After long negotiations and back and forths between the EU, Microsoft, and other browser makers, Microsoft’s browser ballot proposal has been amended and offered up for debate yet again by the EU; this time around, it will actually be tested out by consumers. A number of changes have been made since the first proposal, so let’s take a look.
The story of Microsoft’s inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows is a long one. In the United States, it led to the famous antitrust case in 1998, which was eventually settled in 2001. The European Union followed its own path with Internet Explorer, eventually coming to the conclusion that Microsoft had violated European antitrust laws.
In response to this and the upcoming release of Windows 7, Microsoft made the bold move to announce that Windows 7 would ship without Internet Explorer pre-installed in Europe. Users would have to download their own browser, which could be whatever browser they wanted. The EU was not particularly satisfied with this move, so it was back to the drawing board for Microsoft.
The company eventually came with a proposal for a browser ballot, which would give users the option of installing a number of browsers when setting up Windows for the first time, or as part of a Windows update. This proposal pleased the EU, but several other browser makers had a number of complaints.
After a lot of talking, there’s now what will probably be the final version of the ballot. The first change I saw was that the browsers are no longer listed in order of market share, but in alphabetical order, based on company name. This gives Safari the top spot.
Other changes are more subtle; there’s a page explaining what a web browser is, as well as the “Tell me more” buttons underneath each browser. The EU will also have the ability to review the ballot screen in the future to make sure it will continue to serve its purpose properly.
The EU seems content with the improvements. “The improvements that Microsoft has made to its proposal since July would ensure that consumers could make a free and fully informed choice of web browser,” the EU said in a statement. The plan is that the ballot screen will be shipped as an update some time after the release of Windows 7, and that users with IE as the default will get the ballot screen for at least five years.
Opera Software, the most vocal critic of just about anything related to this whole situation, did not yet have anything to comment on, as they are still studying the revised proposal. “Opera Software supports the concept of a ballot screen to give users easy access to better browsers,” said H~Ayenkon Wium Lie, Chief Technology Officer at Opera, “The important question is how this ballot screen is implemented. We are still studying the announcement from the European Commission and will have further comments at a later stage.”
Maybe Opera will suggest that the browsers be listed in reverse alphabetical order…
I’m wondering why they chose to implement it as a web page loaded by Internet Explorer. Well, not really, because we know the real reason: most people will close the browser ballot screen thinking “why do I need another browser when I have IE installed?”
They should have made it a Win32 app and not install IE by default.
*ducks*
Or, just like the wonderfully implemented ^aEUR~Choose your settings^aEURTM page in IE7, it^aEURTMll be automatically skipped by the autoload URL and straight on to that machine-crippling mess that is MSN.com
This will be pushed to users who have IE set a default over Windows Update, not for fresh installs.
How it will occur in a fresh install isnt a problem untill the First Service Pack of Windows 7. But i suspect it will be when the user first runs IE they will be shown it.
There are several companies in the local paper named ^aEUR~AAAAAAA^aEURTM (no, seriously), what if they decide to make a browser?
Putting this in IE is a mess, really. IE is _really_ not the best app for launching other apps and changing Windows settings. Not least the IE8 ^aEUR~Twenty Questions^aEURTM, which includes Set As Default Browser.
Yet more pain for IE users, yet more startup gumpf that makes booting a PC for the first time a 4 hour ordeal.
Thats the punishment for having a Monoploy
No, it’s the punishment for ABUSING your monopoly position. Most countries (USA included) have no problems with companies acquiring a monopoly, just in using that monopoly illegally.
A punishment is a fine. This is an attempt to correct an unhealthy market through regulation.
Funny thing is, the browser market is incredibly healthy at the moment. There is a high amount of competition and innovation going on. This would make sense if the EU did it about 11 years ago, would be understandable if they did it 5 years ago. Now it is either sad or scary, depending on where you live.
People say this. And the current landscape *is* starting to become encouraging. But we are not out of the woods yet. And overconfidence is, perhaps, our greatest enemy now. IE is still strongly dominant and still holds a major unfair advantage over other browsers. There is still a very real barrier to entry. Other browsers have to be substantially better than current IE to maintain their market share. IE still gets it by default and then *loses* market share if, and only if, it is substantially inferior, and if and only if the user is savvy enough to recognize it and find something else.
We are *beginning* to see some real competition. True. But the only reason that anyone might mistake it for a healthy market is that we are so very used to so much worse.
I try not to be too alarmist. But I sincerely believe that it is appropriate to sound the alarm in this case.
I completely disagree. IE is at 65% and dropping really fast. Depending on where you live, it may not even be the most used browser. Not only that, but studies are showing that IE is mostly used by people who have no control over the browser that they use (like people at work).
