EU Wants Multiple Browser Bundling On New PCs 464
An anonymous reader writes with a link to Ars Technica's report that "the EU is considering forcing Windows users to choose a browser to download and install before they can first browse the Internet, according to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required). While the latest Windows 7 builds let you uninstall IE8, 'third-party browser makers like Opera, Mozilla and Google are pushing for tough sanctions against Microsoft. The EU would rather have a "ballot screen" for users to choose which browsers to download and install as well as which one to set as default. The bundling requirement might end up becoming a responsibility for manufacturers.'"
That's not a fucking monopoly. (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't force them to support other browsers, hell, they could only support internet explorer if they wanted to.
No fan of MS, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Forcing OEMs? (Score:5, Insightful)
The bundling requirement might end up becoming a responsibility for manufacturers.
This is just as stupid as forcing Microsoft to bundle alternative browser binaries with Windows.
The solution to the problem is to force Microsoft to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers with Windows the same way they do anything else. Microsoft's dictating what software can be included with Windows is the real anti-competitive behavior here -- so fix it by removing that behavior. If Dell wants to include Firefox, let them. If Opera wants to sign a deal with HP to include its browser on all their machines, let them.
Don't force all OEMs to include all browsers. That's stupid and impractical.
Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse? (Score:3, Insightful)
Came here to say this. They're about ten years too late and it won't achieve anything (in fact I think it's a bad idea at this stage).
Re:Forcing OEMs? (Score:5, Insightful)
No!!!
The amount of crapware they could preinstall with a customized browser is unthinkable.
Re:This just cracks me up... (Score:4, Insightful)
those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE?
Maybe the makers of browsers which aren't free? It would at least let people know that alternatives exist and that the "blue E" isn't "the internet"
And, as Microsoft is so want to say: Free == bad, so IE must really suck.
Re:No fan of MS, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why?
No really - why? It's incredibly simple to implement this. A window with a list of web browsers, some screenshots when you click on one, and a Next button which starts the download.
This is actually what I suggested back when all this antitrust crap started, years and years ago.
Microsoft repeatedly pulls stunts like resetting the default browser back to IE, in addition to not allowing it to be uninstalled. (You can remove the icon) The only way they'll get out from under this antitrust stuff is to over-react now. This is an incredibly easy way to over-react, which shows they're complying and promoting choice.
They should also do it for media players. Eventually people will get annoyed by all the choices, and complain, and then OEMs will just start picking whatever software is most popular - but nobody will be able to pin the blame on them.
Proper tabloid (Score:3, Insightful)
Timothy, please next time consider the difference between the verb used in the title (EU Wants Multiple Browser Bundling On New PCs) and in TF summary (the EU is considering forcing Windows users to choose).
We don't need you to be a professional editor (even though you probably are paid for the job), but please just try not to work like a moron from a random tabloid.
Sigh... please include _my_ pet project too. (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me preface this tirade with a disclaimer: Yes, I realize Microsoft is a huge company, with enough resources and market share to constitute a monopoly, and is therefore deserving of governments' watchful eyes. I also realize that IE may not be the highest quality browser out there; and that Microsoft has been known to 'embrace and extinguish'. I'm also glad that Microsoft didn't get to design (for instance) the IMAP RFC. Please note I'm not making any _legal_ arguments, just "history-of-OS" type arguments.
HOWEVER, this knee-jerk reaction to the browser-wars is really fundamentally flawed. My argument is what we, the user, perceive as an operating system changes and grows over time. I think it's time we realize that a music jukebox, dvd player, web browser, and text editor have become integral parts of an OS (per my definition). I think it is in the same manner as a command shell, file browser (cd & ls), calendar, chat client, windowing system, network stack, etc. have become what we'd consider part of an OS.
Some companies and organizations are clamoring for inclusion of their pet projects by default... I say "rubbish. You might as well ask the user to choose different versions of the TCP stack, paint program, image libraries, and mouse drivers too." I can't make any analogies to car makers, nor do I care to. We can argue about "stifling innovation and choice" until we're blue in the face, but I still insist that a web browser is integral to the operating system. Go and get alternatives if you like, just as you're free to get another media player, paint program or ftp client.
