We’ve already talked about this whole browser ballot thing so much, that it really slipped past us that the deal has finally been finalised this week. This means that the EU has accepted Microsoft’s browser ballot proposal, and that the other browser makers can’t complain any more.
For the coming five years, users of Windows in European countries will be confronted with the browser ballot, of which the details are probably known to all of you. The ballot will arrive through Windows Update for existing Windows users, and people who install new copies of Windows will get it right away. OEMs have the ability to pick a default browser in advance. The ballot will be part of Windows XP, Vista, and 7.
“Millions of European consumers will benefit from this decision by having a free choice about which web browser they use,” Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said, “Such choice will not only serve to improve people’s experience of the internet now but also act as an incentive for web browser companies to innovate and offer people better browsers in the future.”
The agreement with the EU also covers interoperability pledges. “Microsoft will ensure that developers throughout the industry, including in the open source community, will have access to technical documentation to assist them in building products that work well with Microsoft products,” the company said in a statement, “Microsoft will also support certain industry standards in its products and fully document how these standards are supported. Microsoft will make available legally-binding warranties that will be offered to third parties.”
This means that from March 2010 onward, if you have a Windows desktop, you’ll be greeted by an annoying randomised ballot screen in which you have to tell Windows to do something you’ve probably already told it to do in the first place, i.e., to install and make default a decent browser. Pure innovation, this. No other operating system has this feature, giving Windows a decisive edge over the competition. Apple is shaking in its boots for what this will do to its carefully regained market position, and the Linux community will have to hold off its annual Year of the Linux Desktop.
Of course, this will greatly increase competition in the browser market, a market where, over the past couple of years, Firefox has gained a 25% percent worldwide market share, a share which is even higher in most of Europe. This is the same market in which a complete newcomer managed to nab 5% share of the market in less than a year.
Clearly, this market was in dire need of superimposed correction via innovative ballot screen technology. Starting March 2010, expect the internet to sprout flours and dispense vials of pure honeybunny unicorn love.
What she means is that millions of European consumers who already had a free choice will now be forced to exercise that choice. I generally agree with the overall goal here, but government intervention in technology like this just doesn’t sit right with me.
Generally speaking I don’t at all agree with this “requirement” but Government intervention can be a very good thing. I’d warmly welcome Governments taking action against for example Intel, who I think have done a lot of harm to the industry.
It’s a double edge sword.
Edited 2009-12-19 04:37 UTC
While I generally agree with the expressed skepticism about government on this I applaud the EU. I would like to see the minimum of intrusion by government into the lives of ordinary folk, in fact their is all ready far too much. However, the monopolies the rich and powerful need regulation, domination by corporations is not better than domination by government it is worse. We know that MS has a tendency to unreasonably exploit its near monopoly – MS having a browser monopoly will tend to lead to control of the Internet standards by MS and ultimately to users having to use Windows if they want the full Internet experience. MS will use one monopoly to to support another in the same way that Office supports Windows. The EU forcing competition is a good thing
Oh and I agree with the comment about Intel.
Firstly, I agree with government regulation in certain markets, however…
Are you sure about that? Think about all the tyrannical leaders of this world, past and present, then see if you can repeat the above statement.
With corporations, there typically is a choice. It may be a lot more hard work to get the result you want, but there is normally an option. With governments however, they have the ability to control your life down to the most minute details: tax levels, schooling, health, privacy, public transport etc. etc.
If the government of the country I live in does a really bad job and I want a ‘choice’ of government I can either wait until the next election and hope for the best or move abroad. The latter point makes me one of the lucky ones, there are plenty of people who do live under a tyrranical government and they do not have that option.
Yes, next question.
Edited 2009-12-19 08:40 UTC
The point was that corporations would be worse if they DID control these things. Stalin would’t have dreamed of being able to control when people took a toilet break.
Good point and no I’m not British South Africa Company vs Robert Mugabe government rule by kleptocracy well its tough call. however, the EU is not tyrannical is under democratic control and this went through reasonable judicial process.
