Microsoft giving Europeans with Windows XP and Vista choice of browser, too
By Ross Miller 
posted Jul 29th 2009 12:33AM
posted Jul 29th 2009 12:33AM
As it turns out, it won't just be Windows 7 that'll be giving Europeans a choice of what web browser to use. In fact, the lengths that Microsoft is going to appease the European Commission is quite extreme. Ars Technica did some digging and here's the fine print of the proposal. Within three to six months of the EC's approval, an update will be sent out to Europeans with Windows XP and Vista, labeled "high priority" or "important." User who install the update and have Internet Explorer as the default browser will see the ballot screen on next log in, which will show up to ten different browsers with at least a 0.5 percent share of the market in the European Economic Area (EEA). Users can then choose to download something new, ignore the screen, or defer until an indefinite time in the future. Windows 7 users will get the ballot update within two weeks of the Commission's decision or by its October 22nd launch, whichever comes second. Extreme? You betcha -- but we can't argue over having more choice.
[Thanks, Adrian]
Options! Thank you! It's too bad it had to be mandated.
Oh come on. What the heck? If you want your different browser just download it! For goodness sake, you don't have to have a law to mandate that you can get more browsers. USE YOUR OWN WILL POWER!!! Is it that hard?
Yes. Downloading a browser is too dificult for the EU. They need help.
It's like all the AOL users now live in one place and run it.
What a stupid idea
You've always had options...
While the EU communists are at it, they should mandate Apple and the linux community do the same thing
FLOCK is the Best browser out there. It's secure too cause it's made by Firefox and has the underlined plateform.
@basril
WOW. You're literally too dumb to offend...
I am a proud European today. While the US dithers the EU has taken decisive action. Netscape is saved! I just can't seem to see it on the options page. NExt moth the EU will issue its momentous decision protecting the Commodore PET from the TRS 80
What a cock...
The whole point here is people don't know that they have options and microsoft tries very hard to keep their superiority by packaging the operating system with a functional browser labeled in such a generic way that people think it must be the only one in existence. Obviously there's a good point here or the courts wouldn't have sided against MS and forced this change.
Microsoft should make a windows XP theme for windows 7. :)
Myself, I'll choose Browser 6
Seriously, why hasn't Apple come under fire because they bundle Safari, and nothing else with OS X? I bet OS X users have a lower rate of adoption of alternate browsers (read: not Safari) than Windows users.
Because, Doctor, the MacOS marketshare is way less than one-tenth of the Windows marketshare. Microsoft have been found to have used their *market power* to reduce the ability of others to compete. Apple does not have that market power in the desktop OS market, so they cannot be guilty of using their non-existent power to reduce the ability of others to compete. Also, MS were not just found guilty of being a monopolistic company who bundled a browser, they were specifically called out for using their market power in an anticompetitive fashion. The intent of a company's actions is important in these types of cases, so as well as trying to establish that Apple is some kind of monopoly, you'd also have to find evidence of Apple's anticompetitive intentions, before you can say that the Safari situation is the same as the IE situation.
I don't understand. You guys bitch and complain when there are three different versions of Vista or 7, and those have clearly marked differences. Now you fight to confuse people more, with a setup page that throws a bunch of browsers in your face all claiming to be fast and secure.
People use IE because it is already installed. When they feel they want a better browser experience, they can venture out. Forcing end users to decide all the applications they want on their system on first boot is just tedious and a bad idea.
I would love to hear someone who doesn't work for a rival software company tell me how this is a good idea.
Internet Explorer in itself isnt bad, its the frustrating time consuming exercise of changing the default search engine that pisses me off.
Microsoft can call it whatever they like, MSN Search, Windows Live Search, Bing. Its still a lump of shit that i refuse to use.
You have to jump through hoops to change your default provider to Google, with Firefox its one click away.
Well at least you can change that... on Safari (mac version) I'm stuck with Google. No choice. Yet the Windows version offers Yahoo as an alternative. Go figure.
(Oi, Mac-fans, I'm one of you! Don't flame me on this, my primary OS is Snow Leopard.)
"Internet Explorer in itself isnt bad,"
Yes, it is.
I just finished some app testing, and IE is very much slower than FF, Opera and Safari executing the same JavaScript framework (imageflow and mootools). IE also forces me to put in hacks to get stuff to work that functions fine (and according to spec) in FF, Opera, Safari and Chrome.
IE's not bad in the same way that a Pontiac Aztek isn't bad...
You can change it if you want, you just have to edit a text file. Google it.
Im a fan of Google. Perhaps i just hate companies bullying me into using all there sub par services,
Google is the market leader for a reason, because its a great service. This isnt a PC -Mac debate because there is nothing KEEPING you from switching. No software incompatabilties, nothing.
I just tried changing it on ie8 (never bother using the search box so I haven't tried changing it before) and it was pretty easy. Just click the little arrow and then "Find more providers" and you choose which one you want and it pops up a dialog where you can check to make it default and it adds it as default. The only thing different from Firefox is Firefox has a couple preloaded already, while IE doesn't.