I don't see noise directed against Apple or Linux or BSD, likely because they are {not monopolies | high enough in market share | something else that I can't grok}. This would suggest that the bundling of Safari on Mac, or Mozilla on Linux is not fundamentally wrong, and is also not wrong on Windows. I'm sure there are good arguments for the EU poking its nose, but since they're so caring, they should also ask nicely that MS provide users with choice of desktop clock widgets so that the poor makers of clock software aren't left out.
Perhaps this is unfair to the hapless (as far as tech goes) politicians, but they seem little more than shills for lobbyists, and don't seem to really understand the dangerous precedent they might be setting. That, I find really irritating.
Hey (Score:1, Insightful)
So if I make a spyware-based browser with malicious components, will Microsoft be obliged to offer my browser to the users? Just because I compete with IE?
Yep, I'd be complaining to EU if they didn't include my browser. That would be discrimination and abuse of monopoly.
Can it get any more silly?
Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This just cracks me up... (Score:5, Insightful)
...those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE?
I do, because I'd rather be able to develop to standards and I'd rather Web technologies could move forward again instead of being held back by one, dominant, least common denominator browser.
F***ing stupid beyond belief (Score:4, Insightful)
So "all other browsers" can demand to be on the list. What's to prevent "American Adware" and "Built By Boris" (from Russian Business Network) from showing up on the list?
This is a pain in the rear for consumers but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The last thing a consumer wants to do, when they turn on a computer, is to immediately be asked more questions. It's a pain in the rear. Sorry EU, but how about we start requiring that all cars imported from the EU to the USA have the option of being fitted with American V8s....
oh wait, that sounds like a good a idea.
Never mind.
Re:No fan of MS, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No fan of MS, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because IE IS explorer. You remove IE totally and you don't get your file browsing, you don't get your pretty icons on your desktop, you don't get your taskbar/systray/start menu/etc. Sure, they tell you that you can uninstall it, but believe me, you aren't actually uninstalling. You are just removing the IE monikors for the whole Frankenstein Monster.
If i were MS (Score:2, Insightful)
If I were MS I'd do it for them for free:
Just include a copy of lynx.
Re:No fan of MS, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Would the same rules apply to Apple as well?
Safari is seemingly bundled with MacOSX.
Note: I've never purchased a Mac, but I would assume Apple bundles the Safari browser in the systems they ship. If otherwise, please correct me.
This is not fair (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole "browser war" nonsense has gone on long enough. Back when a browser was a novelty, perhaps even sold on the shelf at the store, maybe it made sense to worry about competition. However, now that the browser is essential to everyday computing and part of the platform, the demands being made entirely idiotic. It should not matter if people are given IE8 out of the gate or not. I do agree that they should be able to disable or uninstall it if they feel it's a security problem. However, forcing vendors to include other browsers is only slightly widening the selective controlled distribution and does not address any of the problems IE's dominance has caused in the first place.
Quite simply put, the reason IE is popular is because people do not care about which browser they use. A small percentage does, and it seem this site is popular with that group but at this point, a browser is part of a platform as a steering wheel is part of a car. Occasionally an enthusiast replaces his steering wheel but most people don't care about it.
But what does a steering wheel have in common with browsers besides being a platform staple? They support standards. The steering wheel is a standard interface, and while they do vary from car to car, they all support a common baseline of functionality and features.
So the real solution to this IE problem is not to force a company to support their competition. No I vehemently disagree with that, it's simply wrong to force a company to collude with their competition. Instead, the solution is to enforce IE's support of recognized standards. If you truly wish to neuter Microsoft's control of the WWW, then limit them to implementing standards compliant browsing only, let the community and the market decide what that means, and then let people continue to make their own choices about browsers.
Frankly if you look at all platforms, not just personal computer platforms, you will see that they all include their own browser choice, whether it be a Linux based OS that includes firefox, or a smartphone that includes a webkit based browser like Nokia's S60 platform. Macs include Safari, my Wii came with a free Opera download, my DSi came with a free opera download, and my PS3 includes a browser based on the same tech they use for their feature cell phones.
So targeting microsoft just because this mattered 10 years ago is pretty ridiculous, especially when you're failing to target the real problem in the first place.
I demand multiple radios in my new car (Score:3, Insightful)
Worse, they tied my Chevy's radio to the operating system: the volume turns up when the car goes faster, and it knows which key fob I used to unlock the doors. This is anticompetitive and monopolist.
