You can no longer fully switch away from Edge in Windows 10 and 11.
It seems that Microsoft has quietly backported the block, introduced a month ago in a Dev build of Windows 11, on tools like EdgeDeflector and browsers from being the true default browser in Windows 10, with the change being implemented in Windows 11 too. Starting from KB5008212, which was installed on all supported versions of Windows 10 yesterday with Patch Tuesday, it is no longer possible to select EdgeDeflector as the default MICROSOFT-EDGE protocol.
They spent engineering resources on this.
Barring some sort of legal intervention, this is a battle that microsoft can ultimately win thanks to their privileged access to the OS. Given that this is the same sort of behavior that triggered their last antitrust lawsuit, I wonder what their thinking is here? I mean antitrust is supposed to prohibit such abuse Maybe their lobbyists are better prepared to “grease the wheels” of corrupt politicians this time around?
Or perhaps they can make a stronger case that platform restrictions have become accepted practice in today’s market and that they should not be punished for doing the same thing as competitors. This is how I see anti-competitive restrictions becoming normalized and legally accepted š
I’m gonna get hate for this but fuck it, truth is truth, and there IS A REASON that Microsoft has to be aggressive in blocking browsers switchers, its because there is a metric assload of shovelware that would force a browser switch on clueless users!
I work in PC repair and before MSFT started getting nasty with blocking browser switchers? Someone finding their browser swapped to Chrome complete with some spyware/adware extension was one of my top complaints and even in 2021 there is a ton of “freeware” that if you don’t diligently read the 40 pages of fine print will try to stuff a browser with its home page set to some adware. Nothing would piss me off more than having Firefox with adblock and the customers favorite sites all preset only to have it hijacked by Google or in a couple of cases malware riddled Chromium with a chrome reskin.
So I’m sorry but I 100% support this as power users will find it trivial to go around but it will make it harder for scummy “freeware” to hijack grandma’s PC and stick in Google Chrome for free cash from daddy Google or to make cash from browser redirects to scammy fake search engines playing as Google..
bassbeast,
No that’s not a valid technical reason. Providing users with a switch does not imply leaving a switch open to malware. I’m not saying the switch should be accessible to any software you install, it can be protected by UAC in a control panel or some such. But by the time malware gets system level permission to make unauthorized system changes, it’s already game over for security and malware can do a whole lot more damage than merely switching the user’s browser.
Seriously for you to suggest that microsoft can’t protect a switch from malware is equivalent to saying microsoft can’t protect anything in windows from malware, but that’s what operating systems are for. For what you are suggesting to be true implies a serious level of incompetence by microsoft.
Do you have any evidence that isn’t anecdotal?
Does wikipedia work for you? Because it happens so often it has its own wiki page…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_hijacking
I have seen ALL of these in PC repair and while it might be trivial FOR YOU to remove a hijack browser and reset the default? I can tell you the vast majority have zero clue how to do that. Its one of the easiest ways for a “freeware” to make easy cash.
BTW Kaspersky also has an article as its considered a form of “drive by”, its listed under “bundleware”. And if you want to try it yourself feel free to just start downloading freeware from some place like Major Geeks and see how many have something bundled.
https://www.kaspersky.com/resource-center/definitions/drive-by-download
bassbeast,
Your wikipedia link cites sources from a decade ago when browsers made it easy for javascript to replace home pages and search engines. these problems were more prevalent back then but they’re not examples of replacing the browser itself, which this article is about. Rather they’re examples of replacing the home pages and search engines.
The solution to all of these things is NOT to prohibit the owner from selecting other browsers, but to enforce that the configurations are protected from changes by arbitrary programs. In other words, it’s not a problem for operating systems to protect the settings as long as they give owners a way to control the operating system. It’s the difference between an operating system acting on behalf of the owner, which is good, versus confining the owners in a jail in order to deny owner choice, which is bad.
Of course they did.
How else would they ensure the user’s default browser is not hijacked by a malicious software? Shall we return to the wild west years of making everyone Administrator, and every installer bundled with at least two IE toolbars?
sukru,
They could ask the user’s permission, which would be far more user friendly than disregarding user choice. And for what it’s worth microsoft are the one hijacking the browser, many users would rightfully consider microsoft to be the malicious party in this specific instance.
Sorry. I was trying to be sarcastic.
Of course users having the ultimate choice is the way it’s supposed to be.
sukru,
Oh, that completely went over my head.
Can you use your contacts at google to add a sarcasm detector to chrome for sarcastically challenged people like myself? š It would be a novel use of neural nets!
No worries. And thanks for helping figure out my tone was a bit too serious.
You must be living under the rock? Windows 10’s first user, still is, by default, an Administrator. However, it now ask the user for permission if a program wants a root-level access. This is still totally different in Linux, where a user has less privilege by default.
