Microsoft and EU settle browser row

What a mess for ordinary Joe

What a mess for the fast majority of users who really don't care who the broswer on their computer is developed by, they simply want to check their online banking, shop from amazon and check their email (with hotmail, gmail etc)

Most people including my own family members wouldn't even know what a browser was if you asked them and neither would they care because the 'thing' they open to do the stuff they want online works perfectly fine already.

Will Ford and Vauxhall be forced to offer their customers alloy wheels from other manufacturers t when selling their cars? Example like this are endless.

By a_byrne22 on 16 Dec 2009

the alloy wheel replacement market is healthy because Ford & co use standard sizes and don't engineer the cars so the wheels fall off if you try to use rival makes.

By Noghar on 16 Dec 2009

It's not the alloy wheel argument that bothers me. It's the thought that why should this now stop with the web browser. Why not text editors, media players, image editors, disk defragmenters and solitaire games...

a_byrne22 is spot on with regards to the fact that this choice IS NOT of benefit to most end users who don't need or want to make this choice - it is only of benefit to browser makers, most of whom started making browsers long after IE became part of Windows. I wonder how much software will now not work because IE is not installed - despite having Firefox as my default browser, plenty of software still pops up IE when it wants to show a webpage.

By halsteadk on 16 Dec 2009

I agree that most users dont care what browser they use but surely this is precisely why other browser manufacturers aren't on a level playing field.

Having said that, I'm not sure that having a 'ballot' page delivered via WU is going to make any difference since users are most likley to choose IE anyway. Will reserve judgement until I see it ....

By oXXXo on 16 Dec 2009

I think you'll find you have problems if you think all wheels are the same.

As far as I know, MS never prevented the end user installing any other browser, however Ford will not supply you with a car fitted with Skoda wheels.

By chapelgarth on 16 Dec 2009

Opera is Norwegian I believe

At least they used to be.

By some2 on 16 Dec 2009

Opera correction

It is indeed. Apologies for the error.

Barry Collins
Online Editor

By Barry_Collins on 16 Dec 2009

12 Browsers. That'll make things clearer for the non-techies out there. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet

By james016 on 16 Dec 2009

12 Browsers? I consider myself very computer literate and I couldn't name more than 5 or 6 without searching the web.

This is not going to help anyone. People who are aware of alternatives to IE and have the inclination to switch have already done so. Those who are not aware, run the risk of adopting some strange unheard of browser that has huge compatibility issues.

What about user choice for those of us who have our computers set up how we want them, and don't want some dumb ass message suggesting we switch to EasyBrowse (TM)?

By SirRoderickSpode on 16 Dec 2009

Is microsoft going to allow me to completely uninstall IE, that has already been included in my win 7 software, without causing other problems?
If not then this is a waste of time and microsoft wins.

By curiousclive on 16 Dec 2009

It *is* good news

Microsoft can no longer force through their own standards for web page functionality if they have to offer browser choice. Already we see sites that refuse to work with standards compliant browsers simply because the browser isn't IE. If Microsoft could get away with it they would eventually stop any other browser working with Windows. Then they could block it from working with Apache; you'd have to buy IIS instead, then they could stop the browser connecting to any other database; you'd have to buy MS SQL instead.. so on and so forth. Granted lots of people don't know or care which browser they use but at least the choice is there and it is this choice that prevents Microsoft from strangling out innovative web designers by charging them out of existence and making them buy Microsoft web tools instead of obtaining free open source alternatives

By MarkWall1966 on 17 Dec 2009

FFS

I'm quite happy with IE, and so are my IT clients. But now I see a huge can of worms if any of them see these choices.

Telephone call: "OK, go to Tools | Internet Options". What do you mean there is no entry for that? ... [30 minutes later] Arghh!!!

By nigelmercier on 17 Dec 2009

Microsoft Internet Explorer is a dangerous browser to use. It ignores several standards on handling SSL, is riddled with vulnerabilities and a bit like swimming with sharks with a swimsuit of chum.

Frankly users should be educated to understand that IE is utterly lethal.

By bubbles16 on 17 Dec 2009

Users need to be educated to do what ?

As already noted your average user is not a technomage. They want the PC to do things without demanding too much knowledge from them.
Try asking your average user about their backup regime and wait for the blank look. We have millions of people downloading music and storing their photos to their harddrive in the firm belief that the storage is immortal and bottomless until disaster strikes.
This is as has also been observed more about companies fighting for market share of a product that the consumer pays nothing for and as ever "choice" is just a weasel word to cover this up

By irturner on 17 Dec 2009

Is Peter Mandelson involed in this by any chance??

