Actively not solving the problem

[unixronin]

C|Net reports that Opera, the chief plaintiff against Microsoft in the European browser-monopoly case, “says that the move to strip Internet Explorer out of Windows 7 in Europe is an insufficient step that won’t lead to better competition in the browser market.”

I think that’s missing the point, and Ina Fried at C|Net apparently thinks so too.  I believe Microsoft is deliberately offering a solution that at best is unworkable, and at worst will lock users even more tightly into Internet Explorer.  If Microsoft offers MSIE only separately from Windows 7 installs, that appears to mean that new Windows 7 installs in Europe will not have a browser installed at all.  And that means that users who don’t already have another working machine with a web browser — any web browser — installed will be unable to go and download a browser to install, because the vast majority of them won’t know how to do so without a web browser.  And that, in turn, means they’ll have to go to a brick-and-mortar store to buy an off-the-shelf packaged web browser.

And guess what’s going to be the only one there.

Sure, they could buy MSIE, take it home, install it, use it to download Firefox or Opera, then throw it away.  But realistically, how many consumers are going to do that after they just went to the store and paid additional money for it?

To compete, Opera and Mozilla are going to have to have boxed product there on the shelf beside Internet Explorer.  And neither of them can afford to do that for free.

This is a cunning and completely mendacious move on Microsoft’s part.  It’s fairly clearly been thought out to adhere to the letter of the EU ruling while totally violating its intent.

Of course, we’ve never seen Microsoft do that before.  And I have this really excellent historic bridge that I can let you have, cheap...

Comments

[radarrider]

The question then is, what would you, or Opera, have Microsoft do? Should they include Opera, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and perhaps other browsers with Windows? That would require a not inconsiderable amount of work on Microsoft's part. I think it's unreasonable to require a company to facilitate the installation and use of a competitor's product.

Enable the use of other browsers, certainly, just as they do now. There is absolutely no barrier to installing and using another browser on Windows. All you need to do is obtain it. If Windows 7 has no browser in Europe, and these other companies want people to use their browsers, then why don't they offer to send customers a CD in the mail, or make it available in software stores, such as in a display at the check out stand? They can't afford to do that? Oh well. So I guess Microsoft has to subsidize their competitors, right?

[unixronin]

I know that what the Opera people asked for was to have competing browsers bundled as well, which isn't really a reasonable expectation. I'm just saying that the "Well, we won't ship a browser at all then" is really not a productive response. While it technically complies with the letter of the directive, it's not functionally useful. Not only does it not solve the problem, but at least as far as I can see, it's actually obstructive.

[radarrider]

It seems to me it comes down to two choices for Microsoft.

1) Remove IE from Windows 7, as they've announced they plan to do.
2) Actively facilitate the installation and use of other browsers.

Or both, I suppose. Option 2 doesn't necessarily require bundling the other browsers. For example, MS could provide some sort of one-click option to download and install the browser of the user's choice but that would still require dev and test effort. The way of doing this that I can think of that I believe is the least unreasonable is to include IE and then provide desktop icons that link to the download pages of the other browsers. That would probably require the least dev and test effort.

[unixronin]

I think option 2 there is considerably more realistic. Just as you said, provide download links to other vendors, and the first time Internet Explorer starts on any given account, have it load a browser choice page explaining what the download links are all about, where to find them, and links to each browser's home site. Provide people the information to make their own choice, rather than throwing obstacles in the way of them making it, then make it easy for them to find all the major alternatives.

[ithildae]

It does display that Micro$oft's creativity is not entirely restricted to their legal department. (Unless legal came up with this.) There are some very clever people at Micro$oft. I just wish that they could use that ability to actually benefit customers, or even compete fairly.

[glitch25.livejournal.com]

*grins* Kinda inspires me to start a business. :-)

[skellington.livejournal.com]

Make sure you set up a REALLY easy ftp site?

But 99% of people buy their OS with their computer. (And if they're buying a boxed OS to upgrade an existing system, it isn't a problem.) And the OEM will be the one buying and installing a browser (or 3.)

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

well, look, opera sued for something, and they got it :)

course, they didn't THINK it THROUGH ;)

and how they're going to have to perhaps suggest, kindly, perhaps for a fee, that they be included on the distro ;)

M$ can just say "nope, sorry", but can included a magic "download the following free software" during a software update... heh. FREE. though, i admit, charging stupid customers for it is appealing. even if it's $5 for media.

microsoft's fault? hardly. they did it to themselves.

#

[mazianni.livejournal.com]

I bet it would be really easy for Pirate Party folks to burn Firefox, Opera and Chrome onto CDs and stand outside software stores handing them out.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That's true, there is that.

[rain-manpnw.livejournal.com]

Opera wants to have its browser - and a selection of others - included alongside IE, to be chosen at (most likely) first bootup time. I see problems:

* Who decides which ones go on the list?
* And which versions?
* Who decides the list order?

If M$ has any control over anything, you can bet IE will be the default choice, and picking anything else will load a hacked version of that alternative M$ has loaded, guaranteed to run just long enough to make people want to switch to IE.

PJ over at www.groklaw.net had a suggestion. In the "first bootup" script, where it's collecting system information, prompting for and testing 'net connection, etc., have it put a simple menu of browser choices. Use makes a pick, script ftps from browser company's server, life goes on.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I've seen that suggestion, yes. The problem I see with it is that it makes new users pick a browser before they know anything about any of them.

I don't know a good answer to this one. But I'm pretty sure that packaging Windows without any browser at all isn't it.

Browsers

[ewen]

At this point I suspect the majority of "new installs" are by/for users who have used a PC before, and probably have some preference of browser from their work PC, friend's PC, previous PC, whatever. And for users form whom, in 2009, this is their first PC have most likely bought one on the advice of their local "computer expert" (read: person who knows more about computers than them), who can presumably recommend a browser to choose. Firefox in particular has done well out of the "recommended by computer experts" route.

So it seems to me that the "before they know anything about any of them" category is actually pretty small. And those people are probably going to either pick at random, or based on what they've heard (eg, through advertising). (Assuming there isn't sufficient forcing of a "default" choice -- which presumably the other vendors would object to.)

My problem with "no browser in the box" is the time that it would take to download for some users (dialup, anyone?). But, eg, shipping "all" of them in the box as optional installs has its own issues -- for instance it seems likely that the "same company" browser is more likely to have new versions slipstreamed onto each new media pressing than "other vendor" browsers. So the "other vendor" browser choices are more likely to immediately want to download large updates.

Ewen

[lwj2.livejournal.com]

One must stand back in admiration.

Consider: this will allow MicroSloth to offer two OS packages, one without a browser and one with a browser.

One suspects that the "with browser" package will cost more.