That's weird, when I have to reinstall OS's after their HDD's have been formatted or what not, I automatically change all of their search engines to Google, I'm not paid by Google, but 95% of people I help are Google users and just don't know how to change "that little box in the top right". My point is that when I first boot up IE I get to a simple screen to just click through and "install" and set as default the different search engines and accelerators, really not that challenging. True it's a couple clicks more than FF but nothing life threatening.
You may be going: "why the hell don't you just let them choose what they want to install!", because I am the person maintaining these computers and I know most of the people and as soon as they get their computer back they will just close that page to select all those options and go to Facebook.
"Im a fan of Google. Perhaps i just hate companies bullying me into using all there sub par services,
Google is the market leader for a reason, because its a great service. This isnt a PC -Mac debate because there is nothing KEEPING you from switching. No software incompatabilties, nothing."
Well whatever. You are free to use what ever you little mind convinces you is the best. Other people can choose for themselves.
No one bullies you into doing anything. It's a free service. Use it or dont.
What are you talking about? It's 4 clicks. Click the down beside the search bar, click "manage search engines" click the one you want and click "set as default"
Granted Firefox HAS no default and will stay with the last search provider you used until you change it, but it's only 2 less clicks. Is that REALLY all too much for you?
Its the principle.
Using BIng isnt going to make the sky fall but its about a company trying to obliterate all competition by using its own service as default.
Every computer illiterate person i know doesnt have Firefox and of course has the default Windows search provider.
Ian, I guess this is the first chance you've have to make out Europeans are even dumber than the Yanks. Milk it for all it's worth kid, opportunities like these don't come along often.
Anyway, your point that this was done cos Euros are too dumb to download their own browser still proves you are the stupid bunch
Bob Loblaw @ Jul 29th 2009 12:53AM
Just clicking on the downward arrow brings up a menu where you can select a different search engine; an via the last option you can change the permanent order... so I don't know where you're getting that information from..
CraigJ: Have you tried IE8? It's really not bad.
It just took me 7 clicks and 40 seconds to change the search provider to Google. Seemed pretty simple to me. I didn't even have to back out of any wrong dialogs, everything was pretty obvious.
left-click on the upside-down triangle next to the magnifying glass where your search engine is in the right-hand corner. click on manage search providers. done.
So I wonder if OSX will also be required to do so. Haha, who am I kidding? Of course they won't!
Why would they? It's not the same situation, it's not even close.
Here's a hint:
Microsoft sells software, and was telling OEMs what they couldn't install on systems. Apple makes computes and happens to write their own OS. Are you suggesting that the EU should come down on Apple, because Apple forces themselves to install Safari on their hardware? Maybe next they should come down on Nintendo because that's bundled with Opera. What if I want IE on my Wii?
who the hell would want IE on their Wii?
@CraigJ
It has nothing to do with any of those. This is all about size. When Apple starts to represent 90% of all computers out there, then yes, they will be targeted to introduce an alternative to Safari.
The point is to prevent a monopoly, to bolster competition, and to keep innovating, not stagnating.
IE's stranglehold was set by IE6, when at its peak, it represented some 90+% of all browsers connected to the internet. So strong was its hold that after almost a decade (IE was loosed on 2001), it is still around (still representing some 20% of all browsers. It also happens that IE6 was named one of the 8th worst inventions of all time by PC World... People are trying to prevent a repeat case.
The average user (that makes up the majority of end-users across the world) don't know how to install browsers, set defaults, or do anything other than point and click. This is made for them... the tech savvy among you can change to another channel...
Well said WS.
The average user is the kind of person who starts their browsing sessions by typing google.com in the address bar, then typing the name of the site they want in the google search box. They don't know how to set their home page, far less the search engine. And they don't even know, or care, what Internet Explorer is, they think their browser is 'Google'. I bet if you asked IE users what browser they use, half wouldn't be able to tell you, it's just 'The Internet' to most people. The same as they don't know that the Windows environment is actually just a program called 'explorer.exe', and they could change that too if they wanted.
"Microsoft sells software, and was telling OEMs what they couldn't install on systems."
People keep saying this, but do you actually have any proof? HP, Dell, Acer, and Asus (probably about 90% of the PC market combined) all have Linux machines, and Dell and Packard Bell have sold Firefox on their systems in the past.
I think OS X Users are users who KNOW there is something else besides Internet Explorer and even Safari. If You're using OS X, you most likely know there is other browsers to use besides Safari.
Heh, they only need one option IMHO, Firefox all the way man
honestly whats the point? if you are smart enough to even KNOW about another browser whats stopping you from downloading it in the first place?
and if you are using XP then IE is with you for life, windows updates along with windows explorer uses it.
Exactly - IF you're smart enough to know about other browsers. Most people aren't. Most of Microsoft's market share in both the OS and browser markets can be put down to people just sticking with the default.
You ask "What's the point" - well, the point is to inform people that they have a choice, and to make them make a conscious decision as to which browser to use, thus removing any claims that MS is abusing its OS monopoly to gain browser market share.
