Scripps Employees Called 'Hackers' For Exposing Massive Security Flaw
Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
'Gang of Six' browsers petition EU for immediate review of Browserchoice screen
"Ok, seriously? Already? WTF!", was my immediate reaction. Browserchoice.eu has been circulating for a little over a week, long enough for some armchair statistical analysis and at least one report of a stunning increase in Opera downloads.
So what's the big deal?
I spoke with Flock's CEO Shawn Hardin by phone, and -- to be quite frank -- he changed my mind.
"Our petition is entirely about embracing, supporting and activating -- if you will -- the decision," added to which, Hardin made clear, "the philosophical question has already been answered by the Commission."
At issue is that Microsoft's EU Browser Choice screen -- which will be rolled out to an estimated 192 million computers over the next 90 days -- provides little indication that more than the 5 top browsers (Safari, Opera, Chrome, Firefox and IE) are available via the tool.
Shawn's point, and a difficult one to argue against, is that the screen as currently designed doesn't really meet the spirit upon which the agreement was reached. By placing the browser-war front-runners in the top five slots they've already created a caste system of first rate and second rate browsers -- what the gang of six is attempting to address doesn't even begin to form a rallying cry against bias. All they've asked for is a little indication to the average user that 7 other choices exist in a world just beyond the scrollbar.
"We have not asked for a redesign. We have not asked for anything substantial in terms of a re-think [ of the screen ]", Flock's CEO emphatically stated during our call. "There are any of a myriad of small changes that we believe, would completely change the awareness of a user that they have twelve choices, instead of five. And that is what the European Commission stated was their intent."
Lest we forget, the browser choice screen isn't something that was forcibly imposed on Microsoft, it was a compromise proposed by MS and accepted by the EU in exchange for dropping a lengthy and rather damning anti-trust case.
But, perhaps Flock and the other gang of six browsers -- as vocal as they already are -- should yell just a bit louder. Survey the 12 available browser choices and you'll find another shocking indication that Microsoft may be dealing from the bottom of the deck; Of the twelve browsers, 5 of them use Internet Explorer's "Trident" rendering engine -- ostensibly making them re-skinned clones of IE for all intents and purposes.
How's that for "choice"? As Henry Ford famously said, you can have the Model-T in any color you wish, just as long as it's black.
At best -- avoiding any implication of malice or forethought -- Browserchoice.eu is half-assed and lazy design. Allowing for even a vague attempt at slight-of-hand on the part of Microsoft, it's hard not to assume someone within the organization is seeking a little more elbow room from an already wrist-slap sweet EU settlement.
Whether you care about the browser wars or not -- and even the biggest Intarweb fanbois could hardly be blamed for tiring of the endless back and forth -- what's at stake here is bigger than one silly JavaScript "chooser", even if that chooser will eventually be viewed by nearly a quarter-billion people. Microsoft's commitment to their own self-proposed plan is the real issue.
The bits of the EU settlement that Microsoft have yet to enact include opening up application data, documentation and APIs to third party developers. If Browserchoice.eu is any indication of how earnestly Redmond will stick to the intent of it's own self-written settlement, what hope should the EU have that they'll make an honest attempt at honoring the remainder of the agreement?
Comments
19
Subscribe to commentsaustin316gbMar 5th 2010 2:27PM
I think has has a point. I have multiple computers and I must confess to not even realising there were more then the so called top 5 until I got to the third computer. The scroll bar at the bottom just didn't register at all.
emmzeeMar 5th 2010 1:46PM
The problem seems to be, how do you decide which browsers get on the screen at all? Ex, what makes Flock's browser worthy of the list but not Joe Blow's Fabutastic Browser (fictional)? There's necessarily going to have to be a limit/choice there.
bug frawgMar 5th 2010 1:57PM
I am shocked I tell you. SHOCKED.
