Windows 7 buyers in Europe will have to choose a browser. Fair?
Image by iquto.com
Image by iquto.com
Hey Internetling readers, it’s that time again. The time to think about how happy you are that you use Linux and that nothing is being shoved in your face.
Due to a complaint by the EU not long ago, Microsoft was left with two choices: to either leave out the browser altogether, or let the users choose between several browsers. Well, according to Gizmodo:
The new approach is to sell Windows PCs with Internet Explorer as the default browser, but to present users with a “ballot screen” which allows them to select and “easily install competing browsers from the Web.”
The problem is that nobody knows the specifics. What browsers will they choose for the “ballot screen”? Will the ballot screen feature a list of differences between browser features and, most importantly, user rights?
Will Microsoft choose the so-called competing browsers? I do not see how this will be fair. They may choose them by market share, although Opera, for instance, has as much rights to be on the list as Firefox, Chrome or Safari. Why? Because it offers a full user experience and is a modern browser. Why not K-Meleon, why not Maxthon? Will they deliberately choose a few unfinished, bare-bones browser projects in order to confuse the user’s perspective on what the competition can offer?
I sense a great disturbance in the Force. And you?
I don’t think it’s fair to force MS to mention other browsers. It is not fair to force them to leave out a browser?
Why? Because it is their software, and forcing them to do something is invading the sovereignty of their computer (yes, MS has rights). However, it is not fair for MS to artificially keep you (or a hardware vendor) from removing that browser and including another one in its place. Or, even more extremely, to keep you from replacing MSHTML with an interface-compatible library (a libmozembed wrapper, anyone?).
If this EU deal has proven anything to me, it is that the OSS world can be just as unreasonable as the proprietary one. Microsoft is in the right on this one.
We’ve entered the gray area of economic regulation. By the laws that are on the books, Microsoft could legally be declared in the wrong, depending on how strict the regulators are. By packaging IE with Windows, they are opening themselves to the risk of being accused of the monopolistic tactic of bundling, where you pack extra unrelated products in with a main product, thereby discouraging competition. It’s not something Microsoft hasn’t already been accused of in the past; see United States v. Microsoft for more information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft).
Also, it’s not the FOSS world that’s raising the issue here, although I assume they’re all happy to hear about it. It’s the EU’s regulating bodies who are responsible for preventing monopolies from forming who would be leading the crusade.
Anyway, if I had to make a guess, I’d assume that Microsoft would keep things simple and just offer IE and Firefox. Opera, Safari, and Chrome will not be options; they’re commercially backed, and two of them by a couple of Microsoft’s biggest competitors. But explanations will be very brief, and IE will definitely have a (recommended) tag next to it.
@Brad Koch: “Also, it’s not the FOSS world that’s raising the issue here, although I assume they’re all happy to hear about it. It’s the EU’s regulating bodies who are responsible for preventing monopolies from forming who would be leading the crusade.”
I’m not happy about it. It seems very hypocritical to accuse MS of being monopolistic for bundling a browser while Every other important OS also bundles a browser.
@Michael Howell
Well, you have to remember we’re dealing with government here. And government sucks and sticks its regulatory power anywhere it wants. You’re right, most popular (OS X and Windows) operating systems come bundled with a proprietary browser (several Linux distros tend to come with at least 2 in my experience, although I assume this isn’t as common since they’re trying to phase out Konqueror). Bundling may have won MS the browser wars, but it’s gotten to be far less of an advantage since competition has returned to the browser market and people are becoming more aware of their options. Thus Microsoft may have a very good argument should it come to that.
But remember, this is business/politics. Things get ugly way before they get to the courts, and so Microsoft is playing it safe to avoid further accusations of monopolistic tactics and all the negative press that will come with it.
I’m just saying that in the past, Microsoft has unfairly wielded their market power to push their products. That’s monopolistic. I’m not saying the EU is right now. This is just what you end up with when you try to enforce utilitarian laws.
I think if they are going to show options, they need to show EVERY option. As stated above, it would not be fair to leave some or one out. Anyway, Mozilla FTW.
EVERY browser?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_browsers