Windows Browser Ballot Glitch Cost Firefox 6-9 Million Downloads 245
nk497 writes "Microsoft's failure to include the EU browser ballot in Windows 7 SP1 cost Mozilla as many as 9 million Firefox downloads, the organization's head of business affairs revealed. Harvey Anderson said daily downloads of Firefox fell by 63% to a low of 20,000 before the ballot was reinstated, and after the fix, downloads jumped by 150% to 50,000 a day. Over the 18 months the ballot was missing, that adds up to six to nine million downloads — although it's tough to tell if the difference has more to do with Chrome's success or the lack of advertising on Windows systems. The EU is currently investigating the 'glitch,' and Microsoft faces a massive fine for failing to include the screen, which offers download details for different browsers to European Windows users, as part of measures ordered by the EU to balance IE's dominance."
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're calculating lost downloads, now? And I thought lost sales due to piracy was a stupid metric...
Money? (Score:1, Insightful)
As long as it's a monetary fine, M$ won't worry about it. If it's an actual, punative reaction the hire lawyers and drag it out for years while they go ahead with their scheme. Either way, they win.
Dr. Evil working in Redmond? (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you explain something like this? Would you think with all the people Microsoft has in their employ they would assign the duty of EU Compliance Checklist Monitor to someone?
"glitch" (Score:4, Insightful)
The "Glitch" (Score:5, Insightful)
The "glitch" is a result of OEMs integrating the wrong version of service packs into their images.
When they integrate the non-EU version of a service pack then the image won't present the "ballot screen" to the user.
Re:Consistency (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a good thing that they demand this of Microsoft. I mean, without setting this precedent, how else could we be offered the chance to freely and without jumping over hurdles obtain Firefox (or Chrome, for that matter) on our iPhones?
The iPhone is, in the US at least, at ~33% market share. Come back when they have a 80-90% and I (and the regulators) might start listening.
Re:HOSTS file could have prevented this (Score:0, Insightful)
I think it's some sort of demented, poorly-thought-out Time Cube parody.
Users choose a pretty icon? :) (Score:4, Insightful)
So, does this mean that the only reason Firefox is getting those downloads, is because users are bored and pick a pretty icon from the list? :)
Cause even bing.com shows Firefox download page on the first page of "Firefox" query so I'm not sure I can believe in extra 50K people not being able to get Firefox if they want it.
I know users sometimes are not smart enough to find and download something, but this is ridiculous...
Re:Why do they even play along? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because MS make more money from the EU market and sell more goods/services to it than anywhere else. Yes, that includes the US. You're second. Same as in a lot of IT markets. Hell, some of the gaming markets you're not even third.
You can piss them off if you like, but that's the LARGEST market they deal with. Same for Google, eBay and lots of other companies that deal internationally.
Ignore the fine and they seize your assets (i.e. freeze your bank accounts), which means zero effective business in that region. That's billions of Euros lost every year because you got stroppy and didn't pay a fine that you were legally required to pay.
Think that's fiction? They were >50% of your assets, sales and money (i.e. anything stored in the EU, or held by the EU, or sold to the EU) overnight is no small thing. And if you do business in the EU, you're liable to EU taxes and law (including fines) NO MATTER WHAT, so they'd literally just get other countries to take that from your bank account and pay it, no matter where you tried to hide it.
And, as it was, the US investigated this same matter and decided not to do anything. The EU investigated it and charged them billions. AND THEY PAID. Because it's the most incredibly stupid thing in the world not to. The EU literally have the power to say "No, you can't sell Windows" if they like.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The "Glitch" (Score:1, Insightful)
Ahh, so it's the result of Microsoft's business practice of making sure everybody who installs something other than Windows on any of the computers they build pay a whole ton extra to install Windows on any of the computers they build. This practice revolves around OEM reselling of Windows and provides a window in which OEMs can 'mess with the Windows experience'.
I think holding Microsoft liable for this is pure justice as this practice is not only responsible for making sure nothing but Windows can ever get a foothold on the desktop, but also for all the awful software you get when you buy a new PC.
Unfortunately, while holding them responsible for this might be justice, it might not also be legally correct. And making it legally correct might set a horribly bad precedent for situations in which it doesn't represent justice. *sigh*
Re:MORE IMPORTANTLY (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft agreed to this (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this is what Microsoft agreed to.
Its not a decision, its an agreement they entered into to avoid a trial and a resulting decision. Its quite possible that an actual decision, rather than a negotiated settlement, would have involved greater up-front cost but less in terms of long-term, ongoing restrictions. Microsoft made a choice that they'd rather have what they are now subject to than take the risk of the kind of fines and other up-front consequences at risk in a trial. That may or may not have been a bad decision in retrospect, but it was Microsoft's decision.
How is Apple a MUCH worse offender? (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably when Apple first has a monopoly in some market, and then illegally leverages that monopoly to gain power in an existing, separate market, and then makes a settlement agreement like Microsoft made to resolve the anti-trust charges over that leveraging, and then violates that agreement the way Microsoft did that is at issue here.
Re:The "Glitch" (Score:5, Insightful)
[citation required].
Every source I have read on the web shows Microsoft admitting to the "error" themselves, not blaming it on OEMs.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this is a matter of breach of contract. When it became obvious that Microsoft was in violation in the anti-trust hearings at the court, they made an offer to the court: they will solve the problem by putting browser ballot into the OS. This was Microsoft's own suggestion. Court agreed and Microsoft entered into a contract with the court stating how and when it will implement this ballot.
Microsoft stalled a few times. However the problem didn't arise because court was always willing to grand Microsoft extensions to the deadline. However at one point, folks representing Microsoft admitted to the court at the hearing about another delay that it wasn't implemented at all.
It was probably a dumbest move of all times really. All they had to do was keep their mouths shut about it not being implemented and ask for yet another extension and court would have likely granted it.
So this is very much not about anti-trust any more. This is about Microsoft not honouring a contract, and penalties associated with this.
Re:Still dont get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they themselves suggested it to the court. Both the idea and implementation of browser ballot were microsoft's own suggestions to the court.
You are an idiot. (Score:2, Insightful)
And you don't know the difference between interpolation and extrapolation.
Extrapolation makes assumptions about future and they fail when something extraordinary happens in the future.
Interpolation makes assumptions about past - it's like assuming that missing numbers in 1 2 3 4 ... ... 7 8 9 should have been 5 and 6. Knowing that actual numbers there were 1 and 2 we can assume something out of ordinary happened. Like MS messing up the ballot, for example.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sarcasm, yes. Trolling, no.
If someone doesn't know enough to know that they want something other than MSIE, then in most cases, they don't. Making them pick a browser on first use amount to a complete crap-shoot. Sure, they might pick FF or Chrome, and get lucky (though personally, I have more philosophical objections to Chrome - which don't apply to Chromium - than to MSIE). Or they might pick Safari, now deprecated for Windows, and end up in a far worse situation than just defaulting to MSIE.
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
No. Stop. Right there. It's exactly the same as the record companies claiming that every person who pirated a CD would have bought it anyway. The fact that this is about Microsoft and Mozilla is irrelevant. The claim that the glitch "costed" 6.9 million downloads is fatally flawed and disingenuous.
This is completely incidental to what type of issue this is.