Microsoft offers EU 'browser ballot' compromise
In a reversal on Friday, Microsoft said it is now open to allowing users in Europe to select competing browsers in Windows 7.
Essentially, Microsoft is offering to put into Windows a way for consumers to easily install a rival to Internet Explorer. PC makers, as they can today, could still install a rival browser and could also disable Internet Explorer, if they choose.
"Under our new proposal, among other things, European consumers who buy a new Windows PC with Internet Explorer set as their default browser would be shown a 'ballot screen' from which they could, if they wished, easily install competing browsers from the Web," Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith said in a statement.
As first reported by CNET News earlier this month, Microsoft had hoped to comply with Europe's objections to the inclusion of a browser in Windows simply by removing the browser entirely from Windows 7. However, the European Union indicated that such a move might not satisfy its concerns.
"Under the proposal, Windows 7 would include Internet Explorer, but the proposal recognizes the principle that consumers should be given a free and effective choice of Web browser, and sets out a means--the ballot screen--by which Microsoft believes that can be achieved," the commission said in a statement. "In addition, (computer makers) would be able to install competing Web browsers, set those as default and disable Internet Explorer should they so wish. The Commission welcomes this proposal, and will now investigate its practical effectiveness in terms of ensuring genuine consumer choice."
For now--and until the EU accepts Microsoft's proposal--the software maker said it will continue to ship only the browserless "E" version in Europe.
Opera votes for the ballot
Hakon Wium Lie, who as CEO of Opera Software has been outspoken about the IE antitrust issue, was delighted with the proposal.
"It's a happy day for us," Lie said. "We certainly think the ballot is good news and think it will give users a genuine choice."
What's not yet clear is what browsers will appear on the ballot list. Naturally, Lie is concerned about that matter.
"The rules for getting onto the ballot will be something the EU will watch closely," Lie said. It wouldn't be a good idea "to limit it to only one or two, but exactly how many is a good question."
Mozilla, which oversees development of the open-source Firefox browser, was more cautious.
"We're interested in seeing the specifics of the proposal that Microsoft is making and until that point it's hard to have a definitive reaction," said Chief Executive John Lilly in a statement. "It is, of course, a good development that Microsoft will make changes to allow users to choose their own default Web browser, as today's browser mediates so much of our online experience."
Mozilla also had questions about criteria to be selected for the ballot, what terms Microsoft might impose to be part of it, and whether Microsoft will update versions of Windows already running with the ballot.
User headaches
The planned browserless version would create a number of headaches for users, including forcing them to try to download a competing browser without having Internet Explorer to do so, as well as making it more difficult to upgrade to Windows 7 than it would otherwise be. For example, moving from Vista to Windows 7 "E" would require a new installation of the operating system, while users elsewhere can just upgrade their existing Windows installation.
"While the Commission solicits public comment and considers this proposal, we are committed to ensuring that we are in full compliance with European law and our obligations under the 2007 Court of First Instance ruling," Smith said. "PCs manufacturers building machines for the European market will continue to be required to ship 'E' versions of Windows 7 until such time that the Commission fully reviews our proposals and determines whether they satisfy our obligations under European law.
Microsoft is also committing to "a public undertaking designed to promote interoperability between third party products and a number of Microsoft products, including Windows, Windows Server, Office, Exchange, and SharePoint."
The software maker faces a separate complaint over Office.
"Like the Internet Explorer proposal, the interoperability measures we are offering involve significant change by Microsoft," Smith said. "They build on the Interoperability Principles announced by Microsoft in February 2008, which were also based on extensive discussions with the Commission, and they include new steps including enforceable warranty commitments."
This isn't going to get anybody to try a new browser.
Microsoft could just say they will include all browsers with 1% market share of more, a very reasonable metric.
Sorry Opera, maybe you need 15 more years to break 1%. (I don't hate Opera, it's my 3rd favorite browser (firefox then chrome). I just hate their whining.)
You hate their whining and I bet you appreciate the decision to include better browsers.
But it was their whining that helped make this happen.
Not all whining is bad. Sometimes people whine because there is in injustice.
BTW, I don't use Opera. Just making an observation.
why doesn't Apple have to do this?
- cue clash between zealous Microsoft fanboys practicing their best John Birch Society speeches, and Apple fanboys taunting the hell out of them.
'k, popcorn's ready. You may start in 5... 4... 3.. 2.. 1..