Making11sMar 5th 2010 2:01PM
I just went on the link, and tried a new browser. That browser was total crap, and now I'm back on Firefox. If anything there are too many choices there. They should just offer the 10 most used browsers, and change that list based on usage.
CarneyMar 5th 2010 2:27PM
Let MS do what it wants with its own OS, for crying out loud. I don't like Windows and I hate IE, but I don't support meddling with another person or group of people's private property or their right to do business only on terms of their choosing.
Apple bundles Safari, KDE bundles Konqueror, GNOME bundles Epiphany, etc. Nobody cares, and nobody should.
Heck, as far as I'm concerned, MS should be allowed to lock down Windows so that it runs ONLY MS apps. Don't like it? Offer a different, better product.
It's a little thing called freedom.
Grant RobertsonMar 5th 2010 3:05PM
No one argues about Apple bundling Safari for a litany of reasons. Chief among which is, Apple doesn't control the market. Microsoft's overwhelming market share makes the bundling issue much more serious.
Beyond that, Webkit (Safari) is an open rendering engine, which by and large to standards. IE is notorious for poor standards support, forcing web companies to design sites and apps to the lowest common compatibility denominator -- effectively rendering a de facto standard that is sub-par when compared to actual published standards. Web browsers don't exist in a bubble, and they have far-reaching impacts on the ability of other companies to compete on the web.
Overarching all this is Shawn's point, which made perfect sense to me. We aren't debating the philosophical argument of "should" the EU mandate a choice. Microsoft proposed it, the EU accepted Microsoft's proposal, and it's now a legally binding agreement between a mega-corporation and a mega-government. As they say in the south, "It's all over but the shouting." The argument isn't whether this is right or wrong, but whether MS is living up to it's own self-proposed promise.
polobunnyMar 5th 2010 10:30PM
@Grant: That's simply retarded though. Because Microsoft products are more popular than Apple products, Microsoft gets penalized. Can you rationalize with such "logic"?
Truth be told, they don't owe anyone anything. They could bundle Internet Explorer 5.1 with Windows 7 if they wanted and that would be it. Microsoft does not do that for an obvious reason, bundling an outdated web browser will make your browser market share drop to an all time low considering the mass publication of third party browsers.
I'm all about standards but forcing Microsoft to offer other browsers (and no, it wasn't Microsoft offering the whole alternate browser thing, only the ballot part and how it was conveyed) is a cheap blow. The giant is always the biggest target I guess.
@Bill: If you hung around long enough here you can read on more of Grant's awesome journalism. Melodrama is awesome. I just want to burst in a musical and refute it's silly rants against big corporations.
libecoMar 5th 2010 2:36PM
Aaaaah, those poor boys and girls... Maybe they should stop whining about everything Microsoft does and actually create a better browser!
I've been using Maxthon for years, calling it a skinned version of IE obviously shows you have never tried it as it's probably the most customizable browser there is with loads of features you can only get in firefox for instance if you install tons of addons. And even then it's still one of the fastest browsers!
Since there are only three 'big' rendering engines, it's not surprising that there're more Trident-based browsers. In fact, some browsers support more rendering engines than Trident.
ozzzyMar 5th 2010 2:43PM
...and we're now sliding down a slippery slope. Let the market handle itself; there are now more browser choices than before. Sun and AOL can be thanked for originally petitioning the EU which resulted in a system out to punish and levy huge fines against American businesses (MS and Intel so far).
It's not the EU's responsibility to save marketing dollars for the competition or inform a public which doesn't care about browser choice in the first place. Anyone who's tried to convert a parent/relative to an alternative browser knows this is a losing proposition.
Grant RobertsonMar 5th 2010 2:57PM
Pardon but, Sun and AOL are both "American companies."
MartijnMar 5th 2010 2:50PM
I'm all for freedom, but this precious freedom means it's almost impossible for another company to obtain a substantial amount of marketshare on the browser market.
So I do think the EU should make sure there's fair competition in this market because in the end, we all benefit from healthy competition. It boosts the development.
