Microsoft Agrees To EU Browser Ballot Screen 438
An anonymous reader sends in coverage from Ars Technica of Microsoft's capitulation to the EU, after European regulators requested that Redmond bundle multiple browsers on new PCs. "Microsoft has decided that the last thing it needs in this economy is some combination of the following: fines, legal bills, and a delay of Windows 7. It has offered to adopt the European Union's preferred solution for browser competition: a browser selector screen at startup."
Re:In before the morons (Score:3, Informative)
> I have a hard time fathoming why Microsoft would have to do this but not Apple...
Because, for now, Microsoft is a huge, damaging monopoly that destroys competition, choice, and freedom. Apple is a tiny, non-damaging, single-area monopoly (for now). If Apple were to do the same thing (be forced to have no default browser), it wouldn't change anything. Plus, Apple doesn't design the OS around the browser like MS does.
But requiring MS to do it- well, that means 90% of the market will have a browser choice from the get-go. I don't think it is all that much of a remedy (to being a damaging monopoly), and it is certainly "too little too late", but it does have a certain logic to it.
Re:In before the morons (Score:3, Informative)
>>>I have a hard time fathoming why Microsoft would have to do this but not Apple...
For the same reason why the U.S. Government broke-apart AT&T but did not touch other telephone companies like Sprint or MCI. (Hint: AT&T had a near-monopoly and so too does MS.)
Re:MS just needs to pull out. (Score:3, Informative)
It's not like they are keeping other browsers from being installed.
What you say is true, now; but if you're older than a teenager you'll remember that in the 1990s Microsoft on a couple occasions apparently did sabotage both Netscape Navigator and Apple Quicktime.
The EU is acting based on Microsoft's history as a convicted monopolist, not based on the company's current behavior.
Re:In before the morons (Score:4, Informative)
i dont think you get the point of antitrust legislation. It is not to set standards for all companies, it is to prevent massive companies from abusing their advantage to stifle competition. small companies are allowed to do pretty much whatever the hell they want, as simple market forces will determine their success. however, companies with a large enough market share gain the ability to control their own market forces and destroy all competition, hence the need for antitrust legislation to level the playing field back out. the reason the EU does not require Apple, Google, or KDE to do the same is simple, those companies don't have a monopoly on the OS market.
Re:In before the morons (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. And it's really quite simple to understand why.
Microsoft, according to the EU findings (so whether we agree or not is moot), is a monopoly. That means they get to play by different rules to ensure that the free market continues to exist despite the monopoly. In the past, the US has forced companies to break up to break the monopoly, so forcing a browser choice seems relatively minor.
Further, as a deterrent to further illegal actions (which, again, are only illegal because they're a monopoly - different rules and all that), there must be some sort of punishment. To be honest, forcing this seems like a hand-slap more than a punishment: the horse has already left the barn, why are they locking it now?
Should Apple or Ubuntu ever manage to get an effective monopoly, then the same rules would apply to them. In the meantime, these rules only apply to Microsoft.
Re:Good idea for Microsoft. (Score:3, Informative)
Its dead-simple to not only make a browser based on Microsofts rendering engine using Visual Basic 6, its also simple to make an installer.
Drop the control on a form, run the package and deployment wizard, and bobs your uncle.
There is your choice right there.
"But but but.. thats all the same rendering engine!"
Really? So one browser from each rendering engine.. eh?
Internet Explorer, some noname webkit, and Opera? One of each, right?
Re:IE will still dominate (Score:2, Informative)
The difference might not be apparent to normal users, but the people working with it see that. It's slow, and it's coverage of current standards is horrible. IE is holding the web back for 10 years now, with great success, and IE8 walks the same path.
As someone more eloquent put it: trust the geeks. And the web geeks have been chanting for 8 years now: IE is BAD, use something else, cause their monopoly is keeping the web from going further.
Re:Google Chrome (Score:2, Informative)
Re:In before the morons (Score:2, Informative)
Opera is not ad supported and hasn't been for a while now.
Re:In before the morons (Score:5, Informative)
Google is [europa.eu], so Apple [europa.eu] and so does Intel [europa.eu]
Note that having a monopoly is not illegal - abusing it is. The fines and other actions taken against different companies reflect the extent to which they abused monopolies.
Re:In before the morons (Score:3, Informative)
Are you saying that criminals shouldn't be punished just because it was a long time ago? I agree that the remedy is probably pointless since it won't really deter MS from future misbehaviour and it won't remove the applications barrier to entry that keeps them where they are, but to say MS should get off scot-free just because things have changed is a bit of a slap in the face to those companies and individuals that were hurt by MS's illegal behaviour.
Re:In before the morons (Score:3, Informative)