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.