But why? Do they earn money out of being the default browser? Or is it yet another push to boost bing?
cevvalkoala,
Yes I would think so.
Search engines pay a lot of money for the exposure be it google, yandex, baidu, etc.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/15/21370020/mozilla-google-firefox-search-engine-browser
Apple is estimated to rake in a cool $9 billion from search deals annually…
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/1/21310591/apple-google-search-engine-safari-iphone-deal-billions-regulation-antitrust
Firefox is evaluating whether to do a deal with bing…
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/mozilla-tests-microsoft-bing-as-the-default-firefox-search-engine/
Clearly for microsoft, every user they can convert to Edge for free will help them sell their ads without paying for users. Using their OS monopoly to pressure users into using microsoft’s browser is an effective way to take users away from rivals. I would have thought this to be an antitrust no-no, but it seems regulators are asleep at the wheel and have let apple get away with it for over a decade so who knows. Depending on how aggressive MS becomes with coercive tactics that make it too difficult to use alternatives, they could realistically overtake firefox and it could be a reboot of MS-vs-netscape.
In the browser wars it’s all about market share.
The short answer is yes. They use the browser’s market share to increase Bing market share which is where the money is generated. Without Windows and IE/Edge, Bing would be long dead.
The long answer is a bit more depressing.
The browser can bundle or integrate other products and services. Google does this to a great extend with Chrome. Again, mostly a market share issue, but it can go uglier than that. Being integrated with the browser can also become a competitive advantage on other levels. And browser usage data might be exploited.
The browser can act as a gatekeeper to the internet for example, alter websites, tell the users which sites are good or bad. Microsoft is already doing this: https://www.windowslatest.com/2021/12/02/windows-11s-edge-is-trying-to-dissuade-users-from-downloading-chrome/
The browser is also a piece of software that supports specific technologies, and not others. A power that can also be wielded to gain a competitive advantage, or to stifle competition. (Product X is better than our product, let’s make it harder to use Product X with our browser..)
Ford Prefect,
These are good points. In it’s heyday, microsoft had great power over the web because of IE’s market share. Apple was able to steer the HTML5 standard away from open source streaming codecs exactly because of the safari monopoly on IOS. However without any browser market share, one no longer plays a central role in setting standards and looses influence over the web to rivals.
It’s also worth knowing how browser makers have the potential for rich tracking capabilities that can extend beyond their own web properties, giving them lots of user data to monetize.
https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf
Remember, Microsoft already fought this battle once before. After the Netscape IPO, their whole strategy became focusing on the success of Internet Explorer so that they would not “lose the web”. That already resulted in one anti-trust action.
If Microsoft controls the client, they can advantage their search engine as you say. They can also advantage their cloud, their dev tools, and everything else they sell. They also get all the telemetry and instrumentation with the invaluable customer insights that this entails. They also have the platform to message back to the customer directly and then you get the virtuous loop of knowing directly how well that messaging is working.
There is a reason that Google gives us Chrome. These “free” clients for us are immensely valuable to the companies that provide them.
There is just no way possible for Microsoft to lock down Windows to Edge. In addition to that they will pay a hefty fine for what they are currently doing. Forget all about about “deflectors” and just sue Microsoft for abusing the monopoly position. It was done successfully in the past and it’s time to do that again.
Geck,
Since they control the kernel, and have established forced auto-update capabilities, they can literally add whatever restrictions they like. Windows owners these days have less control over their own machines than microsoft does.
That’s the big question. There are many politicians in government working on the side of giant corporations and turning a blind eye to anti-competitive behavior because they think US owned monopolies are a strong asset for US dominance in tech. And even though it corrupts free markets, they may be right. Going after corporate giants with lawsuits to balance the tables could end up weakening US lead around the world. Microsoft, google, apple, facebook clearly have unfair market advantages that harm competition but since these are US companies they’re kind of encouraged to continue monopolizing power. Furthermore since all of these companies benefit from minimal government interference, they’re unlikely to sue one another over antitrust issues because they all have a lot to loose. In a sense it’s kind of like the military doctrine of “mutually assured destruction”.
Or they can just read the previous ruling again. On what it says. And remember their pledge. What likely happened is previous generation retired. Younger generation took over and they have no recollection of what went on in the past. It’s time they get a reminder.
Geck,
I don’t think it’s been forgotten though. I think it’s really come down to actors in the government who reject previous rulings. It’s not so different from the way net neutrality was established and then taken away by placing a corporate stooge in charge of the FCC. Or Roe versus Wade being settled by the supreme court decades ago and is now in the process of being overturned now thanks to loading the bench with a new breed of conservative judges who don’t care about legal precedent.
