

Consumers win in the EU case against Microsoft & IE - gorm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/business/global/17msft.html

======
jswinghammer
Not sure anyone wins from this. I don't see why we need government sticking up
for free products. People have been choosing Firefox for years now and
converting their friends. What's the point of forcing the issue through law?

I'm not sure why Microsoft is even making a web browser right now. I doubt
there's a business case for it. So what exactly is anyone hoping to achieve
with this?

~~~
bensummers
Wouldn't it be nice if we could develop for standards compliant browsers which
had the minimum of bugs, and there was innovation in this market?

Microsoft's bundling of IE meant they had no incentive to produce a good
product, and their lack of development has caused stagnation in the industry.
Free markets are supposed to produce the highest quality goods at the lowest
possible price. It obviously didn't work here, either because the free market
theory is flawed or there wasn't a free market.

The EU is trying to fix this.

~~~
jswinghammer
Right but browsers are a case of the free market working. It turns out no one
wants to pay for web browsers but people like building them so we have open
source browsers to fill gaps in commercial offerings. There aren't any serious
barriers to entry for web browsers so we have a free market.

~~~
bensummers
Thought experiments:

1) What would have happened if IE had to be bought, or at least downloaded and
installed?

2) What if Microsoft had formed a new company to develop and distribute their
browser, and this company was expected to make a profit?

3) What would have happened if Netscape wasn't forced to make their browser
free because Microsoft subsidised the development of IE using profits from
unrelated software?

I suppose the underlying question is whether bundling the browser with a
monopoly OS allows a free market in browsers, and if it didn't allow a free
market, what should the remedy be?

~~~
jamesbritt
"What would have happened if IE had to be bought, or at least downloaded and
installed?"

Downloaded using what, exactly?

Shipping a modern OS without a Web browser would be like shipping it without a
file manager.

"What would have happened if Netscape wasn't forced to make their browser free
because Microsoft subsidised the development of IE using profits from
unrelated software?"

Browsers were free before IE came along. Why did Netscape think they could
base a business on selling something that users could get for free?

------
CWuestefeld
_Under terms of the European settlement, Microsoft will...send ballot screens
...to 100 million users of Windows XP, Vista and 7 operating systems in Europe
who have set Internet Explorer as their main browser._

Why only to those who have IE as their default? If they really want to be
fair, they should let _everybody_ get a fresh choice about which browser to
use.

I mean, if it makes sense to let current IE users choose to go to Firefox or
Chrome, why doesn't it also make sense to let Firefox users choose to go
elsewhere (even to IE!)?

~~~
bensummers
The aim is to remedy Microsoft's abuse of their Windows monopoly position,
which resulted in a large number of IE users. Therefore, offering only to IE
users is fair as well as practical.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_The aim is to remedy Microsoft's abuse_

While I agree that this is, in fact, what's happening, I submit that this is
the wrong approach.

The UE folks believe that they've identified a market failure in the web
browser market, ostensibly resulting from MS's unique position as OS supplier.

Is the better approach to addressing this failure to (A) punish the entity
that is benefiting; or (B) try to change the dynamic to alleviate the market
failure?

Punishing Microsoft doesn't ensure that the market will continue to operate
properly in the future.

It seems to me that if the goal is to fix a market failure, then the solution
is to ensure that OS suppliers can't force browsers onto people. They would
want to be sure that everyone gets to make a choice, regardless of the browser
they currently use. In fact, I'd think that this should apply regardless of OS
as well. That is, Linux distributions that bundle Firefox should be required
to include a browser-chooser as well, so those Linux users can also make a
choice.

~~~
pohl
_if the goal is to fix a market failure, then the solution is to ensure that
[this particular OS supplier] can't force [its own browser] onto people._

If you had phrased it this way, I would have agreed with you. I don't think
the EU cares (or should care) if Microsoft required Firefox, or even what any
other OS supplier required.

Their remedy seems to address the right problem, from my perspective. If the
EU believes that there is a market failure, then they probably also believe
that those who are already running something other than IE are already aware
of browser choice. It is only those people who are running IE that may be
living in ignorance of other browsers.

It feels like a very targeted remedy.

------
chaosmachine
_"On the ballot screen, consumers initially will be able to choose from
Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, AOL, Maxthon, K-Meleon,
Flock, Avant Browser, Sleipnir and Slim Browser. The first five, which are the
most widely used, will be prominently displayed, and the others will be shown
when a user scrolls sideways on the screen."_

That's quite a list, I don't even recognize some of them.

I wonder if we'll have to start testing sites in 11 different browsers (not to
mention different versions of each).

~~~
halo
I wonder if this will result in more large companies creating browsers. If it
takes around 2% marketshare to get on the 'main' list and you can get
significant free advertising from it in Europe, perhaps it's worth Yahoo or
Amazon creating their own browser, even if it's just a rebranded open-source
browser or an IE shell created with minimal investment.

~~~
electromagnetic
I doubt it would work, Chrome's adoption has been phenomenal for its first
year and due solely to the techies who adopted it with open arms because they
all _knew_ why it was good.

Every techie on the planet is going to see through a Firefox or IE
shell/clone. It won't get the market share and loyalist fans that Firefox and
Chrome gained, so it certainly won't be hitting the top spot like Chrome did
within a year of release.

------
drhowarddrfine
Web developers around the world fall to their knees with tears of joy and
relief.

