6 ms·

Consumers win in the EU case against Microsoft & IE

14 points by gorm 17y ago

drhowarddrfine 17y ago
Web developers around the world fall to their knees with tears of joy and relief.
chaosmachine 17y ago
"On the ballot screen, consumers initially will be able to choose from Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, AOL, Maxthon, K-Meleon, Flock, Avant Browser, Sleipnir and Slim Browser. The first five, which are the most widely used, will be prominently displayed, and the others will be shown when a user scrolls sideways on the screen." That's quite a list, I don't even recognize some of them. I wonder if we'll have to start testing sites in 11 different browsers (not to mention different versions of each).
- camccann 17y ago
  Depends, how many of them are just another wrapper around Gecko or WebKit?
- rimantas 17y ago
  >I wonder if we'll have to start testing sites in 11 different browsers Nope. The number of engines is less than that. IE engine is used by Maxthon, Avant Browser, AOL, Sleipnir and Slim Browser. K-Meleon and Flock use Gecko (FF engine). Safari and Chrome use WebKit. Opera has its own closed-source engine. A couple of listed browser let you choose rendering engine: Maxthon 3 will let you use IE's engine and Webkit; in Sleipnir you have IE's engine and Gecko.
- halo 17y ago
  I wonder if this will result in more large companies creating browsers. If it takes around 2% marketshare to get on the 'main' list and you can get significant free advertising from it in Europe, perhaps it's worth Yahoo or Amazon creating their own browser, even if it's just a rebranded open-source browser or an IE shell created with minimal investment.
  - electromagnetic 17y ago
    I doubt it would work, Chrome's adoption has been phenomenal for its first year and due solely to the techies who adopted it with open arms because they all knew why it was good. Every techie on the planet is going to see through a Firefox or IE shell/clone. It won't get the market share and loyalist fans that Firefox and Chrome gained, so it certainly won't be hitting the top spot like Chrome did within a year of release.
jswinghammer 17y ago
Not sure anyone wins from this. I don't see why we need government sticking up for free products. People have been choosing Firefox for years now and converting their friends. What's the point of forcing the issue through law? I'm not sure why Microsoft is even making a web browser right now. I doubt there's a business case for it. So what exactly is anyone hoping to achieve with this?
- bensummers 17y ago
  Wouldn't it be nice if we could develop for standards compliant browsers which had the minimum of bugs, and there was innovation in this market? Microsoft's bundling of IE meant they had no incentive to produce a good product, and their lack of development has caused stagnation in the industry. Free markets are supposed to produce the highest quality goods at the lowest possible price. It obviously didn't work here, either because the free market theory is flawed or there wasn't a free market. The EU is trying to fix this.
  - jswinghammer 17y ago
    Right but browsers are a case of the free market working. It turns out no one wants to pay for web browsers but people like building them so we have open source browsers to fill gaps in commercial offerings. There aren't any serious barriers to entry for web browsers so we have a free market.
    - bensummers 17y ago
      Thought experiments: 1) What would have happened if IE had to be bought, or at least downloaded and installed? 2) What if Microsoft had formed a new company to develop and distribute their browser, and this company was expected to make a profit? 3) What would have happened if Netscape wasn't forced to make their browser free because Microsoft subsidised the development of IE using profits from unrelated software? I suppose the underlying question is whether bundling the browser with a monopoly OS allows a free market in browsers, and if it didn't allow a free market, what should the remedy be?
CWuestefeld 17y ago
Under terms of the European settlement, Microsoft will...send ballot screens ...to 100 million users of Windows XP, Vista and 7 operating systems in Europe who have set Internet Explorer as their main browser. Why only to those who have IE as their default? If they really want to be fair, they should let everybody get a fresh choice about which browser to use. I mean, if it makes sense to let current IE users choose to go to Firefox or Chrome, why doesn't it also make sense to let Firefox users choose to go elsewhere (even to IE!)?
- bensummers 17y ago
  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.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    The aim is to remedy Microsoft's abuse 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.
    - pohl 17y ago
      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. It feels like a very targeted remedy.