All your comments are valid and to add to the mix the fact that the vast majority of websistes only work fully on IE or Mozilla and it appears to be a headache to get it working correctly on those as well. This is going to be a mightmare.

By jcnewman83 on 17 Dec 2009

I have used IE in the past. I switched to Firefox as my default browser. I am currently using SeaMonkey, an alternate browser/email etc. client from Mozilla, and unlike the previous two, I can't use online banking with SeaMonkey, so therefore I have to resort to either Firefox or IE. This will occur with quite a few sites.

By DavidAlfred on 17 Dec 2009

@bubbles16

"It ignores several standards on handling SSL"

Can you be more specific please. Which version of IE are you referring to? And which SSL standards are you claiming that IE ignores?

"is riddled with vulnerabilities "
Last time I looked on secunia.com, all the major browsers suffered from vulnerabilities. IE8 was no worse than the others. If you disagree, please come back with some facts & stats to prove your case. Or are you just a FUD merchant?

By rjp2000 on 17 Dec 2009

Standards and vulnerabilities

Seeing as most web standards seem to be permanently draft, I'm not sure MS can be entirely blamed. IE8 has righted a lot of "wrongs", but it seems that MS cannot do anything without criticism. If MS paid everyone to use Windows and IE they would still be criticised!

As for vulnerabilities, it is well established that there are more likely to be vulnerabilities found and exploited in the most used software.

By halsteadk on 17 Dec 2009

It's FUD. IE8 supports SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.2 compared with Firefox and Safari using TLS 1.0. There were more security issues with Firefox than IE this year as well I believe. I still use Firefox however because it is quicker

By TimoGunt on 17 Dec 2009

No Browser Choice STILL in Windows 7

Microsoft have settled this by agreeing to give users a 'browser selection screen'. Why then have I just installed Windows 7 Professional without the *slightest hint* of any browser selection?

By CeltiKaos on 17 Dec 2009

Because this has only just been agreed and you haven't bought that copy of Windows 7 in the last 5 minutes. Aside from which it's meant to be an update to xp, vista and 7 and as its only just been agreed probably won't be available until after Christmas.

By irturner on 17 Dec 2009

Because this has only just been agreed and you haven't bought that copy of Windows 7 in the last 5 minutes. Aside from which it's meant to be an update to xp, vista and 7 and as its only just been agreed probably won't be available until after Christmas.

By irturner on 17 Dec 2009

bother

By irturner on 17 Dec 2009

The correct update

The correct thing for the EU to have done was to force MS to have a splash screen offering to replace Windows with Linux. Now I am only kidding when I say this but how much further will the nanny states go to controlling people.


I personally use Ubuntu Linux and Firefox as my browser, that is MY personal choice and I wouldn't be so pig headed as to say that it is the perfect choice for everyone. I personally believe that MS has the right to offer it's own browser as the default choice on it's own operating system and that the user should be allowed the freedom of choice. For many years I used Windows and IE and had no need for anything different. Put simply if people are happy with IE they will use it, if they feel unhappy with it then they have probably changed to something else already.

By promethius7 on 17 Dec 2009

Does this mean that existing users will also get this screen? Or will it somehow detect that Firefox is my default browser?

By qwertyqwerty87 on 17 Dec 2009

A Little reading goes a long way

"Microsoft has 13 weeks to roll out the browser choice screen, which will appear via Windows updates on existing PCs" so no er yes but then if it's in the description then you just set that update to hidden.
Won't get Opera a significantly bigger share though :P

By irturner on 17 Dec 2009

But does IE "work perfectly fine already"?

IT professionals often remark about the difficulties of user education. Now, if the majority of users really don't care who the browser developer is, as a_byrne22 suggests, then we do indeed need some user education. Without a choice of browser, there will be no innovation in browser technology and without innovation, there will be no advances in browser security, standards compliance, usability and functionality.

Whilst IE may have made improvements in at least the first two points above, previous versions of IE have been found wanting in these areas. This begs the following questions: Does IE really work perfectly fine already? Would users really want to check their online banking, shop from amazon and check their email on a browser known for having a poor security record? Even if they knew an alternative browser was available?

I'd also argue that the stimulus for improvements in IE with increasing version number has been competition, not a deep, philanthropic desire to provide humanity with a better browser.

