Comments on: EC Principle 3. Windows must enable people to choose other browsers

By: Asa Dotzler

Asa Dotzler — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:19:23 +0000

TriniKrusader said, “Also, Microsoft is still a business and ~forcing~ it to either make IE available separately, or promote competitors’ free products in one way or another are both pretty painful choices. That shoots down options one, three and four UNLESS… the makers of those browsers are willing to offer Microsoft something in return.”

How about an offer to not be banned from doing business in the EU or being fined billions of dollars? The EU is the one with the authority and the “offer” and they wield quite a bit of power should they choose to employ it.

Browser vendors like Mozilla are trying to think this through so that their “offer” to Microsoft actually accomplishes what they intend it to.

- A

By: tsahi

tsahi — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:32:27 +0000

I agree with Dwayne Bailey, that OEMs should be allowed to replace the references to IE, either on the desktop or the Start menu, with references to a different browser. In fact, I believe this is the case after some of the anti trust trials against MS, isn’t it? This will satisfy point #3 in your post.
Your other suggestions I believe, will confuse most users, or complicate their lives beyond reasonable level. If someone s updating IE, why should that be tied to some other browser? I update IE regularly, just is my Firefox is updating regularly, and I know I’ll be annoyed if I have to go through another dialog if I update IE or Windows.
Until some other browser is installed, either by the user or by an OEM, some browser has to be the default one, and if IE is the only one installed, then it will have to be it.
I doubt if you can force a software vendor to give its users the competing software, unless some antitrust law allows this.
Windows already has a mechanism to install the user’s browser of choice – it’s called IE.
Finally, any modern operating system must include a browser. Back in ’94, when I was using OS/2 Warp (ah, those were the days…) it already came with a minimalistic browser, which I used for downloading Netscape 2.0.
So perhaps an operating system, any operating system, should be shipped with a browser with minimum capabilities, as TriniKrusader also suggested.

By: TriniKrusader

TriniKrusader — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:11:53 +0000

Quote: “I don’t think most normal users would know which browser is best for them without taking time to research it, and as they probably aren’t that interested so would rather just continue with what they are used to.”

And THAT is the heart of the problem. New users are settling for exactly what Microsoft gives them, despite the fact that it may not be the best choice. This isn’t a case in which a particular manufacturer bundles one company’s software with a PC; Microsoft Windows is THE biggest OS.

Solving this problem is tricky, however. After all, internet browsing functionality is pretty much expected by a new user upon purchase of a new computer. Because of this, I think five is not going to work.
Also, Microsoft is still a business and ~forcing~ it to either make IE available separately, or promote competitors’ free products in one way or another are both pretty painful choices. That shoots down options one, three and four UNLESS… the makers of those browsers are willing to offer Microsoft something in return. Nothing is impossible, but I don’t see that as being very likely. Additionally, option 1 can creates a sort of new market lock – what if some new, superior browser appeared out of nowhere? How many people would download it if Microsoft offered not one, but THREE browsers to them in Windows? We’re reincarnating the monopoly as a triopoly.

I like solution two best. Perhaps Microsoft could bundle a weaker version of IE with their installation, and then redirect users to some kind of neutral browser downloader site a la “download.com”, where any software developer could advertise his or her browser with a small blurb and get reviews from users. This does count as a ‘mechanism’ so I guess it works as a hybrid between two and four. There, Microsoft can host the full-fledged ‘bells and whistles’ IE to compete naturally with Mozilla, Opera and any other up-and-coming browser program.

By: foo

foo — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:23:47 +0000

As far as I am concerned, this principle that ‘Windows must enable people to choose other browsers’ is met sufficiently already. If I want to use a different browser, it is very easy to install one. Most of the ideas mentioned just make things more difficult for the end users by asking them questions that they don’t need to be asked. I don’t think most normal users would know which browser is best for them without taking time to research it, and as they probably aren’t that interested so would rather just continue with what they are used to.

By: Dwayne Bailey

Dwayne Bailey — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:21:19 +0000

Some ideas of how this might be achievable:

* Mandate that any OEM cannot be tied to supplying IE on a Windows box. Moving the effect down the chain might be the right solution. The user gets an OS with a browser, Microsoft has to unlock the browser from the OS.
* A new computer must come supplied with CDs containing alternate browsers. The browser manufacturer needs to create the CD. Microsoft need to pay for the CD production. They cannot pass the costs on to the OEM or onto the consumer but must absorb the costs. Thus the computer comes with a web browser but the consumer is exposed and enabled to make a choice without having multiple browsers installed on the OS.
* The start page of IE takes a user to a browser choice page. This to me sounds a bit wishy washy though.

Anyway, I leave those ideas for others to poke holes in.