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?
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.
One of the biggest innovations was the introduction of the HTTPRequestObject and DHTML, later to be termed AJAX. It came from Microsoft and IE (5, I think).
And Microsoft has a motivation to keep the bugs to a minimum so long as they have paying users (for the OS bundle) who are going to complain.
"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."
I don't follow. Are not Firefox and Opera high-quality goods? And Firefox is free. Where did they come from?
A larger question is, should you support a free market because you believe in economic freedom, or should you support whatever system produces certain kinds of products, even if it means lessening economic freedom?
It's similar to supporting free speech until someone says something you find unpleasant; a free market may give what the best products at the best price, but not always, or not right away. Adherence to the "free" part is more important than the "I want certain products on the market" part.
Microsoft's bundling of IE meant it wasn't a free market. It's the same as how here, in ontario, my house comes hooked up to the local wing of the government hydro company who control my electricity, natural gas and water supply.
Unless I'm already looking elsewhere, I don't know I have another option. I technically have a free market because I can hook my house up with solar, wind or even tap a river, I can drill a well, or I can hook my house up to an external propane tank . . . however, how is that really a free market?
Similarly when I buy a PC and I'm handed it with IE, unless I'm already looking elsewhere, I don't know I have another option. I believe this is why the paid referral campaign worked so well for Firefox, because it was like an independent power company hanging signs around your town, suddenly you're told you have an option.
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.
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?
"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?
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!)?
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.
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.
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.
"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).
>I wonder if we'll have to start testing sites in 11 different browsers
Nope.
The number of engines is less than that. IE engine is used by Maxthon, Avant Browser, AOL, Sleipnir and Slim Browser.
K-Meleon and Flock use Gecko (FF engine).
Safari and Chrome use WebKit.
Opera has its own closed-source engine.
A couple of listed browser let you choose rendering engine: Maxthon 3 will let you use IE's engine and Webkit; in Sleipnir you have IE's engine and Gecko.
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.
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.
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?