EU: Microsoft to test browser 'ballot screen'
European Union regulators said Wednesday that Microsoft can go ahead and start using its latest proposed "ballot screen," which will let new users of Windows choose which browser--or browsers--they wish to use.
The decision to let Microsoft "market test" the latest version would seem to mark the wrapping up of the latest antitrust skirmish with Brussels.
More than a decade after Microsoft first started including a browser with Windows, regulators said earlier this year that they had reached the preliminary view that such an inclusion violated European antitrust law.
In response, Microsoft initially said it would ship Windows 7 in Europe without a browser at all, seemingly challenging the logic of the decision by the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU. However, amid indications that such a move would not fly, Microsoft in July offered a proposal that more closely matched what regulators and competitors wanted--a ballot screen that lets users choose which browser or browsers they wish to install.
Since then Microsoft, regulators, and competitors have been going back and forth about how that screen would look and operate.
"The improvements that Microsoft has made to its proposal since July would ensure that consumers could make a free and fully informed choice of web browser," Europe's antitrust authority said in a statement. Among the changes since Microsoft's July proposal is the agreement by Microsoft to add more information before users select a browser. Microsoft will now first present users with a screen explaining what a browser is and will then offer "Tell me more" buttons for each browser.
Under the revised proposal, Microsoft would, through Windows Update, make available for five years in the European Economic Area a screen allowing users of Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7 to choose which Web browsers they want to install. PC makers will also be able to install competing Web browsers and, if they choose, set those as the default browser and disable Microsoft's Internet Explorer.
"The Commission's preliminary view is that Microsoft's commitments would address these competition concerns and is market testing Microsoft's proposal in light of these requirements," The EC said in its statement.
For its part, Microsoft said it welcomed the European Commission's decision.
"For Microsoft, today's decision is a significant step toward closing a decade-long chapter of competition law concerns in Europe," general counsel Brad Smith said in a statement.
Update: Smith also spoke to CNET about the deal and its potential impact on others in the industry. Click here to read that interview.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
"If you want to use the world's most popular browser, Internet Explorer, please press pretty button.
If you want to use any other browser, please solve a complex riddle... do a handstand... and then count backwards from 1,000."
lmfao!
Exactly.
Mac OS comes standard with Safari just as Windows comes standard with IE. Same goes with their media players. The only difference is that people have been smart enough to buy PCs instead of wasting their money on Macs. If Apple held over 90% of the market, how would it be any different than Microsoft?
Mac OS comes standard with Safari just as Windows comes standard with IE. Same goes with their media players. The only difference is that people have been smart enough to buy PCs instead of wasting their money on Macs. If Apple held over 90% of the market, how would it be any different than Microsoft?
Now once Apple gets a marketshare of 51% or more, then your argument would be relevant. Until then, they're not subject to the rules that a monopoly would be on the matter.
Since safari can be removed from OSX, and considering that most Mac users use firefox over safari, I don't think apple needs to provide a ballot screen.
MS is a CONVICTED monopolist in both USA and EU; the only valid debate is the correct solution to their illegal behavior. The US, under pres bush, let them off the hook. The EU has the guts to follow through with appropriate solutions that will improve competition.
RCharles
?
May want to look up some history there before you say that ;)
Looks like somebody wasn't paying attention during the Microsoft trial in the US. They were not convicted of being a monopoly because they made the smart decision years earlier to buy part of Apple to help boost their sells just high enough to where Microsoft could not legally be declaired a monopoly.
You're either lying or ignorant, one of the two: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Indeed, Microsoft wasn't convicted of being a monopoly. In fact, monopolies are legal in the United States, as long as those monopolies do not use their status as monopolies to stifle competition. Microsoft was convicted of using its monopoly status to stifle competition.
Now, this is about more than just Microsoft being a monopoly, though. Some people seem to take a perverse pleasure out of dissing Microsoft. I'm not one of them. To me, this is about the free market, and the right of a paying consumer to make an informed decision about their browser. As I have said before, both Microsoft AND Apple should offer choices of browsers at the time of installation for their respective OS's.
Everything was overturned and dropped in 2000, then entirely given up in 2001.
http://www.uscourts.gov/library/codeOfConduct/Code_Effective_July-01-09.pdf
Thanks for playing.
The remedy was overturned but not the verdict. Thanks for playing.
I assume you weren't writing this in response to me (because I agree with it perfectly). :)
@Lennron: The veridct/conviction still stands, no matter what happened to the remedy.
Cell-phone language should stay with cell-phones, not the internet. Oh, and by the way, Internet Explorer is pure junk, as it does not support standards. There is no quality equivalent to it, as everyone else who made a product that bad just gave up. The second-worse in quality is ironically Safari, the other proprietary browser, which you did not mention in your quality comparison guide...
MS is a CONVICTED monopolist in the USA.
RCharles
This agency has put up a massive neon sign to any competitor that says, "Please bring your complaints to us so we can rape every American software company remotely close to holding monopoly power of any wealth they have taken from our people"!
You are right on the American ingenuity part though. Thankfully I can give you that.
How hard is this for you folks to understand?
Ah, I see - so what do you propose we do about it? Invade Europe? Nuke 'em? Start a devastating trade war that would wreck numerous economies in the process? What?
