Posts Tagged with “Microsoft”

Last month the European Commission stated its preliminary conclusion that “Microsoft’s tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice.”

In my mind, there is absolutely no doubt that the statement above is correct. Not the single smallest iota of doubt. I’ve been involved in building and shipping web browsers continuously since before Microsoft started developing IE, and the damage Microsoft has done to competition, innovation, and the pace of the web development itself is both glaring and ongoing. There are separate questions of whether there is a good remedy, and what that remedy might be. But questions regarding an appropriate remedy do not change the essential fact. Microsoft’s business practices have fundamentally diminished (in fact, came very close to eliminating) competition, choice and innovation in how people access the Internet.

Let’s think back for a moment to the activities in question. In the mid-1990s Microsoft began developing Internet Explorer in response to the success of the product known as Netscape Navigator. In this period Microsoft developed a fine product (particularly the version known as IE 4). Kudos to Microsoft for this. Microsoft also promoted IE through activities that the US Department of Justice and the U.S. Courts determined to be illegal. As result, Internet Explorer ended up with well over 90% market share. Once this happened, Microsoft stopped browser development; even disbanding its browser team. The product stagnated and then became a prime vector for bad actors to inject spyware onto consumers’ computers. There was no meaningful response or innovation from Microsoft. Despite this, there was no effective competition from the marketplace, no commercial entities gaining success with other products. This is not surprising — I don’t think there has been a single example of anyone ever regaining market share from a Microsoft monopoly until Mozilla Firefox.

As it turns out, Microsoft hasn’t succeeded in stamping out all competition. Firefox has made a crack in the Microsoft monopoly. And, given a choice, a significant part of the European Union citizens have opted to use Firefox. This does not mean Microsoft’s activities haven’t done significant damage, or aren’t still benefiting Microsoft in ways that reduce competition, choice and innovation.

Equally important, the success of Mozilla and Firefox does not indicate a healthy marketplace for competitive products. Mozilla is a non-profit organization; a worldwide movement of people who strive to build the Internet we want to live in. I am convinced that we could not have been, and will not be, successful except as a public benefit organization living outside the commercial motivations. And I certainly hope that neither the EU nor any other government expects to maintain a healthy Internet ecosystem based on non-profits stepping in to correct market deficiencies.

Second, non-profit or not, Mozilla Firefox is an anomaly — the only product so far to even dent the competitive advantage Microsoft created for itself through its tainted activities. A single anomaly does not indicate a healthy, competitive, or innovative system.

Third, the damage caused by Microsoft’s activities is ongoing. Mozilla Firefox has made a crack in the Microsoft browser monopoly. But even so, hundreds of millions of people use old versions of IE, often without knowing what a browser is or that they have any choice in the quality of their experience. This makes it very difficult to bring innovation, choice or improved user experience to vast parts of the Internet.

The extent of the damage is so great that it makes it difficult to figure out an effective and timely remedy. I believe it’s worth some effort to try. It’s easy to look at Firefox market share and assume the problem is gone or the damage is undone. But that’s not the case. The drag on innovation and choice caused by Microsoft’s actions remains. At Mozilla we work to reduce this drag through direct action, and the results are gratifying. If the EC can identify an effective remedy that also serves to improve competition, innovation and choice, I would find it most welcome.

I’ll be paying close attention to the EC’s activities, both personally and on behalf of Mozilla. Mozilla has enormous expertise in this area. It’s an extremely complex area, involving browsers, user experience, the OEM and other distribution channels, and the foundations for ongoing innovation. An effective remedy would be a watershed event; a poorly constructed remedy could cause unfortunate damage.

I’d like to offer Mozilla’s expertise as a resource to the EC as it considers what an effective remedy would entail. I’ll be reaching out to people I know with particular history, expertise and ideas regarding these topics. If you’ve got specific ideas or concerns please feel free to contact me. I’ll post more as the discussion develops.

Security issues are in the news recently with the Windows Metafile vulnerability. The point of this post is not to second-guess Microsoft’s handling of this vulnerability. For this discussion I’m happy to assume that Microsoft is taking exactly the correct actions on exactly the correct schedule. And beyond that, security is much more of a process than a one-time result. It’s not possible to be perfect. All of us, including Mozilla Firefox, must deal with security issues. Instead, I want to note that this vulnerability points out a key issue with the Internet that has little to do with Microsoft’s handling of this — or any other — specific vulnerability.

The current monoculture of operating systems is dangerous. The degree to which people rely on Windows and have few viable options in times of need is dangerous for the Internet and dangerous for life on the Web. This dominance is also dangerous for the business models of Microsoft’s competitors of course, and unfortunately much of the analysis often stops at this business level. But far more important is the danger to a vital piece of our infrastructure — the health of the Internet itself.

Take the current setting as an example. The WMF vulnerability exists in the Windows operating system, the experts report it’s being exploited by a range of websites, visiting one of these websites is about all that’s required to be affected, there’s no official fix and news reports differ on the likely effectiveness of antivirus software.

So what is a person to do? Buy and install more antivirus and security software? Stop using the web until a patch is released? Try to determine which are “safe” sites to visit? The current answer seems to be angst, resignation and a sense of fear about the dangers of the Internet. This is bad for all of us.

A better answer is to have greater flexibility in operating systems and applications. One way to get flexibility is through diversity and competition, which gives people an effective choice about what option best meets their needs. Today one can use an Apple computer with a non-Windows operating system (as I do) and avoid many of these problems. But Apple isn’t the perfect answer, being a closed-source, single-vendor, more expensive alternative. And just about everyone seems to agree that the Linux desktop is not yet ready for most people. So the alternatives are slim, and most people appear to be stuck.

Another source of flexibility can be found in the competition of ideas that go into a shared resource, a process at the heart of great open source software projects. But one way or another, a healthy system needs the flexibility to adapt. And the people in the system need some way to demonstrate what matters to them.

These goals of flexibility, adaptation and choice drive the Mozilla project. This is one reason Mozilla Firefox has always been a “cross-platform” application. By “cross-platform” we mean that the same codebase can be used on many operating systems. We make sure Firefox runs well on a variety of Windows, Mac, and Linux operating systems. Other contributors make Firefox work on yet more operating systems.

We do this because it allows people a choice of operating systems. It allows that choice now, and it provides a key element in promoting effective choice in operating systems. It is much harder to change operating systems, or to move between operating systems, if the applications people use are different as well. Firefox removes this burden. Use Firefox on Windows today. Use a Linux machine tomorrow for some specific task — Firefox will be the same. Switch back to Windows for your main work, use a relative’s Macintosh when you visit them — Firefox will be the same.

Building a great cross platform application is not easy. It is extra work. t requires massive expertise and testing, and it requires grappling with the differences between operating systems so that the user doesn’t have it. In some cases it may mean not taking full advantage of some opportunities to integrate with the operating system offers. (Of course sometimes integrating with the operating system can create problems of its own, as the security issues with ActiveX have demonstrated.)

We do not do this because it is easy, but because it is important. The Web is still young — too young to be tied to a single path of development. Through our open-source, cross-platform applications the Mozilla project seeks to promote flexibility and consumer choice and to help build a healthier Web. It’s exciting and extremely challenging, and there’s no doubt it’s worth the effort.