Microsoft reportedly randomizing browser ballots to appease EU, asks 'are you happy now?'
By Darren Murph 
posted December 6th 2009 5:39PM
posted December 6th 2009 5:39PM
Some might say that Microsoft just can't catch a break. Others might argue that it's getting exactly what it deserves. Whatever your take on the situation, it seems as if Microsoft may finally have the EU off of its monstrous back (at least momentarily), as a report has surfaced noting that said software giant is nearing approval for a new browser ballot screen demanded by the European Commission. As you well know by now, rivals Mozilla, Opera and Google all submitted change requests to EU regulators in hopes of having browser selection boxes randomized and not displayed within Internet Explorer. Purportedly, the all-clear will come down on December 15th (or earlier), and the antitrust case will be settled as Windows customers have a clearer choice when it comes to selecting a go-to browser from day one. 'Course, said ballot screen wouldn't be pushed out to existing users until early next year, but when it goes live users will be able to decide between Chrome, Firefox, IE, Opera and Safari for their browsing needs. Huzzah!
Shazam.
@altamont Shaboom.
@altamont ShamWOW!
On my personal computer, I use both Explorer and Mozilla's offering. Safari is not used by us. I do not use Chrome browser but am looking forward to the ChromeOS.
At the Institute, everyone is required to use only Thunderbird and Firefox, or Explorer.
@Dr Yusuf AlKindi
the "institute" don't you mean looney bin?
lmfao Google Chrome is better than any other browser anyways.
@TheSmartOne
no. chrome looks like it was designed by fisher-price with the stupid blue buttons.
@TheSmartOne: I gotta agree, Fisher Price definitely made Chrome. Chrome browser makes me not care one bit about Chrome OS.
@TheSmartOne
You're out of your mind.
1. Firefox
2. Opera
I'm low ranked already? Shit.
@TheSmartOne
don't worry. everyone here seems to be a firefox fangirl...
chrome is the fastest, and best.
why the fcuk would anyone want to download billions of "add-ons" constantly just to be able to see different web-sites? Firefox is a bloatware.
@artist: Why would anyone want to feel like they're using Building Blocks and Tonka trucks every time they browse the web?
@Jordan not my fault you play LEGO while browsing, mate.
@Troll
Ahh yes, the Fisher-Price argument. When WinXP was released, the Anti-MS people were saying that XP looked like it was designed by Fisher-Price.
Obligatory Ghandi quote: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
@Troll
It's too bad that Firefox is old and bloated.
@TheSmartOne I like Safari on OS X mostly because of the minimalistic design, and the dictionary function. Control+Command+D has helped me learn a lot of new words heh
@TheSmartOne
You're obviously still using XP. The chrome browser uses Aero on anything newer.
@CubeGuy Yea, Using XP on a shitty piece of shit Gateway netbook.
But even in Vista it's still the same.
@artist i would respect your argument, except that you're defending an open source browser by calling out on another browser for being open source. infact, google chrome publicly takes it to the next level by declaring that they themselves only do basics and process handling, whereas features are all planned to be user developed.
@mynk
FALSE. I didn't say nothing about open-source. I said that chrome is good because all the parts that make it work are under the hood.
FireFox comes incomplete, and you have to spend half a lifetime downloading little "apps" for it to work properly.
I just want to surf, not keep upgrading and tweaking my browser.
@artist I know right. Who wants to be able to download add-ons to customize your browsing experience. I mean we all surf the web the exact same way all the time. Add-ons are worthless. Totally agree.
/s
@TheSmartOne: I actually agree with you. Chrome is the best.
@artist I completely agree about having to tweak and upgrade Firefox - imho it hasn't been worth the effort since 2.1. Chrome is certainly a refreshing (and altogether familiar) experience - almost feels like using early Firefox again! Quick, efficient, minimalist (although you must run it with a reasonable theme, or Aero, for it to look acceptable!). That said, if you're going to try to form a coherent argument, please refrain from using double negatives! "Didn't say nothing"? Really?
I wouldn't touch Opera, Safari, IE or Chrome with a 10 foot pole.
@Evan. THIS is the kind of comment that makes people hate fanboys in general. seriously, IE, i understand, but i would use it just for the fact that microsoft is putting up with all your shit. opera is an amazing browser by far, with a very high level of customization and just load of well built unique features. something that firefox and a large portion of its developer base openly and gratefully borrows from all the time.
Infact, even chrome and safari take a lot of features from opera every new make and then say something like, "we've put together the best of everything you love."
safari on the mac isnt that bad, their speed dial front is really really nice, and their interface isnt as bad a chrome.
and for chrome, even though being the worst piece of shit software ever, i have to give kudos to its threading system and process handling.
