OSNews

Or, just like the wonderfully implemented ‘Choose your settings’ page in IE7, it’ll 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.

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.

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"?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.