MS has not marketed their browser since IE4. Now they feel the need to. Firefox is breaking records for software downloads virtually every major revision. The major browsers are basically leapfrogging each other every revision when it comes to both features and performance. And solid new entries into the market are able to get a solid foothold in remarkably short periods of time (google chrome is 3% after a single year). Not only that, but the last time there was competition in this market, the competition was about proprietary features and lock-in, this time the competition is about implementation of open standards.
I would say the market is doing better now then it ever has before, and by a significant margin. We aren’t just beginning to see competition, that was about 6 years ago. We have multiple very mature offerings by several major companies all engaged in innovation and competition. Those are the signs of a healthy market, and healthy markets function best when left the heck alone.
I so disagree. 65% and dropping fast? That’s a little optimistic.
People who have no control over what they use? Like at work? How about sysadmins at work who have no choice about what to provide, because third parties require it for critical business apps that we have to use?
Home users have it easy. I have it easy for my personal use. I can flip the bird to any site whose admins and designers piss me off with their arrogance.
But when I am wearing my sysadmin cap, and my users are depending upon me to get the job done, I don’t have that flexibility. And if I’ve got to provide IE and then go discretely vomit in the corner for having been forced to do that for no good administrative reason…
I do not have that problem with any other browser. Not one. IE is unique in that respect. And I do not see respite close at hand.
I have the greatest respect for you. But from my perspective, I can’t help but feel that you are being a bit complacent in this matter. Although I do agree that things have gotten remarkably better than they used to be.
Edit: But the situation still reeks!
Edited 2009-10-07 22:46 UTC
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0
thats where i get my numbers from. They aren’t perfect, but it is the best we can realistically hope to get.
there are a great many companies where you are only allowed to install software that has been vetted by IT. Firefox uses a non standard installer on windows, which makes it a royal pain to deploy on a windows network. That means that in big windows installations, unless you have a good IT team who are willing to go the extra mile, chances are you are stuck with IE.
The other issue is what you brought up, virtually any intranet webapp that was written more then about 8 or 9 years ago is probably IE only (and probably only IE6). This will make up the minds of even good IT teams to only vet IE, since that is the only browser that will work with their internal tools. Anything written the last 9 years or so has less and less excuse to be IE only, and nowadays if someone writes something that is IE only it is a pretty good sign of incompetence.
This is where IE still has a stranglehold, and if you are going to correct things through legislation, this is where you need to do it.
Though IE 7 or 8 will run it. It’s still just “IE” to the business user. They don’t care about the fine print.
I’m not talking about intranet. I’m talking about Internet. Our intranets I have complete control of. I can rewrite anything I have ever written which is browser specific. Which, to my knowledge, is nothing.
My customers have to, for example, file warranty claims through IE Only, third party, Internet apps to get paid by the manufacturer for the service work they perform. To get reimbursed for the parts, paid for the labor, etc. This is their business.
So I’m supposed to pitch to my client that the folks at, for example, http://www.warrantycentral.net are just incompetent and that we should just not do business through them anymore? It would only cut my client’s business by about 90%. But these are thriving economic times. I’m sure they would say yes, as a matter of principle.
I think we live in different worlds when it comes to this particular matter.
Edited 2009-10-07 23:56 UTC
I think you misunderstand me.
Either warranty central was developed quite awhile ago, it uses ActiveX for some reason, or the developers who made it are incompetent. Most of these kinds of apps are internal, which is why I assumed that what you were talking about was internal as well. The point still stands that it is external.
I never said that you should tell your clients that they just shouldnt use warrentycentral.com.
My point is that this is the real problem that still exists in the browser world, and a browser ballot at install time (which will never be seen for corporate installations) will do absolutely nothing to address it. The browser ballot is addressing the main problem of a decade ago. The problem that is still here is in IT departments and old webapps, because outside of that space the browser world is absolutely fantastic.
I agree that the ballot does not directly address this problem. Although it indirectly helps. When I complain to the Warranty Central folks, they always point me to the warrantycentral.com site stats, which prove that everyone uses IE and almost nobody uses anything else. Seriously, they do.
I do support the browser ballot screen because IE as the default on new installs is just not the best thing for competition. The ballot is a small step in the right direction. But I caution that it should not be considered a complete solution. Not by a long shot. The vast majority of people get their computers from Dell or HP, or whoever. Now if *they* supplied the same browser ballot… I’d call that something possibly approaching a proper solution, if executed properly.
Things are better than they used to be. But I’m not sure that moving from “IE is the default” to “whoever is willing and able to pay the most for placement is the default” is really a good solution.