I demand that GM install multiple radios -- one each from Ford, Chrysler, Bosch, Blaupunkt, and Kraco, plus an open-source handwired crystal receiver from Heathkit -- and I demand that they print the wiring diagram on the hood (so I can design my own radio anytime I come down off the Percocet).
Every time I start the car, I should be presented with a menu allowing me to choose which will serve as the "default radio."
Re:Forcing OEMs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it is those actions PRECISELY why we are in the situation we are in now. The argument is most certainly NOT moot. They used that illegal action to become the defacto browser, and now its time to pay at least lip service to the piper for it.
Re:Forcing OEMs? (Score:3, Insightful)
And you really want to leave that power with them?
We have a fact of them (ab)using that power, why should we, the EU people let them have it. I vote take that power from them!
Re:In a near future... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Read much? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you were literate, you might understand that no one is requiring Microsoft to support other browsers. Microsoft is being required to make options available.
Why is this Microsoft's problem and not that of the OEMs selling the computers ?
Re:No fan of MS, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft repeatedly pulls stunts like resetting the default browser back to IE, in addition to not allowing it to be uninstalled.
Yes. That's because it would break the thousands of applications that rely on those shared components to function. Breaking existing applications is something Microsoft is extremely reluctant - often to a fault - to do.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sigh... please include _my_ pet project too. (Score:5, Insightful)
...and that Microsoft has been known to 'embrace and extinguish'.
You do know that phrase originated with MS's internal discussions of illegally destroying Web browsers and Web technologies that might threaten them, right?
HOWEVER, this knee-jerk reaction to the browser-wars is really fundamentally flawed.
What knee jerk reaction. MS undermined the free market in illegal ways. Is maybe that you just don't understand the logical reactions of people to the situation and thus brand them "kneejerk". That seems implied by your later failure to understand the issues of antitrust law.
I think it's time we realize that a music jukebox, dvd player, web browser, and text editor have become integral parts of an OS (per my definition).
Is a telephone an integral part of a telephone network? Sure. That doesn't matter because it is also a separate market from telephone service which is why AT&T can't require you to rent a telephone from them anymore, but must sell them separately from your wired connection. It's also the reason after a decade of stagnation we suddenly jumped forward and got push buttons, speed dial, and answering machines when AT&T's monopoly abuse was stopped.
The browser was and is a separate market and we're quite likely to see the same rapid innovation to the benefit of everyone as soon as MS's antitrust abuse is stopped. The thing most Slashdotters can't seem to wrap their heads around is an economic issue of markets, not a technological issue.
I say "rubbish. You might as well ask the user to choose different versions of the TCP stack, paint program, image libraries, and mouse drivers too."
Please do your research. We're talking about separate, preexisting markets. Of the things you mention, only the paint program applies under the law.
Go and get alternatives if you like, just as you're free to get another media player, paint program or ftp client.
Which does nothing to address the broken market or criminal acts or to improve innovation and lower costs. I have an idea, why don't you learn why antitrust laws exist before declaring them to be wrong?
I don't see noise directed against Apple or Linux or BSD, likely because they are {not monopolies | high enough in market share | something else that I can't grok}.
I'll try to explain with an analogy. Murder is illegal. Firing a gun is legal. Firing a gun at a person in a way that murders them is illegal. Bundling is legal. Bundling in a way that undermines the free market is illegal.
In this analogy, only MS has a gun. Apple and Canonical can bundle browsers and OS's all they want because they don't even have to power undermine the market if they wanted to. Apple, on the other hand, is close to having sufficient power in the portable, digital music player market that the EU has looked into restricting them with regard to bundling things with iPods. Companies in the US and EU regularly consider antitrust issues when they have dominance in markets. The real difference here is not the way laws are applied, but that MS has so blatantly disregarded the laws everyone else obeys.
This would suggest that the bundling of Safari on Mac, or Mozilla on Linux is not fundamentally wrong, and is also not wrong on Windows.
Hopefully from my previous comments you now understand that no one suggests bundling is fundamentally wrong. Undermining the free market is fundamentally wrong. Bundling in particular circumstances in ways that undermine markets is what is illegal and detrimental to society.
Perhaps this is unfair to the hapless (as far as tech goes) politicians, but they seem little more than shills for lobbyists, and don't seem to really understand the dangerous precedent they might be setting.