Basically, if you're checking sites like engadget, this change isn't about you
So why is that MS's responsibility.
This just boils down to a group of companies that couldn't get their browsers on as many machines as possible, so they get a crooked government court to force MS to advertise their products and strip theirs own off of their own OS!
Next stop: Forcing MS to provide alternatives to every frigging accessory in the start menu.
Why is it MS's responsibility?
How about because they're the ones WITH THE F***ING MONOPOLY
You can't abuse a monopoly you don't have!
I swear to god I am so sick of these "Why doesn't Apple have to do the same" and "next they'll have to provide Calculator alternatives" comments. Abuse of monopoly, look it up. It's not like there are any competitors for the various other start menu accessories, and certainly not any with a merket share that can be considered competing (including browsers with more than 0.5% market share was quite generous of MS, all things considered).
It's not a MONOPOLY, A monopoly means you have exclusive right/control over a market. They Don't have a exclusive control over the internet. They may have a monopoly over OS's being installed but by no means are they forcing you to use there browser. Hell technically they giving you the resources to substitute there own browser.
Ethos, they ARE a monopoly in the EU, as defined in the economic sense. That's been established for around a decade now, do try and keep up: http://bit.ly/47CaRm
But of course a random internet commenter's going to know more about economics than Milton Friedman, how silly of me.
@Charax
So your sayings there FORCING every single person in the EU to use there browser and ONLY there browser? I find that highly unlikely. Besides you're linking to a article that is 2 years old? I admit they MAY have a monopoly over OS's but don't try to say that they have a monopoly over browsers considering that its fair game!
Ah how lovely of puppies who apparantly never got to use windows 3.11/win95 and ofcourse don´t know what MS managed to pull off in those days. You´ve to understand there used to be a period MS wasn´t dominating what software was on the computers but then they started to demand from the OEMs to only install their software, ie Paint, Word and all other stuff forcing their direct competitors out of the market. Ofcourse now a days if you are a bit technical (which the mayority isnt) you can go to the internetz and get what you want but way back then when you were walking around in diapers downloading at a wopping 0.5 kb/s by the marvelous on Angelfire or Geocities that wasnt much of an option.
Now here comes actually the twist MS now gets you a whole package which for the ussual consumer is convenient yet for the competitors difficult to do anything with. Strangely enough especially the EU trys to breakdown such anti-competitive behaviour which massive penalties. It isnt like MS is the only target here, Apple is being targetted just as well though their processes in courth arent done yet so its a bit early to say Apple isnt targetted, caus they are only the outcome is still unknown. What is odd though to me as an EU person who only appriciates that my government protects me from evil companies is why yanks like to be shagged over and over in the ass by MS (and before Apple fanboys start laughing) and Steve-O. People should consider that the mayority isnt able to just download/install an alternative as well understands how to use actually an alternative. Don´t forget there is for example OO yet it isnt that vastly used not due the quality but because it looks different. So we should welcome actions from the government showing they are in control and not some international operating firm who likes to stickup the finger.
Serious economics fail in this thread for those arguing MS isn't a monopoly and it's irrelevant. EU monopoly is roughly defined as a 30% market share or greater - anything that allows the firm to dominate the market. Companies in this position can fall foul of competition law if they use their dominance in one market not only to the consumer's detriment in that market, but to use it to establish dominance in another. In Microsoft's case, they have a monopoly in the OS market (or whatever it's legitimately defined as) and with IE6 they could use that dominant position to restrict consumer choice in the web browser market, thus artificially raising the browser's market share. This was done by intrinsically tying IE into the OS environment, giving it benefits a competing browser couldn't easily match. That is the reason that it is only now where competition has reappeared in the market.
To stop this happening again the EU Competition Commission has decided that allowing the consumer to choose their browser when the OS is installed is a good way to encourage more competition in the browser market. The goal of competition law is not to prevent monopoly, which is not an inherently bad thing, but to prevent the abuse of that position and encourage competition as a method of increasing innovation.
Does anyone else think that Microsoft is doing this to get people annoyed, and once they complain to Microsoft about it they'll be redirected to the European Union?
No. The browser wars are dead. No one cares what browser people use. Its all about rendering pages at this point. Browsers are trying to be faster and present the latest and greatest.
The web broke wide open a long time ago. MS knows that they will be forced to do this anyway. They don't have a choice in the matter. Being cooperative is in their favour.
@WS I'm not sure that the wars are over. I mean, it's a lot less dramatic than the logo-dumping (look it up, it's really funny) days of Netscape vs. IE, but there IS a fierce competition, albeit with more contestants. IE8 is the limping grandpa following everyone else with sub-par speed. Opera 10b2 is faster than that, but still behind the leaders. And there is some weird oneupmanship going on at the front with Firefox 3.5.1 and Safari 4 neck and neck and Chrome's latest beta in front by a nose. But the Google offspring is a bit lightweight, with no add-ons or skins whatsoever to wear it down.