More EU interference on innovation. They just need to put a brake on successful companies so that less successfully one can have some business.
...I know! Want some popcorn? It's got real butter on it...
Random_Walk- you really shoudl be ashamed of yourself for such comments. You claim to be an IT professional, but comments like these sure do call into question your professionalism. The fact that you don't seem to realize this is even more disturbing.
Look, if you want to have a conversation then thats great; Anyone here can help you out with that. If you just want to fan flames maybe its time to start looking elsewhere.
"you really shoudl[sic] be ashamed of yourself for such comments"
Shame? Hell, I'm laughing my butt off! Anyone with even the most basic intelligence that has seen this whole story arc (EU drags MSFT into court, MSFT found to be a monopoly abuser, MSFT has to pay fine and play nice, etc etc)...
...already knows the script.
Part one: You and your fellow CTRL+ALT+DEL jockeys immediately rip in with some diatribe consisting of (paraphrased) "dirty furriners! Deys jes' out to soil a fine upstanding Amurrikan co-po-ra-shun!" (as a huge flag waves The sound of forty Pabst Blue Ribbon cans opening, hisses in unison with a background rising chord from "My Country 'Tis Of Thee".)
Part Two: A mixture of responses ranging from the ultra-cynical (e.g. mine, as in "If you don't like how the EU runs their sandbox, then don't play in it you morons."), to the effete ("zee post you made eez zo pro-vin-cial! You feelthy uneducated Amelican Peegs! *sniff sniff*")
No matter which side you take, it all ends in one thing: literary hilarity. Why? Because it's real simple... You can't influence jack squat about it, and unless someone with a PhD in International Law shows up, you're singularly and collectively unqualified to expound on laws concerning sovereign entities under which you obviously do not live. (OTOH, it is a laugh riot when someone tries to apply US Constitutional law to an EU legal decision... no really, it's a belly-buster sometimes).
Me, I've figured that much out at least, so I decided to --for once-- sit back and have some fun with this particular subject. And with you. And you rose to it with the confusion (and potency) of a rabid Justin Timberlake fan discovering that you have somehow found yourself in the mosh pit of a death metal concert.
You can only imagine the looks of hilarity by myself and the fellow (but lurking) metaphorical headbangers... but then, maybe it's better if you didn't.
But please - keep raving. Don't let me stop you. :)
Anyway, the "bailout" screen still sounds like it will indicate to users that they can "stay" with IE (already installed) or download and install something new, and this would give MS an advantage as many people get nervous about choosing something that is not preinstalled.
The screen, as I said last time, should ask "which browser(s) would you like to install" without any prejudice as to which is preferred, which is already installed, etc. IE should NOT ship with Windows 7, but instead a "fetch" application that fetches the latest fully patched version if the owner chooses. The screen would list 6 options listed alphabetically, with the ability to select more than one should the person choose. Each browser maker would have to provide MS with an installer that functions, talks to their servers, etc. and a download location that doesn't change. If the link is broken, that is the third party's problem, not MS's problem, so as not to put too much of a burden on MS.
Including IE directly as MS is now trying to do in their infantile game is a step backward, as the included version will need to be installed then immediately patched, potentially opening the machine up to security holes just as happens now, when there is NO NEED for MS to include the browser in the box other than to try to push it on consumers.
It's typical of monopolies (read: babies) to "cut off" customers as a response to being asked to offer choice, then when there is enough anger over being cut off, to then pretty much return to the status quo in a classic "see, we told you you needed us" move. This is not a new game, MS is quite good at it. But there is a THIRD solution, as stated above, it would take no effort to implement (windows installers are ubiquitous and easy to write/modify), and would actually comply with what the EU is requiring. But MS isn't about to make anything easy, because, as a company, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to try to get everyone to use their products by any means necessary...
So what your saying they should offer a choice for every browser but their own? How exactly is that giving a choice?
The EU doesn't give a damn about your offers of compromise. They could care less about "consumer choice." The consumers voted for you long ago -with their pocketbooks. The EU doesn't even care about the billions of Euros they are filching from you - that is just a statistical benchmark of success to them. They are driven by pure, vicious, powerlust. They will not be happy until you come crawling on your knees, begging to be regulated to destruction. They cannot stand the idea that a business can succeed in the marketplace without some government bureaucrat holding a gun to its head.
You really do have no idea what is going on and why this is being done, do you? This is not some sort of anti-US campaign. This is about correcting the market that has failed. The idea that pure, unregulated, capitalism is good is utter nonsense.