Yeah, enforcing the same
Please download browser later... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the fuss? (Score:4, Insightful)
OEMs pick image organisers for their users: also fine
OEMs pick ISP software for their users: no problem
OEMs are given the opportunity to pick browsers for their users: *shitstorm*
To me this looks like the media trolling for attention; in the real world OEMs will either bundle IE or IE + firefox, and no end user will notice any difference...
Re:No fan of MS, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
This suggestion doesn't, in fact, go nearly far enough. Microsoft should be forced to give a choice of different browsers but IE should not be in the list. IE should only be available as a paid choice on physical CDs until such time as it's market share is less than any of the other major browsers. Offering IE online, pre-installed or bundled should be illegal.
I hope you're joking... because if you're not, it may be a good idea for you to have a doctor evaluate your mental health.
Re:I demand multiple radios in my new car (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for the help!
Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you've done that, go to a country back east where ALL the banks got suckered into using ActiveX for their online transactions.
THEN you can come back here and ask how bundling IE with windows hurt anyone.
Oh, maybe we should have this for everything then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's not a fucking monopoly. (Score:2, Insightful)
When Big Daddy Warbucks Leaves Town (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mozilla Foundation makes many tens of millions of dollars from Google. If nobody installs Firefox, Google isn't going to be giving them that kind of money anymore.
Now that Google has its own platform in Chrome why does it need Mozilla?
Re:This is not fair (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole "browser war" nonsense has gone on long enough. Back when a browser was a novelty, perhaps even sold on the shelf at the store, maybe it made sense to worry about competition. However, now that the browser is essential to everyday computing and part of the platform, the demands being made entirely idiotic.
So your argument is that browsers are now more important, so competition and the advantages t brings via the free market are less important? Umm. That's a very umm, creative opinion.
It should not matter if people are given IE8 out of the gate or not.
And it shouldn't matter if you have to pay AT&T to rent on old rotary dial phone, you can always buy a better one and use it. That is if you ignore everything we know about markets, innovation and antitrust abuse and its affects.
However, forcing vendors to include other browsers is only slightly widening the selective controlled distribution and does not address any of the problems IE's dominance has caused in the first place.
Actually it does. If Web developers know a particular standards compliant browser will be installed on every computer, they are more likely to implement new, standards compliant technologies since they can be confident all users will be able to use sites that rely upon them.
...a browser is part of a platform as a steering wheel is part of a car.
Your analogy fails. No one has a monopoly on cars and steering wheels don't constitute a pre-existing, separate market.
Instead, the solution is to enforce IE's support of recognized standards.
This is one, potential remedy, but it is only a partial solution. It is, in fact, what Opera asked for as a remedy.
Frankly if you look at all platforms, not just personal computer platforms, you will see that they all include their own browser choice, whether it be a Linux based OS that includes firefox, or a smartphone that includes a webkit based browser like Nokia's S60 platform.
Yes, they do. If you look at computers in general, you'll notice they all include RAM. You'll also notice the RAM doesn't come bundled with the graphics chipset and people selling computers aren't forced to buy the two components from the same vendor because one company developed a monopoly on graphic chipsets and forced everyone to buy RAM with it. Instead computer makers buy the best RAM and the best graphic chipset and combine them. The point is to make sure because OEMs are forced to buy and ship the Windows OS because it has monopolized the market, they aren't given incentive to chose anything other than the best Web browser to include as well.
So targeting microsoft just because this mattered 10 years ago is pretty ridiculous...
It matters today. Without competition in the Web browser market, it stagnates and technologies don't advance rapidly. We've had a decade of crippled Web technologies and Web developers being forced to find ever more clever ways to hack around the limitations and make really old and incomplete technologies work. The easiest way to fix the problem and keep it fixed is to restore the free market and let it do the work.
Re:I demand multiple radios in my new car (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, and Microsoft does not have a monopoly on operating systems.
They do have a monopoly in legal terms and sufficient influence in the market to undermine free trade. Your assertion is junk. The distinction between the two companies and markets is perfectly valid.
Re:No fan of MS, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
For the same reason that when I steal your car I should be made to give it back. They stole the browser market using explicitly illegal tactics and with criminal intent. The fact that they then set fire to the car doesn't mean that they are now excused and no longer owe you a car.