So I think what’s happening is more sinister than merely having no recollection, I think those in charge are actually in favor of catering to the dominant corporations and aren’t bothered by the loss of competition. This is why I predict even more anti-competitive abuses in the future, not less. The EU seems to be one of the few governments doing anything about corporate abuse, but they can’t do it alone.
Not sure about that for the time being. It could end up being the case. But for now we are not there yet. What Microsoft is now doing is the exact opposite of what an active and valid ruling is forbidding them to do. This is where we are now. An appropriate actions hence must be taken. Instead of “deflectors” it’s time to take legal actions.
Geck,
IMHO companies have been getting away with plenty of anticompetitive actions including blocking alternative browsers for years. So my guess is that microsoft has a 50:50 shot of getting away with it. Whatever the case may be though microsoft evidently likes it’s odds enough to pursue this strategy, which by itself is a sign of how much things have changed.
It’s not that I disagree with you, it’s that I don’t have much confidence in the government to finally step in and and curb the anticompetitive behavior of our trillionaire companies. Even if they do something I expect it will be too little too late to help competition. But this is just my opinion, time will tell how things will play out.
Microsoft has no real shot in getting away with this. As if nothing else bureaucrats wouldn’t allow to make a mockery of themselves. Lets not forget this was settled years back and Microsoft knows exactly what is allowed and what is illegal. The final agreement was very clear in this regard. If they won’t stop it themselves then they will for sure get reminded by others. And Microsoft will comply. But i agree that some party will need to take action. As it won’t get resolved by itself. If there will be no compliant.
Geck,
You are speaking as though microsoft remains tethered by the terms of the previous antitrust case, but all those terms have long since expired.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Settlement
Furthermore the determination of whether something is legal or not will not determined by our armchair analysis or even rulings of the past, it will be determined by the present day executive branch of government, which for better or worse is not the same government that we had then.
I don’t disagree with you that anticompetitive restrictions should be prosecuted, but 1) I think it is very premature to assume things will be settled or even prosecuted the same way, and 2) the DOJ settlement of the past was hardly more than a slap on the wrist with no punitive consequences. So long as the “punishment” doesn’t amount to much more than “stop doing the crime”, then there’s quite a large incentive for companies to block competing browsers anyways while waiting for a slap on the wrist that may not even happen.
I feel that it is safe to say upfront it’s a lost battle for Microsoft. That is trying to abuse their market position to give Edge an advantage. In the form of removing competition from the access to some relevant APIs or not giving consumers the choice to select a preferred web browser and by doing that to make it default. Not only will Microsoft comply there is a big chance a hefty fine will be involved. I wouldn’t count out other more severe measures. Like splitting Edge in a separate company. For example Nextcloud is now trying to make the inclusion of OneDrive With Windows illegal in EU. For a level playing field. It’s time to do the same regarding web browsers again.
Geck,
We know they are trying to abuse their position, but frankly the US government does not have a particularly strong track record of prosecuting today’s tech giants for anticompetitive abuses.
Based on what though? All the counter-points I brought up earlier still apply. The US government may prefer supporting dominant corporations because it strengthens the US position over the world stage.
Yes I agree owners should have the right to install whatever browser they want (and other software too). As I stated above, I think the EU is more likely to go after anticompetitive abuse, but won’t be able to level the playing field alone.
To be honest in general a government in a “western country” has no special interest or say in this particular case. Entities like lets say Mozilla or Google must start the necessary procedures and to set things in motion. I hence find it unlikely that a government would go after Microsoft directly. Because users of Windows can’t set default browser other than Edge. But this has history. And Microsoft did made some promises in the past. Hence maybe in theory some commission could start some procedure on its own. Realistically it’s up to Edge competitors. To set the things in motion. As having a monopoly and abusing such position is basically a non issue for you. As long as nobody formally complains and sets the things in motion.
Geck,
Did you know that the microsoft antitrust case was actually taken on by the the united states government itself? It’s true that private entities can go to court but it can be difficult to go up against a Goliath. Also increasing legal barriers have actually lead to the decline of these cases the US…
https://www.skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2017/09/private_antitrust_litigation.pdf
I’ve already pointed out the terms of the prior case have expired. If they’re to be found guilty, it will need to be on new grounds.
Really now this statement is not fair nor accurate. You know that I’ve been consistent in my position: owners should have the right to set their default browser. I would very much like to see courts throw the book at all corporations employing anti-competitive browser restrictions.