That Microsoft is finally doing -let's hope they don't break/half-ass implement anything or their way- the right thing is great, although for the time being its 'E' editions diversion now looks like rushed amateurism and will complicate their work and moreover the life of their users... Next time they will do the right thing from the start and it will be less hassle for everyone...
I mean it's about choices right.
""It's a happy day for us," Lie said. "We certainly think the ballot is good news and think it will give users a genuine choice."
Or they make the ballot screen a big pie chart where opera get a tiny little ~1% slice!
So a choice of the 3 most popular browsers should do it. IE, Firefox, Safari or Chrome (depending if u want to count mac running safari)
Sure, it might cost the EU a few billion, but it's just as good of an argument as they made. :)
many MANY browser are broken in that way
Before you log in for the first time, choose a browser to connect to the Interet.
[X] Microsoft Internet Explorer (large text, green checkmark, Giant IE icon)
(bold green text) Recommended
The world's most popular web browser. Use it to view web sites, online video, and connect with family, friends, and coworkers. (Use accelerators, etc. etc.)
[] Mozilla Firefox
[] Google Chrome
[] Apple Safari
[ Continue ] [ Ask me later ]
__________________________
:D
Well, even worse, they will be sure to point out that IE is ALREADY INSTALLED, while the others will require download and installation. But there is no reason for IE to be installed by disk. An installer should fetch it (just as most downloaded windows installers do now with most applications).
Auto-updates without user approval?
I get asked everytime windows wants to update im not sure what your getting at.
By default, MS suggests you allow MS to install updates without your input (Recommended) and puts a check in that box for you.
If you leave this turned on, occasionally MS will say that the update they just installed requires you to reboot. Otherwise you'll never know.
Shush you... you gave your promise at 2:05 PM July 24th to sit back on this topic. Looks like your word lasted all of 24 minutes. That's longer than I gave you credit for. :)
Auto updates can install things you don't want, including MS apps that report your configuration back to them, etc. There are also instances where an update is not worth it, as it introduces new problems. And for people doing mission critical work, it's wise to delay on non-security related updates until you are sure the other "fixes" aren't "brokeses".
Your reading comprehension skills have slipped. Here, let me repost the whole sentence:
"Me, I've figured that much out at least, so I decided to --for once-- sit back and have some fun with this particular subject. And of You".
HTH a little. :)
But over a browser? Any computer user with the intelligence of a houseplant can download and install one of a dozen browsers after two bottles of Cabernet Savignon. But the houseplant still has to have a browser to connect. And if Microsoft weren't offering a freeby browser, the EU would fine them until they provided one. And if they couldn't do that, they would vote fines because they were headquartered in a town whose name began with the letter "R".
What do you think, they're going to go after AirBus because of monopoly practices?
Funny how all the money from all these fines never seems to make it to the individual member countries. Instead those member country dues just keep going up. Europe isn't happy with the EU either. Heck, just look at the news sites for Germany, France, Sweden and the UK for some discontent. There's a lot of cries of corruption going on.
Now that Microsoft has relented and will include a choice of several browsers, the EU can *force* other OS providers such as Apple, Linux, and Google to do likewise or face very steep fines (can you say billions?). This could result in the EU becoming very rich and powerful through these fines, or find themselves isolated as they ban Europe from using Apple, Linux, or other products that do not include this choice of browsers.
It's a tricky situation. If the consumers are allowed a choice, that is good. When the EU is deciding for the consumer what those choices will be, then that is bad.
If I were Apple, I'd be concerned about this change. They may be forced to include Opera, Firefox, and Chrome on their systems as well even if they don't want to.
What other areas will this spill out into? Will the EU force Micorosft to install iTunes on every system? (It's there anyways even if you don't want it, but stilll)
Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
Because minoritys should be able to do whatever the hell they want?
Drinking while posting? Well, that certainly does explain a lot about your comments. :)
Show the world the "Office Productivity Applications ...." that were used to determine commercial feasibility please.
PC manufactures install third-party software on PC's they sell but it is up to PC manufactures, MS has nothing to do with this. EU should direct all their questions and concerns to PC manufactures to ensure that PC's they sell have at least some browser.
http://tiny.cc/jzEWc
This is the former... What more can the EU request of MS? They said "You don't want IE 8.0? Fine, We'll ship Europe a special verison of Windows, just for you, with no pre-set browser - Okay? Okay."