This is a bad example for this situation. Let's apply the spirit of this law to another industry. This is like if a car manufacturer has been installing a certain radio from a specific manufacturer into all their vehicles by default, and they're now being told that not only that they must install the any radio anyone wants when someone buys the car, but they must provide a full list of what could be considered "competitors" to that radio, and provide the installation.
Who is making that list? How could this list be accurate at all times? How does your radio--the one your company is making--get on the list? Who is controlling, and dictating, if my radio is a competitor, or not, and why should I have to get my product's name on that list to get the endorsement of being a "competitor," at all? Why should I have to prove to some group that I can compete?
Obvious question (Score:3, Insightful)
Why exactly would an OEM want to do this?
It's not like bundling Firefox with their PC is going to increase their sales or profit. If Opera were going to pay them to bundle their browser, they would have done it by now (as someone has already pointed out, Microsoft doesn't prevent this).
In short, I really cannot see any OEM's bothering to do this - and so nothing will change.
Re:This just cracks me up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is not a monopoly. Stop pretending it is one.
Having a choice as to what web browser to use is more important than you think. People will use the default one, which is a big part of how IE got such a large market share.
Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because the case has been grinding on for a long, long time. Microsoft have been messing about trying to evade a series of judgements for years and years. Do we now want to send them the message 'Avoid complying with the law for long enough that the progress of technology renders the question irrelevant, and then there will be no consequences'? Or do we want to penalise them so that the next time something like this happens, the offender actually complies immediately rather than delaying for the best part of a decade?
Re:When Big Daddy Warbucks Leaves Town (Score:2, Insightful)
Because at the moment Chrome has about 1-2% of browser market share, while Firefox has between 20-30%.
People don't use Firefox because of the Google integration; so unless Chrome starts making some headway, Mozilla can still count on their check from Google.
Re:That's not a fucking monopoly. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you on that: freedom in society is probably inversely proportional to the number of regulations, although the scope of the regulations is also important. I don't know how many places outside the EU are any better however.
But an interesting question is whether you can have a free society when you have companies that can enforce monopolies. Without government interference, would Microsoft have been able to obtain a practically 100% monopoly over vast ranges of software by now? There would have been nothing to stop them eliminating most hardware that didn't restrict itself to Windows, and they would have "embraced and extended" every Internet protocol. After that it would be easy for them to require approval for any software that runs on Windows, and eliminate anything that competes with their own products.
Re:This just cracks me up... (Score:3, Insightful)
People do have a choice. Stop pretending they don't.
If people really hated IE, they could switch. They just don't care enough to bother. That's not Microsoft's fault.
I think that this is great (Score:1, Insightful)
Everyone knows that the reason the majority of (non-technical) users don't change their browser is that they never see a need to change from IE, or don't even understand what a browser is. (Then there's the millions of corporate machines still running IE6, but we won't go there). This leaves a (thankfully shrinking) majority of net users using the least standards compliant browser, which probably would have less users than Opera if it wasn't bundled with Windows.
A pop-up box that lets you choose between IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari will massively increase the market share of the other players, and the average user will soon learn that IE is really not that great. Hopefully, the real achievement of this scheme will be to force MSFT to create a solid, standards compliant browser. To their credit, they're already starting to move in this direction, but it'll take some actual free market competition to really push this along. I can't wait.
tackling the wrong problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I really don't see why the browser should be such a priority, it is easier to install Firefox than another OS and Windows is more dominant in the OS market than MSIE in the browser market.
Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse? (Score:4, Insightful)
Come back after you've spent a week making a really nice, easy to use, easy on the eyes website to standards, then spent another week making it work in IE7, then another 3 weeks making it work in IE6 (yes lots of people still use that P.OS.)!
Once you've done that, go to a country back east where ALL the banks got suckered into using ActiveX for their online transactions.
THEN you can come back here and ask how bundling IE with windows hurt anyone.
I can understand your frustration, I have been there. While I generally don't think that a company should be forced to bundle a competitor's products. However, Windows has what? ... a 90% market share on desktops? When a company has established market dominance to the point where it's OS is practically the only product on the market, it is bundling software with it's OS and it has a history of using bundling to aggressively to kill off it's competition, IMHO the rules change. So perhaps a "ballot screen" option like this isn't such a bad idea.
Just my 0,02€
Re:That's not a fucking monopoly. (Score:1, Insightful)
Okay, first off, Internet Explorer is free, and so are most of the competitors.