SilverWaveMar 5th 2010 3:23PM
Good on the EU!
They have really shown themselves in a good light with this settlement.
They are protecting the consumers who don't know better from Internet Exploder
... it hard to argue with that :)
I would say Chrome for mum and dad and firefox for the techies.
Chrome, as it updates it self with no user interaction... and it have a lot of security built in.
Pity about privacy but heh... Google are the good guys.
SilverWaveMar 5th 2010 3:25PM
@downloadsquad
Guys could we have a edit feature, or even a preview?
Just looking at my last post and it could do with a tidy ;)
Cheers.
@davey_ladMar 5th 2010 3:26PM
What a load of horse shite ! I'd like to see how much time and money has been wasted on this Bollocks.
People who know what a browser is are well capable of choosing themselves without the aid of a ballot screen. The people who this is designed to help will be completely fuckd! In fact, lets face it, it's only there to help the 'also ran' browser providers... not the end user.
So, fuck the EU and Flock and all the other muppets who pushed this through. Never has a story boiled my piss as much as this one.... well, except maybe the one about the gay vatican sex ring... but hey ho!
BillMar 5th 2010 4:09PM
First Microsoft is being damned for only showing the top 5 browsers in the first scroll bar segment, none of which, with the exception of IE8, are Trident based. You stated that it implies that all browsers following the first five are "second rate."
Then you go on to say "Of the twelve browsers, 5 of them use Internet Explorer's "Trident" rendering engine -- ostensibly making them re-skinned clones of IE for all intents and purposes. "
According to your logic then, the majority of Trident based browsers fall under the "second rate" category. Microsoft is effectively saying don't use these "second rate" Trident browsers. How is this bias? Bias against one self? Just because a browser uses the Trident engine doesn't mean it's the same as IE8. Sleipnir also allows you to use the Gecko engine.
4 of the browsers listed use Gecko if you count Sleipnir (Flock, Firefox, K-Meleon, Sleipnir). Since when is 5 so much bigger than 4?
Someone needs to get off the MS hate train.
Ryan b.Mar 5th 2010 8:20PM
Why not just make it so it lists all of the websites on the screen going from Most popular to least popular.. And they could have people add comments about each browser.
Angus HedgerMar 5th 2010 10:14PM
I just spent a bit of time reading the linked blog, and this whole thing is so stupid its not funny.
They are complaining that the "other 7" do not offer a fair choice due to some of them being IE shells (basically using the trident rendering engine).
They are also complaining about one of the browsers having no wikipedia page etc.
The problem is that there are not 12 popular browsers for Windows, I mean even flock has LESS MARKET SHARE THAN NETSCAPE!!!
(see: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0 )
This feels like manufactured drama, and its getting out of hand.
Full disclosure, I am commenting from Chrome v5 running on GNU/Linux Debian Squeeze, so I am not a IE fanboy, I just find this whole outrage over nothing stupid.
FredMar 6th 2010 4:05PM
Agreed. And while we're making a big deal about IE skins, what about the Firefox knock-offs like K-Meleon and Flock?
FredMar 6th 2010 4:00PM
I really don't understand the point of this article, or the whole ballot box at all.
While I understand the ballot box, and what it wants to achieve, and really don't get why MS has to do it for risk being sued. If this communist style system were the norm, Apple and every other OS maker out there should be forced to do the same thing. Furthermore, this results in MS, essentially, marketing software that is not their own, and means they will eventually get blamed for instabilities and poor performance of these browsers.
And in regards to this article and the protest by the second-screeners, what do you want MS to do? What would satisfy these people? As is, you have MS promoting browsers it has nothing to do with and cannot guarantee in terms of support, performance, security or stability. Would you rather there just be a grid of all 12 icons? People would be so confused! How about obnoxious flashing arrows, or a wall of text, or a command line interface? Really? What would you rather they do?