Users should make the choice.
Edited 2009-10-08 12:51 UTC
I am rather afraid of the consequences of this browser ballot thing.. I can bet that if the user clicks on Opera it will install itself as the default e-mail client, bittorrent client etc and then Opera will just say that they forgot to change those settings.
And then people will again bash Opera here on OSAlert. And when that subsides companies will start thinking about ways of getting their e-mail clients as the default instead and then Microsoft will have to an e-mail client ballot, too..And that probably will not be the end of those ballots.
You forgot to mention that people will also bash Microsoft here on OSAlert as well for allowing Opera to install itself as the default
(DISCLAIMER: That was a joke)
A site that only supports IE (and tells you as much on the first page you visit) only gets IE traffic?!? How shocking!!
Do you know what the actual issue is? Is their javascript incompatible, does the styling break, or are they using ActiveX? If it is styling, there is really no excuse, since there are billions of cross browser sites on the internet. Any web developer worth the name doesn’t even really have to think about it to be able to make something more or less look the same in all the recent browsers (not counting IE) it is just part of the job.
If it is javascript, it could be that they have a lot of it and just don’t want to spend the time supporting multiple platforms. That is a pretty crappy attitude to take, but it could easily be an asshole manager who made that decision. The end result is just not professional though, and if they weren’t the only option for your client I am sure they would have lost their business ages ago.
It’s the extensive javascript. I don’t think these folks even know of the existence of the href tag. Every “link”, everything, is javascript. IE6 javascript. Opera doesn’t work at all. Firefox doesn’t work at all. Webkit doesn’t work at all. IE under Wine has difficulty.
They *are* the only option. In fact, every restaurant equipment service provider which does warranty work (and who doesn’t?) in the U.S., and possibly beyond, has to use this site to get paid.
And I don’t think that this is just a case of bad luck on my part that I have to deal with a company like this. I’m pretty sure that this practice is quite common among specialized business critical web apps.
Just because more mainstream sites like online banking finally got a clue does not mean that the more industry specific sites, whose services are often far more critical than online banking, are not just as bad as ever.
This is why I bristle when people try to tell me that the IE problem is already solved and so there is no point in taking any further action. I generally translate that to “My banking site works now”.
Corporate intranets whose admins and programmers made a short-sighted decision and are now living with it are one thing; It’s only appropriate that they are penalized for making poor decisions.
But this is something completely different. Neither I nor my client made poor decisions. And yet we get to suffer for poor decisions made by Service Management Group, the proprietors of Warranty Central.
at least implicitly, that having a dominant marketshare (which she defined as over 50%) itself was “illegal”. (She was talking about Microsoft server share at the time, I believe.) That that was the abuse in an of itself. She went on to say, “Our goal is to drive Microsoft’s share down to below 50%” (as opposed to our goal is to end abuse, etc). So that, no matter what Microsoft did to address her concerns, it was inadequate if it didn’t drive down Microsoft’s marketshare to an acceptable level.
And there’ve been rulings in the EU where, if a company obtains over 50% share of a particular “market” (as defined by the EC), then that company is required to assist its competitors.
Lastly, there is a major difference between US antitrust law and EU antitrust law, in that the former’s goal is to protect consumers, while the latter’s is to protect competitors. So in the US, a company can do what it wants unless it can be shown that consumers are hurt. In the EU, it’s whether competitors are hurt that is paramount, and “punishment”/”remedies” are imposed even if consumers haven’t been hurt, indeed, even if those punishments/remedies hurt consumers.
This ballot is imposing an inconvenience on consumers (throwing a ballot in their face) in order to help competitors, even though the consumers haven’t been hurt because they already have plenty of browsers to choose from, and do.
Edited 2009-10-07 20:23 UTC
Did you miss the story where “Opera Software” is changing its name to “AAAAAAAOpera Software”?
Anyone else notice how IE is now in the center? I think that’s actually a better spot then the first in the horizontal list. I don’t think there is a good arrangement that would be perfectly fair. Maybe the order is randomly generated? Or is that just going to an absurd length?
I actually don’t really care that much about the browser ballot, but what I do care about is how to fairly present a number of options for a user to make an unbiased choice.
Aside: Wow, I just saw an add for pystar on Osnews! That’s pretty cool.
Edited 2009-10-07 18:27 UTC
if the goal is to prevent a browser from becoming dominant. So at the beginning of each month, check the marketshare, and show the browsers in reverse of that order. That way, it’s self-correcting.
So right now, IE should be listed last. Later, FF will be listed last (it’s inevitable that it will become the #1 marketshare browser, and that was the case even before this ballot thingy).