I suppose the important thing is that individuals should have the ability to control their lives as much as possible, the powerful be they corporations, government, civil service etc need to be regulated and have their powers checked lest they usurp the rights of individuals to run there lives.
Obviously, a bad government can be a lot worse than a bad corporation. But assuming a relatively sane government (which I would say most Western countries have), a being controlled by the government is better that being controlled by corporations.
The reason is that a corporation’s only job is to get your money. They really don’t care about you. On the other hand, the job of the government is to protect the rights of the people. Governments often make mistakes, but they are supposed to be on your side.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the concept of government intervention wholesale. After all, what is the purpose of a democratic government other than to intervene (in a sense) in situations where the individual has no power?
The problem I have here is with the method of intervention. The precedent being set with the browser ballot is that a government has the right to mandate changes to a user facing component of a piece of software, not for safety or security, but to affect a change in market share. Not only do I wholeheartedly disagree with this, but I also think it will have very little effect.
Honestly, I would have preferred a ruling that would forbid OEMs in the European Economic Area from bundling a web browser with a machine unless it measured up to some specified level of standards compliance. It’s a much stronger solution, but there are already precedents for governments regulating the bundling of products and it would have actually made a difference.
As for your comments about regulation, it is a sad day indeed when our only choice is between overbearing government and corporate fascism.
They didn’t mandate it. MS offered it.
Bookmarked for claim chowder.
The only potential problem I see is OEMs being able to pre-choose the browser. Will MS apply pressure behind the scenes on OEMs?
The OEMs is where it’s at. A lot of computers ship with Windows and thus IE. In most shops it’s hard not to get a computer with Windows. If at all.
On the issue of standards compliance, their was not even one browser vendor who was interrested in that proposal.
No one wanted _a lot more_ government regulation.
Millions of Europeans never even knew they had a choice, and Microsoft illegally tried to keep other browsers from competing by, among other things, tying critical web technologies to Windows and bullying OEMs.
Atleast now all the browsers companys should stop shouting at Microsoft. Concentrate on inovation, bring up the healthy and tuff competition.
IE 8 won’t be this great without the tuff & true competition from FireFox.
I like this true competition a lot.
Bring it on!!
That’s just BS. OEMs are where the change should come from, and they use the browser which generates the best income. If Microsoft pays them $1000 for every IE installed as the default browser, then they install IE as the default browser. Same goes for everybody else, too.
The world will change little.
Ah yes, you’re right, religious “free market” fanaticism does not equal competition
OEM’s are excluded, what a dumb decision. While I fully understand it, it would only make sense in a really open market. Which it isn’t. It’s a monopoly. We get a one time popup and after that, they go back to IE when they get a new computer in a few months or years.
We all know Microsoft will force OEM’s to make IE the default or hike up the cost of Windows for that OEM.
Or lower the marketing budget is probably what they will call it.
The OEM probably gets some of the money back as marketing budget.
Edited 2009-12-19 14:12 UTC
I wouldn’t bet on that. Since when has an official stance stopped anyone from complaining? Just watch: in a year from now Opera will bitch and moan again since they still won’t have much share on the desktop, the others will complain that IE still has an unfair advantage, and the list goes on and on. It isn’t going to end here, especially since they’ve now figured out that they can work at the EU to try and get the results they want. It’s a bad precedent.
Bookmarked for claim chowder.
Edited 2009-12-19 08:36 UTC
Ah, I see the “claim chowder” nonsense, which started in Apple circles, has spread to other fields as well.
Too bad.
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Opera has been working on their interface and they gain new users again. I don’t know if their complaints are appropriate or not. I do know if they work on technology they gain users. So I sugest to focus on that.
They are right, IE does still have a big advantage. New computers, the OEM can choose in place of the user and thus Microsoft will force the OEM to make IE their choice. Microsoft still has power over the OEM’s.
This is just silly FUD.
Opera hasn’t been bitching and moaning at all. All Opera did was to report Microsoft’s crimes to the authorities. If Microsoft stops breaking the law, there will be no reason to report them anymore.
Opera exhausted every other possibility in attempts to turn Microsoft around. But it wasn’t until the government got involved that Microsoft fixed up IE8’s standards mode instead of promoting even more proprietary crap over open standards.