It would be foolish for dominant corporations to seek antitrust enforcement, so I assume you mean mozilla specifically? That’s a possibility assuming mozilla can afford to fund a major lawsuit for several years without knowing whether they’ll win. But another factor that we need to consider is that mozilla is desperate to diversify it’s revenue stream away from google. For better or worse bing is the second biggest search engine that can afford to pay mozilla. At the same time MS is desperate to bring more clicks to bing, so they’re a good match. Mozilla having other plausible contracts on the table, they can get both MS and google to bid more, but if google knows that mozilla has burned their bridges with MS, they can lower their payments to mozilla fully knowing that mozilla will have nowhere to turn.
So, I’m not saying you’re wrong about how things could happen, but I do think the calculus is much more complicated than it first appears.
This specific case is likely not something “the government” will tackle. It’s up to Edge competitors to set things straight. And i feel that it is safe to say that once that happens Microsoft will be forced to comply. In addition and based on the past they likely will pay a hefty fine for what they are doing now. And no things that went on in the past didn’t “expire”. They just need a reminder of that again.
Geck,
Maybe, but you’re still *assuming* there will be a trial. There may not be anyone both willing and able to go to court for a long trial plus one or more likely retrials. Secondly you’re *assuming* they’ll loose. Again, maybe, but this does not depend on our logic here so much as it depends on the makeup of the court. Both the federal and supreme courts have become more polarized thanks to bench loading by politicians. And like I said in my last post, even of mozilla were to win, there’s a high likelihood that it would deprive mozilla of non-google revenue sources.
Can we at least agree that there’s a lot of variables and uncertainty?
The terms of the past case did expire though, new terms would have to be established in a new case.
The thing is most judges likely don’t use Edge on Windows and most likely do use Windows one way or another. Bottom line. They do want to be able to set their default web browser.
Geck,
Haha, ok š
All of this is very predictably tedious because as the comments reveal none of this is a new problem. People who have acquired power are simply abusing it. As corporations and politicians borrow tricks off each other this removes the incentive for prosecution because to find one guilty you find the lot guilty. Aggressive wolfpack like or gang behaviour tends to go with too much testosterone.
You can either spend time gathering evidence, or call them out and slap them down. They don’t leave much room for moderate responses.
Microsoft executives and whichever regulators or politicians are turning blind eyes are corrupt. It’s that simple.
EdgeDeflector exploits a security vulnerablity. Yes it allowed you to change your browser, great. But it was also a mechanism to implement a man in the middle attack for everything that’s passed to a browser. So I, for one, and by the comments the Only one, happy that Microsoft patched this massive vulnerablity
Adurbe,
It’s a vulnerability in the same sense that sideloading is a vulnerability on platforms where users are forced to rely on jailbreaking. The real problem here is not with owners defeating the jails on their own machines, the real problem is that owners are being placed in jails on their own machines in the first place. Things like EdgeDetector would not be necessary if not for this perversion of security where owner control is considered a threat just like malware.
While i agree on the point of “owners are being placed in jails on their own machines in the first place” element, the liability (financial and repetitional) lays at the door of Microsoft. I think they are acting responsibly by blocking This mechanism. But Should offer a legitimate alternative. Whats interesting within this conversation, is should browsers who allow themselves to be set as default for things like help menus without having to complete some kind of testing process before being allowed? All well and good changing the default browser, but if that then breaks the help system (in Windows itself and in-app help) or introduces a vulnerability, it could have unintended consequences further down the line where the cost of support then gets passed on..
Adurbe,
I agree, legitimate owners shouldn’t be forced to hack into their own systems to gain control. But what happens when vendors denies owner control? Both windows and macOS are slowly but surely incorporating IOS-like restrictions where corporations rather than owners are in control. Is this what we want desktop PCs to become? If so I think this is incredibly naive in that all corporate control will inevitably get usurped by governments who want control of their own.
My emphasis. I think this design is part of the problem, a browser shouldn’t be setting itself as default. Rather the user should be able to set the system-wide defaults, but only if they take deliberate action. This is all well and good, however it assumes that the OS maker stands up for owner’s having the right to choose their own browser. This ideal becomes untenable when the major tech companies just want to force users to use their browsers. So I think their conflicts of interest are largely responsible for hacky solutions like EdgeDeflector in the first place.
Any given program may be installed intentionally or it may be nefarious. This is where tools like windows defender can come in and identify instances of known malware. In principal any vendor can hard code their own tools and block access to others, but then it’s no longer a general purpose computer. IMHO this is the antithesis of general purpose computing.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/12/hong-kong-stunt-election-democracy/621071/
“Hegemonic authoritarianism” is a good descriptor for what I was trying to articulate about the fun and games Microsoft have been trying to pull. If you swap out “nation state” for “computing”, “political parties” for “corporations”, and “rigged elections” for “rigged market”, and “veneer of democratic competition” for “veneer of technology competition” you have a rough equivalent.