of the browser the user has selected does not replace this, it is added elsewhere. As a result, the familiar location remains IE, not the user's choice."
Baker also expressed concern that the average nontechnical user may have trouble navigating the different screens required to choose a different browser. She said she believes the ballot screen only helps users download alternative browsers and should be designed to help them install, open, and make other browsers the default. "As proposed, we expect to see many people who want other browsers get lost in the process before they actually succeed in making an alternative browser their main browsing tool," she wrote.
The EU had hoped to wrap up this final phase of its investigation into IE, especially since all parties have agreed at least in principal to the idea of a ballot screen. But the competition could stall final approval if Microsoft is forced to wrestle with the finer points of the complaints.
Vinje believes that Microsoft only superficially accepted the EU's suggested remedy and that the ballot screen as designed does not restore competition. He said the EU will be careful to make sure that any proposed solution would be effective. And in this case, the ECIS would be surprised if Microsoft's proposal were accepted without "significant modifications."
On Tuesday, Microsoft spokesman Kevin Kutz said: "In July, we made a new proposal to address EU competition law issues related to Internet Explorer and interoperability. The Commission welcomed our proposal and announced it would assess its effectiveness. We continue to look forward to the next steps in this process."
Requests for comments from Opera and Mozilla were not immediately returned.
Update 12:15 p.m. PDT: Added comments from attorney Thomas Vinje.
Lance Whitney wears a few different technology hats--journalist, Web developer, and software trainer. He's a contributing editor for Microsoft TechNet Magazine and writes for other computer publications and Web sites. You can follow Lance on Twitter at @lancewhit. Lance is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and he is not an employee of CNET. 
It'll be great, the EU will install Windows 7 and it will boot to a solid blue screen, no text, no start menu, no icons, NOTHING. Maybe if MS takes their moronic and stupid behavior to the extreme, they'll realize just how stupid it really is.
gone but still stable
If a user doesn't already know what a browser is or the differences between the browsers, then I think these people qualify as nontechnical uses and any additional information MS throws up before the ballot screen will only "overwhelm" these users and will result in them simply selecting the MS solution anyways.
"Baker also expressed concern that the average nontechnical user may have trouble navigating the different screens required to choose a different browser. She said she believes the ballot screen only helps users download alternative browsers and should be designed to help them install, open, and make other browsers the default. "As proposed, we expect to see many people who want other browsers get lost in the process before they actually succeed in making an alternative browser their main browsing tool," she wrote."
Seriously, nontechnical users are probably barely even aware other browsers exist. And if these nontechnical users truly did desire another browser, they would have already Googled that browser and installed it based upon the directions at the alternate browser's website. So I don't see how they wouldn't be able to perform this relatively simple exercise again, especially if MS is making the other browser a click away during the windows installation.
To me it just looks like the other browser makers are hoping to get lucky during EU installs by getting a bunch of nontechnical users to click on their flashy browser icons so they can gain a one or two percent marketshare.
Leave worrying about standards compliance to the web developers and browser developers.
Should we just give no default anything, and force the user to spend hours setting up their computer the first time?
Note that even AT&T was regulated from early on....they couldn't charge whatever they wanted.
Anti-trust enforcement has a purpose...if you don't understand why, take Econ 101.
The EU should remember these folks are COMPETITORS and not out for the welfare of the user. But of course the EU is out to make a buck so they need Microsoft's competitors to define what is "fair" so they have something to charge them with.
The unfortunate truth is that Microsoft will always get hassled no matter what they do.
I use Firefox and I know at times I do not get pages rendering properly as they are for IE. There definitely needs to be Internet Explorer and another browser of the users choice.
Only diff is MSFT gives the EU weenies/pansies a choice , while Apple doesn`t make it obvious.
Next the EU will force auto makers to provide cars without engines. What a joke.
Wow. Let's all cry about having two browsers on our computer. If you're too stupid to know how to disable IE then you're not going to care if it's there or not. The computer I'm on right now has Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, Avant, and Maxthon installed on it and I'm ignoring all of them until they upgrade and then see if they're actually worth my time (None of them are with their current versions.) The crybabies in Europe can deal with more than one browser.
No, you don't understand. Microsoft has all 100% of the OS market, the whole thing, not the overwhelming majority. Literally 100%. Every dollar that is spent in the world on generic PC operating systems goes to Microsoft. That means there is no market, it's a monopoly. All of the market-based rules like invisible hand and so on do not apply. There is no market there. You buy a generic PC and the PC maker doesn't ship it to you empty and you buy an OS (choice); they don't ask you "Microsoft Windows or Apple Windows?" and then ship your PC with that choice and send the money to either Microsoft or Apple; they 1) put Microsoft Windows on there and they 2) charge you and they 3) send the money to Microsoft. No choice at all. It's not a market.
When you achieve a monopoly, the rules change for you. You can't increase the unit sales on Zune by making it a part of Windows and turning Zune into a monopoly. If Microsoft wants to make music players or Web browsers, they have to compete with other music players and Web browsers, not bash their competitors in the knees with Windows.
> I don't see Apple being forced to do the same.
The reason you don't see it is because Apple has only 10% of the personal computer market. If Apple every achieves 100% of the personal computer market, then you would have a situation that is analogous to Microsoft's current situation with Windows. Imagine if there were no HP, no Dell, no Lenovo, no white boxes, no PC's at all except for Apple. In that case, it would be quite likely that Apple would be forced to ship a menu of browsers, or possibly a menu of operating systems.
Similarly, you don't see Sony having to put a menu of browsers on PlayStation3, it is not 100% of the game console market. You don't see Palm having to put a menu of browsers on Pre, it is not 100% of the smartphone market.
Also, it's important to note: if you buy a Mac right now and you are a Firefox user, all you have to do to remove Safari entirely from your system is put the Safari icon in the Trash. That is it. There's just one Safari icon and it's in the Applications folder and you can put it in the Trash. You don't have to do a rain dance or get a consultant in or anything. Safari.app goes in the Trash and Firefox.app goes in its place and you're done.
Maybe because the EU knows that Microsoft could ruin any OEM who stepped out of line simply by jacking up the price that it was charging them for Windows. That's a big threat hanging over the head of many companies, especially the smaller ones.
Additionally, IE is wired deeply into many areas of Windows. So deeply that the OEM can't remove it without making changes that would violate the DMCA and whatever the EU equivalent is.
Asking the OEMs to do this is like asking a GM dealership to open up the hood of the cars that it sell and to put Mitsubishi fuel control systems in.
- by jessiethe3rd October 21, 2009 6:28 PM PDT
- Flippin' EU...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (38 Comments)Damned if you do... damned if you don't.