All the good things Microsoft have done lately? Yep, a direct result of government intervention.
So instead of moaning and whining yourself, how about educating yourself about the basic facts?
Does this mean the end of the whinging and whining from OSNews on the matter?
Yeah, but this newcomer has been pushed by the biggest Internet company with unlimited ads on some of the most popular websites…
And Chrome is a newcomer in name only. It’s based on lots of existing code (WebKit in particular).
I saw an actual physical billboard advertisement for Chrome today, a poster campaign for a web browser?
People, we’re through the looking glass, etc etc.
Thom,
This editorial is unreasoned and your attempt at irony is ironically self-defeating.
If you cannot offer any meaningful commentary on a piece of news, don´t editorialize. Stay out of it and let readers of the site decide what it actually means.
Edited 2009-12-19 10:48 UTC
Don’t take everything so seriously. If you can’t handle a little over-the-top attempts at humour, then maybe you should step away from your computer for a while.
It’s just ones and zeros, people.
I happen to think that this agreement is a fairly big historical milestone for the web. As you posted:
“Microsoft will ensure that developers throughout the industry, including in the open source community, will have access to technical documentation to assist them in building products that work well with Microsoft products,” the company said in a statement, “Microsoft will also support certain industry standards in its products and fully document how these standards are supported. Microsoft will make available legally-binding warranties that will be offered to third parties.”
The terms of those warranties remain to be seen, but it looks like a step forward. So, no, this is not just about a browser ballot and that´s not all that it will mean for readers of this site, many of whom are web developers.
You seem to be taking it very seriously yourself, whining about how unfair the world is to Microsoft for punishing it for its violations of the law.
How about a ballot asking which OS you want to install?
You buy the PC with no installed OS. Turn it on and you see a graphical display of available operating systems – Windows, Linux (various distros), BSD, Haiku, etc. Select one and it connects to the internet, downloads, installs and configures it. (and get refunded for cost of Windows if it’s not chosen)
They should have had that 10 years ago. Maybe BeOS would still be alive.
Edited 2009-12-19 13:57 UTC
Yeah, we’d still have DOS. Would make those pesky OEMs and chip makers busy.
You may be on to something. A liveCD that presents a list of OS then kicks off the install. You could even have it download the specific OS disk and cook it to disk starting the install with a reboot.
Hmm.. who out there can clue a minimal liveCD distro together with an X and OS selection wizard.
Perhaps one of the organizations that has already made a multiple-OS live CD/DVD.
Here’s one called “Multi-Distro”: http://multidistro.tlm-project.org/md_en.html
There are others. I think that Linux Format magazine has released several multi-OS live CDs/DVDs, over the years.
Also, a quick web search will yield several tutorials on how to burn a multi-OS live CD/DVD.
Katana multi-OS liveCD would be the example in my own area of interest. Knoppix deserves some serious recognition for the liveCD. Including multiple images on one disk is a great extension of that.
Let me daydream a little more though:
User gets the multi-installer disk and slips it in the machine. It presents a list of distributions with a description and a screenshot. Perhaps it runs a localized version of the Linux Distribution Chooser questions.
optionally, it checks the hardware against selection of distros for compatibility. It may even pull drivers for hardware to merge in with a give OS install. Debian pulls discovered kernel mods off a usb or floppy so it can be easy on the installer/distro side. Nvidia provides a good driver bundle that anyone can wget so it can be easy on the vendor/installer side.
optionally, it contains bootable images that can then bring up the selected OS. The only challenge here is space since a DVD will only hold so many CD ISO.
optionally, it contains network install images that kick off the applicable installer wizard and download process. The user does not get the benefit of a pre-install test run this way as they would with the liveCD.
optionally, it downloads the applicable livecd image rather than having them on the DVD. The image could be downloaded and booted directly or maybe it burns the image to a blank disk; keep dvd writer and .iso in ram and have user swap disks. The first installer disk essentially manages the distribution choice and install media creation then leaves the user and applicable distro installer alone.
optionally, it uses a webapp that presents a selection interface from your own apache. That builds a custom liveCD after user distribution selection is done. This means supporting liveCD customization of all listed distributions but it’s at least on the local server for easy development and less processing load on the client side.
optionally, it may even include custom local installer for supported distributions presenting a common wizard experience but tapping the package manager and repository for whatever OS is selected. This may be the most ambitious as your writing your own installer superseding the distro provided one and it’d have to support all the distros listed on the disk.