Finally, Firefox may recently have shown up more security issues than the latest IE but this needs to be viewed in context. Firefox is open source, this allows any developer to inspect the source code, whether they work for Mozilla or not. This development model allows more people to scrutinise the code, so often more bugs are found. As IE is closed source, it cannot benefit from the same level of scrutiny, so bugs take longer to be found. Also, unless vulnerabilities become well documented, as in the case of exploitation by malware for example, we are wholly reliant on the vendor to make public any security issues. For various reasons, a vendor may want to keep quiet about any vulnerabilities in their code.

By iclbmc1 on 17 Dec 2009

But does IE "work perfectly fine already"?

IT professionals often remark about the difficulties of user education. Now, if the majority of users really don't care who the browser developer is, as a_byrne22 suggests, then we do indeed need some user education. Without a choice of browser, there will be no innovation in browser technology and without innovation, there will be no advances in browser security, standards compliance, usability and functionality.

Whilst IE may have made improvements in at least the first two points above, previous versions of IE have been found wanting in these areas. This begs the following questions: Does IE really work perfectly fine already? Would users really want to check their online banking, shop from amazon and check their email on a browser known for having a poor security record? Even if they knew an alternative browser was available?

I'd also argue that the stimulus for improvements in IE with increasing version number has been competition, not a deep, philanthropic desire to provide humanity with a better browser.

Finally, Firefox may recently have shown up more security issues than the latest IE but this needs to be viewed in context. Firefox is open source, this allows any developer to inspect the source code, whether they work for Mozilla or not. This development model allows more people to scrutinise the code, so often more bugs are found. As IE is closed source, it cannot benefit from the same level of scrutiny, so bugs take longer to be found. Also, unless vulnerabilities become well documented, as in the case of exploitation by malware for example, we are wholly reliant on the vendor to make public any security issues. For various reasons, a vendor may want to keep quiet about any vulnerabilities in their code.

By iclbmc1 on 17 Dec 2009

yet again the EU have too much time on their hands

is it just me that really doesn't get this.....

Why can't Microsoft ship only IE with their own products?

Its their product and you choose to purchase it...

If you buy a new car, the manufacture has chosen which brand of tyres are going to be on it....you don't get this choice - dont link it???? dont buy it...

what about the EU looking at the market share of Google ie over 75%...is that good? maybe next everytime you go to google then they will have to have a pop up which asks you if you would prefer to use a competitors search engine...

its pathetic really, if Microsoft PREVENTED you from installing an alternative then that would be different, but they dont. So what if it means the people who dont care either way usually use IE??? It's their choice, if they prefered something else maybe they should have installed Linux!

By kingct on 17 Dec 2009

Does this apply to home PC or business PC. What about the business licenses for the company, does the ruling apply there as well?
How to avoid pirate, dodgy browser during install who may contains spyware?
Live Long the Firefox!

By riscy on 18 Dec 2009

@iclbmc1

"Firefox is open source, this allows any developer to inspect the source code"

yes and any hacker too!

By rjp2000 on 18 Dec 2009

If you use internet banking and some other websites then you must use I.E for them to work properly. So there it's pointless using anything else.

By rdenni1 on 18 Dec 2009

Big brother bashes on MS

I switched to Firefox a very long time ago but occasionally IE works better for some sites. I never was forbidden by MS to switch. I'm computer literate though. because so many people are just morons when it comes to surfing(I still get random emails claiming to be from my bank and I need to verify my login details), the EU has determined they need to police MS for all the idiots out there. Doesn't make much sense to me. I've never paid for any browser so it's not like MS is making money off having IE as the default browser.

By alexeemo on 22 Dec 2009

Once again the EU totally misses the issue.

Why is Microsoft bundling IE a problem? Because Windows has a monopoly in the OS market, that’s why.

These days, operating systems are just a package of software parts rather than any one particular technical thing. People don’t want to have to choose all the detailed parts they just want to say “I’ll have the MS package or I’ll have the Apple package”. This after all is why we have Linux Distros like Ubuntu or Red Hat, so people don’t have to decide what parts to layer over the kernel someone “who knows better” has made that choice already. Giving consumers a choice they don’t understand doesn’t help anyone.

It would have been better if the EU had tackled the OS problem instead of playing around with this side issue. For example, they could have forced HP, Dell and the like to provide users with a better choice of preinstalled OS. What the EU have come up with is a classic, toothless political fudge to make them look like they are doing something when they aren’t.

By mgbrown on 1 Mar 2010