(Opera would always be listed first, or nearly so. They’ll always be at or near the bottom in marketshare and they’ll have one less excuse when this ballot doesn’t change their fortunes one iota.)
Edited 2009-10-07 20:06 UTC
That’s reasonable. Of course, you still have the thorny problem of a cut-off point. Should Dillo, Elinks, or Opera appear at the top? Or should they be excluded altogether? My own inclination would be to include Dillo, but to exclude Elinks and Opera. Like I say, thorny issue. But I do think that it is an issue which should be tackled, and not avoided.
Right next to the elephant in the room.
I’m not sure if you are joking or not. I don’t see it as being inevitable at all. I don’t consider it necessarily even probable. And I’m not certain it would even be desirable. I’m already starting to worry about the way Mozilla Corp is using its (relatively) new-found power. (Trademark bullying.)
It would, however, be better than the current situation, and IE’s dominance, IMO.
Well, there’s always Amaya, Lynx, Links, Links2, Curl, and Wget. But those are all written by card-carrying communists, and should be excluded on those grounds.
I don’t think the ballot makes much difference. Because only relatively savvy individuals (the minority) will ever see it. I think that the ballot would be great if conducted properly and if everybody saw it. But they won’t. Most people get their browser from God (Dell, HP, etc.) and are just glad when Facebook works, because they’re “computer literate” and proud of it. Except, of course, for the ones who aren’t, and laugh it off apologetically.
Edited 2009-10-07 20:41 UTC
Ok, but that would require an internet connection to pull the latest data and a reliable source to trust for the data. Again, I don’t really care that much about browsers, I’m more interested in the general static usability problem:
Given N choices of equal value to users, what is the best way to arrange them on a screen to get an even distribution of options selected. If T( a whole multiple of N) people select, then each choice is chosen T/N times.
Don’t know about you people, but I actually find all this ballot story hilarious…
There’s Microsoft trying to subtly make you select IE, there’s the EU suspiciously looking at them, and there are the other browser makers constantly ‘examining’ the situation.
If this was an Agatha Christie book, I’d say the butler did it!
Hehe,
just what I was thinking.. well maybe not the Agatha Christie part
I think we now need the EU to regulate in what words the different browsers are allowed advertise themselves in the list..
For example, now IE and FF are both claiming to “make the web better”. I’m confused.
Edited 2009-10-08 10:49 UTC
I know this is a troll post but i can’t help it.
The market was skewed for a very long time, but in the last few years has begun to correct itself. The EU choosing this time to intervene shows a profound lack of understanding on their part.
Internet Explorer is only a monopoly in corporate intranets at this point, and a browser ballot will have absolutely no effect on that.
And why is opera the one calling the shots? At 2% market share it is hard to reason out why they are even on the ballot in the first place. Also, why is opera trying to compete based on litigation? Firefox is pushing 25% at this point, they did it in a far more hostile market then currently exists, and they are not constantly in the news trying crush their competition through lobbying government. Google has managed to accomplish more in a year with chrome then opera has in the last 13, and without the lobby groups.
The fact that the EU is choosing now to do this shows a profound lack of understanding. The fact that they are even listening to a company that has failed in a market where others have succeeded shows a lack of judgement. And the fact that they are regulating a market that is thriving right now shows a lack of competence.
The squeaking wheel gets the grease? I don’t particularly care for Opera Software. And they are certainly looking out for their own interests, and no one else’s. At this point, I look at the current market and declare their antics silly but in the right direction. And at this point, Mostly Harmless to the greater market. We should keep an eye on them. They could be dangerous in the future. But at this point they are merely very pushy wannabe’s.
Well Opera is “studying the revised proposal” i.e. looking for something to bitch about.
I think there should be a wheel that you spin that randomly picks a browser to be installed.
Internet Explorer enjoys a market share that it does not deserve. If the ballot thing rectifies this situation, then it is certainly a good thing. To quote a certain Steve B., Internet Explorer’s market share should be more like a “rounding error”.
Why don’t you think IE has a marketshare it doesn’t deserve? After IE7 came out, I saw no reason to continue using Firefox since IE works just fine. IE8 is even better, UI-wise, with its tab grouping and nicely organized search suggestions. What am I missing out on?
browsers, since they’re not on the ballot. Moreover, it creates a barrier to entry for future browsers, and that barrier to entry is government-mandated.
I notice that each browser has a brief description but the one for IE8 says that it is better Faster, Easier, Safer. Compared to what? The ballot implies that IE8 is preferable to the other browsers.
They’re all going to claim to be best.
Better than a poke in the eye, Faster than molasses, Easier than calculus and Safer than a wet paper bag.