Ardent Meridian

Technologists and, I expect, most geeks in general, cannot have escaped the recent rumblings in the European Union’s anti-trust proceedings around Microsoft and the “bundling” of Internet Explorer with Windows.

There has been plenty of discussion about forcing Microsoft to remove Internet Explorer from Windows entirely for Windows 7.

How this is good for consumers, the protection of which is the point of anti-trust law, is only indirectly derivative from the effects of the corporate protectionism that the EU actually seems to be biased towards.

Browsers today are free.

Prior to Internet Explorer being part of Windows, using a browser either required some relatively arcane knowledge and tinkering to acquire and get working (definitely beyond the abilities of the typical user) or it came in $40 boxes with the “Netscape Navigator” logo on them.

As a consumer, how is $40 better than free?  Lack of choice?  Certainly not!  There are more choices in truly capable web-browsing software today than ever before.

Indeed with open-source SDKs like WebKit, the foundation of Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome, anyone with even a moderate amount of programming experience can cook up, or embed, very sophisticated, standards-compliant, browsing capabilities in a matter of hours.

The European Union’s efforts here seem a little misguided.  There is no consumer issue here; any user aware of other browsers has ample choice of, and free and easy access to, many alternatives to Internet Explorer.  And if they are not aware, what is the loss to the consumer?  I do see it from a corporate perspective, but anti-trust is about consumer protection, not about propping up corporations.

The bundling of the browser with the operating system may have hurt other companies, but it certainly has not hurt the consumer.  It has eliminated the cost of the browser for them, and raised the standard of browsing software and experiences at the same time.

When you cannot compete on price, you are forced to compete on features and quality.

I digress …

In recent discussions the EU was positing the possibility of compelling Microsoft to provide some kind of menu to allow users to select one of several possible browsers at Window’s first launch.  I am wholly against any entity, beyond a product’s manufacturer, being able to dictate – under any terms – what that product must include.

The EU commission’s position is tantamount to GM being forced to offer customers a choice of GM, Ford, Chrysler or BMW engines when purchasing a car.  Or of Starbucks being compelled to offer Tully’s coffee in their stores.

This is, by most reasonable people’s standards, entirely ludicrous.

One major, and hopefully obvious, question that arises here would be: “What is the standard for inclusion in this ‘menu’ of choices?”

Can I, as a software developer, whip up a quick browser application using WebKit, and insist that Microsoft give it equal billing with every other browser?

If NOT, then WHY not, and how is that not, by definition, discriminatory and anti-competitive?

The whole scheme simply does not work; it seems to have more problems that benefits, even from the, apparently, warped (otherwise known as “give us your money”) perspective of the EU.

As an alternative, NOT including a browser in at all in Windows 7 was being discussed.  This appears to be the track that Microsoft “wants” to follow, per commentary from their deputy general counsel, David Heiner.

While the EU could, technically, reject that remedy and still push for the inclusion of a menu of optional browsers, I think the no-browser route is absolutely the right way for Microsoft to tackle this issue.

While personally I prefer Internet Explorer on Windows, there are plenty of people that prefer, for perfectly legitimate reasons, some other browser.  I do not understand the fervor around them not simply installing and using that browser (I use multiple browsers myself, even with IE as my preference under Windows), but that is a different issue.

So if Microsoft’s position on Windows 7 “E” (a browser-less Windows 7 for the European market, if you did not read the commentary from Microsoft ) stands, how exactly has this helped consumers?

As a result of the EU commission’s actions they would now be on the receiving end of an operating system with no built-in browser, unless system builders chose to install one themselves (and most will I am sure).

This will almost certainly result in system builders essentially bidding-out the inclusion of specific browsers for inclusion with their systems.  So, congratulations, now the Mozilla group gets to bid against Opera, et. al. for inclusion in, for example, Dell UK’s systems.

And if , for some reason, a system-builder chooses not to pre-load a browser, the user better be familiar with how to use the Windows address-bar to access web-sites if they want to download any browser at all.

How this would be anything other than detrimental to EU customers is entirely beyond me.  They already have clear and free choice in their use of browser.

If Windows made other browsers perform badly that would be one thing, but you only have to look at Firefox 3 under any flavor of Linux, or even OS X to see that is clearly not the case.  Firefox is great once rendering, but is comparatively glacial to either Internet Explorer or Safari on start-up.

I think Microsoft is playing this perfectly.  The no-browser-at-all scenario is definitely better for them than including options for every major, or random, competitors browser (which is simply asinine).

The EU may, when all is said and one, get exactly what they asked for. I just have to wonder if they realized the true implications of that wish before pushing on it.  And that will be inconvenience for their constituents, with no discernible consumer benefit. 

Though in reality I tend to thing the EU commission is just looking at this as another opportunity to try and beat about a half-billion dollars out of Microsoft for some imagined wrong-doing.

At some point the EU’s constituents (of which I was formerly a member) are going to see through this charade and ask where the money is going, and how this helped THEM.

I am looking forward to that day … as there was already unrest about many of their dictatorial decree’s when I left.

On this issue though, while no cause for revolt, I do suspect the phrase: “Be careful what you wish for; you may get it” is going to carry special significance.

Post a Comment