Microsoft's IE 'ballot screen' faces new resistance
(ComputerWorld)

There is no doubt that Microsoft will write the ballot screen to disfavor the customer/consumer doing anything other than accept the IE they have been forced to buy, install, maintain and support.

But, that is not the real problem with the ballot screen idea.

The problem is that such a screen does nothing to prevent the illegal practice by Microsoft of selling for cash money Internet Explorer.

Does the customer get a $35 discount if they decide not to use IE?

If not a very clear and significant advantage is retained by Microsoft no matter what else may occur. And it is a financial one. The customer does have to pay money for IE. It is included in the box (if you will) and Microsoft is the only browser distributor getting money for the sale. So even if a customer chooses some other browser neither Opera, Mozilla, Google or anyone else gets any portion of the revenue.

Only fools and liars would think that is fair. And no one can possibly think that only Microsoft getting revenue while everyone else does not is even close to being a fair and open marketplace.

It is essential that any solution provide for a full substitution of the technology. And that means that consumers can buy without getting IE technology forced upon them. It is also essential that a revenue model is equally available to all distributors.

The distribution alternatives have to be equal. The revenue models available have to be equal. And, most importantly, the possibility that any one customer does not get unwanted technology must also be a reality.

Microsoft lied when it first proposed that it “remove IE”. They never did that. They only disabled it. (keeping the money, of course.)

Going forward consumers deserve a discount if they choose against IE. It is that simple.

On a temporary basis, perhaps the EU can accept a ballot screen of sorts. But, in the long run Microsoft must be required to distribute the OS without any browser at all and allow the market to develop alternatives for browser distribution that are truly equal between the various players. Continuing to bundle IE for cash money from the customer while permitting some distributors to easily make their browser available without a revenue model is certainly a sign of an ignorant authority. Such a solution can never work.

Where is the product substitution?

Where is the lessor price to consumers if they decide not to buy IE?

Where is the lessor price along with an option to pay $5 to $35 for the browser of their choice?

Why is the consumer being denied the ability to vote with their money? That is Microsoft's illegal practice. But, why on earth would any authority agree to such a solution. It screws all consumers and is not a solution at all.

Just because most consumers may think they want a browser is not a reason to force anyone to buy IE for cash money. And even under the so-called ballot screen proposal, that illegal activity continues.

There is not a single software developer in the world that would not accept the clear advantages of being able to force all buyers to pay for your code and not even being given the option of removing it. Hey, I have tons of code I would be more than willing to force upon consumers under those terms.

Under the proposal Microsoft retains a forced revenue model and everyone else is left out with the only participation minus any revenue possibility. Who are the idiots that think that is okay? Microsoft thinks that is okay. But, absolutely no one else should even consider it as being fair and open.

A contrived ballot screen in no way substitutes for a fair and open marketplace for browsers. A ballot screen does not afford competing technology with any manner of a revenue model. Microsoft is paid cash for IE. They may lie about it. But, they are being paid cash for IE. The same should at least be possible for all competing technologies. And if everyone is not forced to take the technology offered by Opera, Mozilla and Google (as well as others) then everyone should never be forced to take the technology offered by Microsoft either.

Who are these idiots that claim the proposed solution is anything but just another way to screw consumers with Microsoft technology? Does anyone with an education actually think that the ballot screen is going to result in a fair and open marketplace for browsers? No economist would. And no one even half familiar with any free marketplace would think so much less any one familiar with the computer software marketplace.

The key factor is “product substitution”. Where is it?

The key factor is a revenue model for all competitors. Where is it?

Where is the acid test?

Completely switch IE and Firefox. Bundle Firefox with the OS (and completely remove IE) and let consumers pick and choose IE if they want it. Do you really think that Microsoft would think that is fair? Open?

Switch the damn products and then ask those who are participating whether they still think the solution is fair. If Microsoft does not think it is still benefiting from the illegal practice of bundling products, it will complain. You can count on it.

Switch the products.

Put Chrome where IE is and see who objects.
Put Firefox where IE is and see who objects.
Restrict IE to the same distribution methods available to Firefox, Opera and Chrome and see who objects.
Put Opera where IE is and see who objects.

The Microsoft OS can ship with a browser but there is no reason at all that it must be IE. Or, Microsoft can ship with a browser application just like it does for the thousands of other applications. And, holly crap, let the browser market develop independent of the OS.

Where is the intelligence in the proposed solutions?

Where are the economists claiming that the proposed solution is going to result in a fair and open marketplace for browsers? You know, with consumers voting with their money.

Is there something wrong with allowing individual consumers to decide what applications they buy, install, maintain and support? The proposed solution suggests that consumers should be eliminated from the process as far as their money goes.

And why is it that neither Google, Opera or Mozilla have taken the above position?

It is a serious question. Don't they employee at least one person that knows and understands the economics of software markets? They certainly should.

I can almost understand if the authorities would have no idea what would work but Google, Opera and Mozilla actually employ smart people not? And if so, why have they not came out and made it clear that the proposed solution could never result in a fair and open marketplace for browsers? Or, any other application? Do they really not know? Maybe they do not know the difference between an operating system and a user application? Do they not know that consumers always prefer to pick and choose the applications they buy, install, maintain and support (including Bill Gates himself, just to mention a sample consumer).

And where is the trade press?

To be honest I am flatly amazed at the lack of intelligence shown by the public discussion of both the cases brought by the US DOJ and EU. You would think they are idiots and incompetent. Or, corrupt. The US DOJ has already proven it is incapable of representing the public. I should not have to repeat this but the US Appellate court decided that commingling code between the OS and the browser did in fact violate the federal antitrust laws. And what did the US DOJ do? They ignored the law and decided to screw consumers by encouraging Microsoft to continue its illegal practices. You can reach no other conclusion. And I am sorry to suggest that the EU is on a similar path.