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

[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