On the maintainer side, how many major distributions are listed on the DVD. How many are fast changing versions which will take more time to keep the disk updated with. Do you do a library of disks listing different distribution categories (desktop, server, security, tiny, specialized)?
The base liveCD is easy enough up to the GUI layer. One would need to write the distro selection wizard and database of distro related screenshots and information. One needs to then write a kickoff process be it a download and boot/burn or unified installer reaching out to the relevant distro package source.
Installers are getting pretty good from wizard installers to the boot and stamp method like Ubuntu. It’s still a world of download-burn-install distributions though. This disk would be concerned with vetting the given hardware and guiding a distro selection process and automating the download/burn steps. The distro disk is then in the drive so close the burn and tell the hardware to reboot; whammo, distro native install process.
No. All the user has done at this point is tell the installer to install Windows, implicitly trusting Microsoft to make the browser decision because no one has asked them.
I’m distrustful of all these 25% claims. Yeah, I know someone will probably show up with a link somewhere “proving” FF’s 25% market share. I live in the US, where when I notice someone running FF I consciously note it as a relative rarity. And in my world, I have service vendors telling my users what browser they *have to* use… and it’s not FF.
But let’s assume that 25% is really representative. Say ‘other’ is taken to be 5%. And various IE versions add to 70%. (Feel free to quibble.) Can we honestly look at a situation where, for the first time since MS ‘cut off Netscape’s oxygen supply’ and ‘knifed the baby’, IE’s closest competition has finally achieved a position where IE only leads it by 2.8:1, and call it ‘healthy competition’?! Especially when MS still has the ‘default advantage’? Can we?
As I’ve said in other posts, the fact that so many seem ready to do so says more about the dismal situation that we all got used to over the last 10 years than it does about the current state of competition, which is… well… better than it used to be, I guess, which isn’t saying much.
I support this ballot and will be glad to see it go into effect. But it, alone, is not enough. It only addresses relatively technical users, and that’s not where the real battle is.
The next thing that needs to be investigated and addressed is preinstalls, which is where most Windows installs come from anyway. Most users I know would be a afraid to change their browser even if they knew how. And neither Microsoft Corp, nor Google, Inc, nor Opera Software, nor the Mozilla Corporation should be allowed to gain unfair advantages on preinstalls. Integrators installing the browser of the corp which is the highest bidder *is not* in the interest of The People of Europe or The People of the United States, or The People of anywhere else.
Don’t expect me to wait ‘a year’ to say that this is not enough. Because I’m saying it Right Now.
Today, we have the best shot of actually seeing real, healthy competition in the foreseeable future that we have in many years. And this is not the time to blow it through complacency and/or overconfidence.
Edited 2009-12-19 23:00 UTC
I would like to see ballott for browser on Ubuntu, mandriva, Debian etc.
And especially a “big icon” to remove konqueror successfully without breaking KDE.
apt-get remove konqueror doesnot work…try yourself
Just like IE is part of windows, konqueror/khtml is deeply rooted in linux distros, So why not same LAW for linux..
wait…is there any “uninstall” program for linux….??????
I wouldn’t mind a choice during installation.
What does this have to do with the current topic?
OK:
root@firefly:~# apt-get remove konqueror
Reading package lists… Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information… Done
Package konqueror is not installed, so not removed
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
root@firefly:~# apt-get remove firefox
Reading package lists… Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information… Done
Package firefox is not installed, so not removed
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Really?
BTW, I choose to use Epiphany, which is now Webkit-based, although the default for my distro is Firefox with Gecko.