How was that not enough? Did the EU realize that "Okay gre-wait do you know how to install a browser? I don't... do you even know what a browser is? wait what about the customers they won't have a method to get onto the internet with these PC's... oh... wait we f'd up. How can we stil blame this on MS? Oh! Let's say "That's not enough" and demand they advsertise competitors? Brilliant!"
This is utterly ridiculous in my opinion. A Browser needs to be downloaded to be an alternitive - yes, this is true. However there's a good 60% of users out there who do not know how to download a browser, or why they would want to.
60% of these people would actually be angered by this - since PC's have stopped coming with manuals and basic help since god knows when. This simply complicates the PC brand and pushes more and more people into Mac's for another reason like "It's easy" while they are tricked into the "It's more secure" Lie.
(As a note once there are enough Mac's in use and they're a big enough target the spyware will begin to roll - the issue is that Linux (Real linux...) Updates it's security nearly daily - Apple addresses Security flaws in it's OS like a US Poliction takes critisim... Denial, Acceptance, and eventually solving it.)
So whatever it takes for customers to have the browser they want is the goal of the EU. This is not only good for the customer but for business. It means that other companies will have more incentive to make better browsers.
Sometimes a particular remedy doesn't have the desired outcome. So in that case you try another remedy till you get the outcome. Basic stuff that shouldn't need explaining I would have thought.
And what difference it really makes? If you know difference between browsers, you are capable to install browser you like and you don't need help from EU to do this. If you don't know difference, you should not be forced to make choice - to chose something you don't know or don't care.
That is the point.
Most people accept the default even if it is the worse one.
By giving customers the choice, then they might choose one at random or they might find out which one is best for them.
Everyone wins. More reason for innovation.
You missed the point.
When different browsers compete for 100% of the population and not just 20%, the the customer wins because innovation will abound.
I completely agree with the crux of your point, that most users probably don't care which browser they use so they should not have to make a decision on which one is installed, but I have to agree with the steps being taken here. If Internet Explorer was a standards-compliant browser then I'd have no issue with it being bundled with Windows as the default browser. But it isn't. Not only does it not properly support current web standards yet but it also continues to render old content in the way that prevents that content from being displayed in any other browser properly. Throw into the mix the support for proprietary Windows technologies, such as ActiveX, and you have a browser that effectively ties you to Windows.
The World Wide Web needs to be accessible to all, no matter the browser or platform that they are using.
I think its unfair that they are abusing their mp3 monopoly to try and push safari and quicktime on me by their auto update system.
Apple doesn't have the deep pockets that Microsoft does. The EU can't really squeeze that fruit much so there isn't any real point in going after them at this point. However, they may try to go after the iPhone profits. That's something the EU might want to sniff around.
While I absolutely agree that Apple should not attempt to push Safari onto Windows users via their Software Update application, QuickTime is a fundamental component of iTunes so it is required software otherwise you don't get playback of the likes of AAC audio files or H.264 video. Theoretically they could just bundle the QuickTime code into the iTunes code (which is a bit inefficient since QuickTime updates independently of iTunes) for a single download but they probably figured that you'd appreciate the standalone application for media playback/editing.
M$ on the other hand is fighting for the best consumer choice and best User Experience, or IE as they put it. (Vomiting...)
(The EU is actually the most well funded organization in the history of civilization. Whatever happens, year in year out, recession or boom they get smt like 5% of the government budget from every member state. They really have all the money they ask for, and guess on what they are willing to spend them for... SCREWING THE SILICON VALLEY. I am fine with that...)
Do not bite the hook EVERY TIME, and realize the cold truth. The times they are, are changin' and MS is now going in the dog house for every screw up they make. (I certainly hope that Obama will do the same.)
At the end of the day, it will only do good for the company AND those who still think that Windows (7) WITHOUT IE ARE FINALLY A REALITY! For the love of God, everyone in the planet has been praying (to their god) for this for years now! Celebrate! Feast on the corps of IE!
You can thank the EU @ "the Berlaymonster", 200 Wetstraat/Rue de la Loi, , "European district" Brussels, Belgium
- by lazycat202 July 24, 2009 5:40 PM PDT
- EU got nothing else to do? MS should stop selling OS to EU. it's too risky, but entire EU will be in pain.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by t8 July 24, 2009 9:34 PM PDT
- That would be great.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (125 Comments)A OS would rise up in its place that would be much better and fairer.