24 February 2009
EurActiv.com - EU to oblige Microsoft to offer competitors’ browsers
You know, back when IE had about 95% of the market share, I would have probably cheered this decision on, but now that IE's market share has dipped to below 75% (or even lower depending upon who you ask) and is just going lower, do we really even need this anymore?
Most people in the know -- and even plenty of novice computer users --already know that "Internet Explorer = Unsafe," "That Firefox Thing = Safe," thanks in part to people like me constantly repeating this line ad nauseum over the past five years or so.
All of my friends and family now user Firefox (or Safari, for those Mac users) pretty much daily. Hell, I'm even starting to get people using at my job -- thanks to Firebug, I have to admit. I tell you, that little extension has probably done more for Firefox adoption over the past two years than anything else.
So, do we really need the EU making it out to seem that MS is being picked on, and perhaps forcing them to "half-assedly" implement what the EU is telling them to implement?
What do I mean by that?
The EU wants to force MS to offer other browsers by default on new installs of Windows. What's stopping MS from tinkering with the installations of those other browsers to ensure that IE will still give optimal performance when compared to them? How do we know that new users won't be subjected to bad default Microsoft installs of Firefox, or Opera, or Safari, with less than optimal settings, leading these novice users to say, "wow, these other browsers stink. I'll just click on the big blue 'E' -- that always worked great."
See what I'm saying?
Posted by mdm-adph at 8:45 AM