But the point of the ballot… and the topic here… is ‘browsing on the greater Web’, which has little to do with what the OS uses internally to handle html. So I don’t know why you bothered posting something so far off the current topic.
Edited 2009-12-20 00:19 UTC
aptitude, apt-get and KPackagekit are all installed in Kubuntu by default, and they can all perform as an “uninstall” program.
“apt-get remove konqueror” does indeed work, as does “aptitude remove konqueror”, as does selecting konqueror for removal via the KPackagekit GUI and then clicking “Apply”.
Once one has removed konqueror, there is no browser installed.
Also, one can install another browser, say arora, or firefox, or epiphany, or iceape, or abrowser, or seamonkey, without having any browser installed, by using apt-get, aptitude or KPackageKit.
One can easily have all of these browser installed at the same time, if one so chooses. Any one of them can easily be set as the default browser at any time.
Please do not spread FUD about a subject where you obviously know nothing at all about it.
Edited 2009-12-21 11:38 UTC
Because Linux is not a monopoly, while Windows is.
I’m basically supportive of what the EU is trying to do here, but I think that a “browser ballot” is unnecessarily complicated. Seems like it would have been easier to have OEMs just install all 4 popular browsers (IE, Firefox, Opera and Chrome) and let users choose whichever ones they want. The unwanted ones will either be ignored or get uninstalled.
I have 3 browsers on my Linux system (Firefox, Opera, Konqueror) and use different ones dependent on my needs. I find that Firefox is best overall, but some web sites don’t render very well with it and for those I use Opera. Konqueror is best for big downloads thanks to its easy auto-resume feature. For Windows, I see no reason not to give them 4 browsers, and let users do with them what they wish.
The bigger issue, in my opionion, is how Microsoft gets away with requiring their OEMs to install Windows-only. An OEM cannot, for example, offer a dual-boot Windows/Linux machine, even at a buyer’s request. This is outrageous and should be illegal. This would be like Coca-Cola demanding that any stores selling its product be prohibited from offering Pepsi. Imagine Intel dictating to computer stores that they can’t sell AMD products, or HP prohibiting the sale of Canon printers. Seems like a restraint of trade to me, but only Microsoft gets away with it.
Edited 2009-12-20 02:35 UTC
I’m not too sure if this has been mentioned before, but what about the little guy. There seems to be an inequity in that the little guy is left out of the picture. Say Dillo was ported to Windows – would Dillo have been shown on the ballot page?
What constituted the minimum requirements of a browser for it to be listed? We know it is not proprietary software… is it good marketing? Support?
To use a Microsoft example… it is like providing a six pack of soft drinks with 3 being coke and the others being pepsi, but no where was there space for 1 bottle from mom and pop who have made their soda in the back yard.
If someone could provide the minimum requirements for a browser to be considered it would be appreciated.
Probably not. A browser in the ballot should at the very least have a proper organization behind it.
Market share. The 12 “biggest” browsers will be included.
As a developer primarily working with the web, any action from anywhere that may lead people away from IE is great.
Giving people the choice of a browser would at least make them a bit more aware of what a browser is. A few years back when I was working with support at Sweden’s largest ISP we usually had to tell people to start the Internet because they never knew what we where talking about when we said browser, or even Internet Explorer.
These are the same people who are never, ever, going to use anything other than what came with their computer. These are also the people doubling the development cost for the web because we constantly have to pay attention to bugs that have been known for six years but Microsoft doesn’t want to deal with. Working with HTML, CSS and Javascript is a pain everytime IE is involved.
I’m just happy something is being done, even though the purpose of the ballot is not the same as mine.
The biased and ignorant comments in the article text are pretty weird. For example:
Mozilla has explained how this proves that the browser market is broken:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2009/01/competition_is….
“When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other “traditional” browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.’s dominance, there’s a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel – default status for the OS bundled Web browser.”
Only because Google has an online ad monopoly, and they own some of the most popular sites on the web, so they can actually use their monopoly against Microsoft.
But even with probably billions of dollars spent on promoting Chrome everywhere, the market share is pretty pathetic. Not even 4% after all this Chrome spam all over the web.
It just proves how broken the browser market is.