Monopolies are not good, but this is not a monopoly.
But lets say it is a monopoly. A monopoly of free software damages no one. Maybe Mozilla will get a few thousand less in donations. Right.
I understand your argument, and I agree with it, but it doesn't apply to IE.
Re:This just cracks me up... (Score:4, Insightful)
To me this is just the EU being really fucking dumb, yet again. Anybody remember XP-N? For those that hadn't heard of it, the EU forced MSFT to make an sell a version of XP with no media player called XP-N. I'm sure there is a landfill in Eastern Europe filled with XP-N discs because the retailers said they couldn't give them away and it was more worthless than an AOL CD.
To be fair, Microsoft made that situation way worse than it had to be. They completely stripped out compatibility with windows media videos, when they didn't have to(Proof: nLite), with the argument that they had to. (which was bullshit)
And instead of offering choices of which media player to use, they offered... nothing. They torpedoed the EU's demands on purpose to make them look bad. Very childish, although I suppose if I were being sued by them for hundreds of millions of dollars, I may have done the same. :P
Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its called capitalism. Holy crap, its working!
*looks around*
*sees worldwide economic depression*
Oh yeah, it's working really well.
unimportant (Score:2, Insightful)
As far as I am concerned, this is pretty much a non-issue. If the EU intends to on creating a true-choice landscape (which wouldn't be a bad thing) they'd go for the OEM's by requiring them to have blank computers as default. If Windows is desired by the customer, they should ship an extra-cost retail copy of it (which would also take care of the recovery disk BS). Likewise for any other OS (Linux could be shipped on a simple CD if no retail box exists). This would offer true choices as well in regards to wants and needs of the customer, capabilities of the OS and the true cost associated with said choice.
Further a compatibility test suite should be developed, by which all OS' and their preinstalled applications should be subjected to. For example, the installed browsers (I really don't care which one) need to comply in full to a set of published web standards. The current test result status of the various offerings can easily be displayed on some web site for reference. Office Suites need to be *fully* compatible in regards to some base formats (OpenDocument lends itself nicely, as well as PDF) and rigorous testing needs to take place. If they fail to read/write/import a document from another standards-compliant suite without farking everything up, it should be tossed out as a possible default installation for OEM's and if installed anyway, the OEM sanctioned. Ditto for e-mail etc.
Only such enforced base-line measures could possibly make a real difference by requiring inter-operability standards regardless of OS and application and get rid of the mess we're in with monopoly abuses and vendor-lock-in etc..
Only if you can convince HP, Dell ect... (Score:2, Insightful)
I really don't know how your comment can be considered insightful
1) This is just a proposal so its very hard to criticise right now, however many people have recommended similar plans.
2) The whole point is to remove MS form the equation, let Manufacturers decide what to install as they are not invested in the software business.
3) So your only real hope is to convince HP, Dell or whoever, that your browser creates some added value and therefore they will get more sales, Google, Mozilla and Opera are betting that they can win this argument. You have the right to do the same.
No, you can't get more silly (Score:1, Insightful)
Goodness knows why anyone would tag your comment insightful.
Nobody is suggesting that your browser should be included with MS.
Read the article again and try to understand what it says. If it isn't your first language, get someone to help you. Make sure you're sobered up first though.
Re:Forcing OEMs? (Score:3, Insightful)
That would once have been a viable solution. That is no longer the case. The remedy for a knife wound is more than removing the knife. The EU needs to repair the damage done to the market, and that means restoring the browser market to a competitive state.
Even the makers of Firefox do not want Firefox bundled with Windows. IE's market share is declining and Firefox's is rising due to natural market forces now that Microsoft has been called on their forcing OEMs to not bundle other browsers. Your proposed 'solution' would harm vendors by forcing them to include additional software, and harm users because many of those vendors would get it wrong.
I agree that the remedy is more than saying "Don't do that again". The answer, of course, is to calculate the damages and fine Microsoft that amount, or just go ahead and invoke the corporate death penalty, or split up Microsoft, or any combination of these things. Refusing to permit the sale of their products until they comply with your chosen remedy, yet still requiring them to support the already-distributed products in the region or face some sort of criminal charges (e.g. for bait and switch for promising support and failing) would be a reasonable measure. But no, instead the plan is to do something which is bad for users. Thanks!