14 points by gorm 17y ago

Web developers around the world fall to their knees with tears of joy and relief.

"On the ballot screen, consumers initially will be able to choose from Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, AOL, Maxthon, K-Meleon, Flock, Avant Browser, Sleipnir and Slim Browser. The first five, which are the most widely used, will be prominently displayed, and the others will be shown when a user scrolls sideways on the screen." That's quite a list, I don't even recognize some of them. I wonder if we'll have to start testing sites in 11 different browsers (not to mention different versions of each).

camccann 17y ago
Depends, how many of them are just another wrapper around Gecko or WebKit?
rimantas 17y ago
>I wonder if we'll have to start testing sites in 11 different browsers Nope. The number of engines is less than that. IE engine is used by Maxthon, Avant Browser, AOL, Sleipnir and Slim Browser. K-Meleon and Flock use Gecko (FF engine). Safari and Chrome use WebKit. Opera has its own closed-source engine. A couple of listed browser let you choose rendering engine: Maxthon 3 will let you use IE's engine and Webkit; in Sleipnir you have IE's engine and Gecko.
halo 17y ago
I wonder if this will result in more large companies creating browsers. If it takes around 2% marketshare to get on the 'main' list and you can get significant free advertising from it in Europe, perhaps it's worth Yahoo or Amazon creating their own browser, even if it's just a rebranded open-source browser or an IE shell created with minimal investment.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  I doubt it would work, Chrome's adoption has been phenomenal for its first year and due solely to the techies who adopted it with open arms because they all knew why it was good. Every techie on the planet is going to see through a Firefox or IE shell/clone. It won't get the market share and loyalist fans that Firefox and Chrome gained, so it certainly won't be hitting the top spot like Chrome did within a year of release.

jswinghammer 17y ago

Not sure anyone wins from this. I don't see why we need government sticking up for free products. People have been choosing Firefox for years now and converting their friends. What's the point of forcing the issue through law? I'm not sure why Microsoft is even making a web browser right now. I doubt there's a business case for it. So what exactly is anyone hoping to achieve with this?

bensummers 17y ago
Wouldn't it be nice if we could develop for standards compliant browsers which had the minimum of bugs, and there was innovation in this market? Microsoft's bundling of IE meant they had no incentive to produce a good product, and their lack of development has caused stagnation in the industry. Free markets are supposed to produce the highest quality goods at the lowest possible price. It obviously didn't work here, either because the free market theory is flawed or there wasn't a free market. The EU is trying to fix this.
- jswinghammer 17y ago
  Right but browsers are a case of the free market working. It turns out no one wants to pay for web browsers but people like building them so we have open source browsers to fill gaps in commercial offerings. There aren't any serious barriers to entry for web browsers so we have a free market.
  - bensummers 17y ago
    Thought experiments: 1) What would have happened if IE had to be bought, or at least downloaded and installed? 2) What if Microsoft had formed a new company to develop and distribute their browser, and this company was expected to make a profit? 3) What would have happened if Netscape wasn't forced to make their browser free because Microsoft subsidised the development of IE using profits from unrelated software? I suppose the underlying question is whether bundling the browser with a monopoly OS allows a free market in browsers, and if it didn't allow a free market, what should the remedy be?

CWuestefeld 17y ago

Under terms of the European settlement, Microsoft will...send ballot screens ...to 100 million users of Windows XP, Vista and 7 operating systems in Europe who have set Internet Explorer as their main browser. Why only to those who have IE as their default? If they really want to be fair, they should let everybody get a fresh choice about which browser to use. I mean, if it makes sense to let current IE users choose to go to Firefox or Chrome, why doesn't it also make sense to let Firefox users choose to go elsewhere (even to IE!)?

bensummers 17y ago
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.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  The aim is to remedy Microsoft's abuse 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.
  - pohl 17y ago
    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. It feels like a very targeted remedy.