I wholeheartedly agree with you that Opera can't compete with other browsers because it is an inferior product. However, that is not reason to put down the whole of Europe. Even as an American, I can say that Europe has contributed in significant ways in the browser market. Much of Firefox's open source development community is in Europe. Apple, Microsoft and Google (makers of Safari, IE and Chrome, respectively) have employees in Europe working on their products.
Furthermore, I don't think Opera Software ASA is controlling the EU regulatory body behind the screens. That's giving Opera Software ASA too much credit.
In all fairness Intel got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10356876-92.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0
I have lots of ideas, some that might be useful and others that may not work at all. But I"m not the expert, nor do I pretend to be. There are things that can be done within each company, as a group of companies, with legislators, and world organizations. I firmly believe that we as Americans have a long and proud history of standing up against this type of tyranny from Europeans and I don't think the time is now to cower down to this. It's time to fight (not with war as you suggest) and say it's ok for you to rob us of what we have rightlfully earned. Especially when you are not a convicted felone which is the case with Intel and Google.
The whole things seems silly and overblown to me. Look at IE's declining market share. Millions of people have discovered how to install and use another browser. The browsers all update themselves, so getting Windows Update involved seems like a bad idea to me.
An Application Directory / Package Manager or whatever you want to call it would have been perfect for Microsoft.
They could have offered storage for competitors (at a price), they could have kept control of it all in an even more subtle way and generally, Windows users would have been better off.
Maybe this will cause a shift in thought patterns.
I certainly hope it does, a decent App Manager is the best thing ever when done right.
Add & Remove programs wasn't very nice because it still forced the programs to deal with anything, it was just a registry of entries to installer files.
In that US anti-trust case the judge recommended that MS be broken up due to anti-trust behavior. But the then-new Bush admin gave MS a slap on the wrist and closed the case with a small judicial oversight process. We could have reached this EU solution with MS back then. Instead, the citizens of USA needed to rely on the EU for effective anti-monopoly enforcement .
So much for the Republican argument for Market Forces as the solution to every problem.
RCharles
To be fair, that argument was given when Windows 95 and 98 were out, and that they had hard-coded IE into the OS deeply enough to make that somewhat true. They've since jammed it in even further.
They obviously didn't remove every trace of IE (hint: Windows Update will still work), but what they likely did do was to remove the front-end of the browser.
PS: Microsoft was convicted under the Clinton administration, but were only slapped on the wrist by that same administration's DOJ instead of forcibly broken-up... I'm guessing no Republicans were at fault for the failure. ;)
Why all the huff and puff about IE? People are free to DL whatever browser they want, and MS should be able to include whatever (including one, several or none) browsers they want. As another EU apologist said "their sandbox, their rules". Shouldn't this go for how MS builds their software?
Oh, wait - that would be too frickin' obvious a solution, wouldn't it? ;)
Federal judge rules against Microsoft 11/05/1999 Decision announced Clinton Administration
Case was appealed to D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by Microsoft
Final settlement 11/02/2001 Bush Administration
This is the exact case that MS found themselves in. Interestingly enough, the rules that MS was found of breaking were not illegal before there was a determination of being a monolopy, but once they were, then the rules were "retroactively broken" due to that determination.
You are correct. However, abusing your monopoly position to push the competition out is illegal. See also http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Best
RCharles
1. What is held against one should apply to all. If MS has to offer browser alternatives other than explorer than it should hold for all operating systems from Apple to Symbian.
2. Say what you will against explorer I hate it to, But it is an essential thing to have a browser in your OS install even if the only use it ever sees is to download a better one. Browsers are tools now a days, just like the format command or word pad.
3. What next? offer a casio, Texas Instruments, or sharp calculator program. Wordpad is killing word processors so windows install must offer wordperfect or open office. In a class action lawsuit pogo.com, wildtangent and bigfish games will now have to be offered along with MS solitaire and minesweeper.
4. IT'S MS'S PRODUCT! Ford car comes with Ford engine, glass, exhaust, audio, seats, and even paint. You don't buy a ford and ask them to install a TRD racing package why would you you even expect MS to offer non MS products in it's own product.
5. Lastly they don't stop you from choosing others and don't charge you for their own. There is very few browsers that require you to actually buy them. Most all of them are free including Explorer. MS does not force you to use only IE if you don't know you don't want IE you probably would never know the difference.
The world just got dumber by mandated law. Love IE or hate it you were never forced to use it. This is the tipping point to a slippery slope and technology will suffer for it. The os will have to go ala carte and every one will want their dollar bill. I'm sure that all browsers that MS will have to offer will request their cut of the profit from the sale of windows...blah blah blah...higher production cost for MS...blah blah blah...price increase to keep profit margin...blah blah blah...we got boned not MS.
None of your whining is going to change anything. MS have lost and that's the end of it so it's time to get with the programme.
- by The1MegaByte October 10, 2009 5:55 PM PDT
- Does anyone trust Microshaft? Do you really think they are going to give consumers the choice?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(69 Comments)You know what will happen, no matter what browser you choose, Internet Exploiter will still be installed.
You can only choose a different browser at install? And not later on?
The EU should have continued to fight the good fight. And recouped its' costs of bringing a common knowledge monopoly to justice. And not followed Clinton's Willy example of quitting half way through, just because you're tired.