@Evan
Douche, chrome's speed rocks,(opens after 4 secs from a cold start, for me) and opera has soo many ridiculous--and useful--features, though safari does=meh.
i do agree with you on ie, however. :)
@glenskey
"chrome's speed rocks,(opens after 4 secs from a cold start, for me)"
4 seconds?! Is that supposed to be fast or something? Seriously... For a featureless browser that's an eternity.
And it might render a page 50ms faster (can you even notice that?), but it lacks the features that make _using_ the browser faster, so at the end it's actually slow.
@Evan
You mean in the same way women won't touch you with a ten foot pole?
@Endadget
it rocks when your'e concerning my pc, especially when firefox can take up to 30 seconds to open.
@glenskey
Perspectives. Perspectives. Circumstances.
P.S. Is that a cat or a mouse?
Shouldn't Chrome OS also let you choose to run IE/Firefox/Opera then?
@nuck44 When ChromeOS has the marketshare of Windows (the way they are designing it, it never will), or if ChromeOS causes the browser usage amounts to push Chrome into the majority used browser, then it should. I don't think any of that will happen.
@nuck44: No, in this case the operating system IS the browser.
It also is FOSS (free open-source software) which means it cannot violate anti-monopoly laws by nature.
For Internet Explorer you have to pay for a Windows licence, which falls under paid goods/services.
@Pyronick
Now they have anit-monopoly laws???
@nuck44
Wait, doesn't Chuck Noris run Chrome OS?
Doesn't that mean the EU should also make him give people choices of Safari OS, Opera OS and Firfox OS too?
oh wait........ never mind.
@pastrychef Umm, yes. Though being a monopoly is not against the law. What you do when you have a monopoly is what matters. Specifically, Microsoft was found guilty of abusing their monopoly power in the operating system space to then try and crush browser competition. They were also found guilty of using very anti-competitve tactics to hold their OS monopoly. For example, in the mid 90s, Microsoft told PC makers they had to buy a copy of Windows for every machine that goes out the door, or they couldn't sell Windows at all. This meant that if a user wanted OS/2 Warp instead of Windows 95, the PC maker was still paying Microsoft for Windows 95.
@drakino
OS/2 Warp, wow that takes me back. But to be fair about that, MS did jiontly develop it.
@Region2 MS jointly developed OS/2 1.0 and 2.0, but not Warp versions (3 and 4). At that point, (around 94-95), Microsoft had no legal say in anything that happened with OS/2, but still managed to illegally help to kill off any chance it had.
This is ridiculous already. Microsoft owns Windows and IE, so if you buy windows I don't understand why you would have your panties in a bunch over Microsoft including their own software...
@Ark Not to mention they don't make money from people using their browser over another, so it really doesn't make a difference. FF is the only one that makes money, and I think they spend most of it on R&D.
@MJGAMER 1991 XBL
What else would they spend it on? Cookies?
@MJGAMER 1991 XBL Why would there be a browser war if there is no money to be made? Each browser maker makes money through a refferal fee for whatever search provider is used. Double benefit for Microsoft, since IE defaults to Bing now.
@MJGAMER 1991 XBL
No, they do not get paid per browser. Neither do Opera, Google, Apple, nor Mozilla. So why would they complain if they are not getting paid per browser as they are on equal footing with MS.
But MS does need to pay to accomidate these requests. It costs money to employ people, power the computers, etc. to create the specs, write the code, and test it. No, this is not a simple thing to write. I am sure MS is using a crypto RNG to decide the order in the ballot, as if Opera can find any reason to complain to the EU (if you start your computer at a specific time of the day, you always will get IE as first in the list, and that is just not fair *cry*) they will complain.
@LeJay
They spend it all on snacks for the staff, exactly. Gotta keep eating at the computer :
@Ark I can understand your point, but people rarely "buy" Windows...it just comes with their computer. The same could be said for Apple, but from a web dev's point of view, at least Webkit is standards-compliant.
This just in, EU forcing Microsoft to offer Mac OS X and Chrome OS upon boot up of Windows 7. Apple and Google says, "It's only fair."
@jDazs I hope that was a joke 'cause it really sound like a conspiracy theory by people that think Bigfoot lives near them.
The EU is so stupid.
there are double standards here. why isnt apple forced to give a choice? oh right, because it isnt MS. Marketshare means nothing when consumers have a choice, and they just happen to want to buy a windows computer. MS doesnt have a monopoly. it isnt a monopoly if you can choose to buy another computer like a mac or linux comp.
@Troll: Of course there is a monopoly.
Just because there are alternatives doesn't mean there is no monopoly...
The Microsoft platform (incl. Windows, Office and their file formats) are proprietary which is not particularly a bad thing.
But these "standards" are not fully compatible or crossplatform.
Don't forget that Microsoft used IE and WMP to force Windows Server licences. The same will probably happen with Moonlight/Silverlight aswell.
History is repeating...
@Pyronick
office has nothing to do with IE
you argument makes 0 sense