There are a number of folks around the Internets that seem to fundamentally misunderstand the competitive landscape in desktop Web browsers today. The thinking goes like this: Firefox has more than 20% share of global browser usage so how can you say that Microsoft still has an unfair advantage.
I see it a little differently. When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field.
That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser.
Downloading is an alternative distribution channel, but not nearly as effective because it costs so much more and has a much lower take rate and while the cost to the OS vendor of bundling its browser as default is zero, the cost of becoming the default bundled browser for any but the OS vendor is completely prohibitive. You can see this clearly on both Macintosh and on Windows. The bundled and default Web browser has the lion's share of the respective desktop with no distribution costs at all, and all other competitors depending on downloads for distribution (with the exception of the completely non-traditional Mozilla project) add up to only a tiny fraction.
Let's take Windows first, but the same applies to Macintosh. On the Microsoft Windows OS, you have Opera, Apple, Google, Maxthon, Avant Force, Netscape, AT&T, Flock, Fenrir, AOL, and probably several other browser vendors that have tried to compete with Internet Explorer over the last few years. None of them have had any real success at taking significant share from I.E. via downloads and thanks to the growth of the Web itself, I.E.'s absolute user growth is outpacing every one of those vendors combined.
Look at Mac. You have Opera, Flock, HMDT, The Omni Group, iCab, and a few others and you add up all their share and it's just minuscule compared to Apple's bundled and default Web browser Safari.
This is not a healthy competitive landscape. Against all odds, an odd-ball organization called Mozilla has had some success in breaking Microsoft and Apple browser strongholds, but no one else has been able to make a real dent.
Some will say "yeah, but there's no money in browsers so it's not a real commercial market anyway." That's simply wrong. There's plenty of money in browsers and that's why most of the browser vendors are in the game (Mozilla is the notable exception.) That there's gobloads of money to be made and there are a dozen vendors or more trying to get a piece of that pie and they are all failing to take significant market share from Microsoft and Apple and while producing competitive and in many cases superior products, is a clear demonstration of a commercial market that's out of balance.
The best channels just cost too much for everyone but the OS vendors where those channels (OEMs) are zero-cost. In a functioning market, vendors producing superior products would take share from vendors producing inferior products. Today that's simply not possible because the cost of the most effective channel for distribution, shipping as the default browser with new computers, for everyone except the OS vendor is prohibitively high.
Now, I have no idea what can be done to fix this imbalance. I don't think there are any easy answers. But that doesn't mean that there's not a problem.
update: And yes, I wholeheartedly agree with Opera's CEO Jon von Tetzchner when he says, "The Internet is just too important to limit the choice in browsers. It's very clear that Microsoft's tying the browser to the operating system has limited choice in browsers for end users." I'd add that with nearly 10% of the computer market, the same applies to Apple's tying of Safari to the OS.
update2: The EU has confirmed the reports.
update3: I've posted a few more thoughts here.
Posted by: Damian | January 17, 2009 3:21 PM
I call BS on the bundled browser theory. Each microsoft OS comes with MSPaint installed. I'm smart enough to grab Paint Shop Pro or some other competent application. I don't keep blindly using MSPaint like some zombie. The bundle angle just seems to be the easiest to complain about...
Posted by: John Simmons | January 17, 2009 4:09 PM
@John Simmons: The things is, Paint is a raster drawing program and a bit unique as such, because most graphics programs are specialised to either be used for vector drawing or (raster) photo manipulation. This sharp contrast between Paint and the "real" market means that even non-technical can easily figure out that Paint is not what they want. But, even though, there are enough people who use it with the intent of retouching photos or creating posters.
Anyway... the post: I see, why Opera would complain, Microsoft's practices are clearly unfair (as you laid out), but on the other hand: Opera doesn't seem to be able to produce a compelling-enough browser. Even as they have many more features built-in (which might be a rather bad thing, actually) than Firefox, even as their "awesome bar" is a whole lot better than Firefox's (it indexes the whole webpage, not just the title) and even though Opera seems generally more responsive, I still don't like it. Theming might do a bit.
However, Opera has also seemed unable to mobilise the media (which in turn would mobilise consumers) or consumers directly, which could gives them the edge over its competitors.
Posted by: Aaron Strontsman | January 17, 2009 6:49 PM
John: You are comparing apples with Oranges here. If MS Paint was capable of doing what you want to do, you possibly or even probably *would* be using it. What's important here is that the intention for bundling it with the OS is a different one. With MS Paint, it MS is *not* trying to achieve a monopoly in the picture editing market.
Posted by: Fred | January 17, 2009 7:02 PM
While everything you're saying is absolutely correct about how it tilts the market, I wonder how users would survive if there was no default browser and they had to choose? The problem is that, with the current state of the web, you have to already have a web browser in order to download a new one. It's a chicken and egg problem. If they don't provide one on the computer when you install the OS, there's no easy way to get one.
Posted by: Dave Miller | January 17, 2009 8:48 PM
Dave, that's why I concluded by saying I didn't know how to solve it.
I could, however, imagine a really simple utility included with the OS which could connect to the internet and download other software the first time you run the new OS. Such a utility might even be helpful in fetching and installing updates to the operating system that were made available more recently than when the OS was purchased and bundled with the new computer by the OEM ;-)
On Windows I think they call it "Windows Update" and I believe it's capable of connecting to the Internets and downloading and installing new software or updates to older software with minimal difficulties for the user. I believe that Mac and Linux also have a similar utility.
One doesn't technically need a Web browser to download software from the Internet ;-)
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | January 17, 2009 9:18 PM
At least until Windows XP, Windows Update has itself required a particular Web browser.
Posted by: Minh Nguyễn | January 17, 2009 10:42 PM
Generally speaking, bundles are what consumer want, as they resolve some of the complexity for consumer, so they are good for the market.
Let's compare it to the hardware market. If I made a superior remote control for my TV (which is really possible), what are my chances of capturing more than 1% of market? Almost none. And should TVs come without remote controls? Well the hell no.
Of course, we can bring the story to lower level - applications are bundle of features, so you can say that if I invent a new feature, my chances of distributing it to more than 1% of Firefox users are miserable. Which is true. But should be Mozilla banned of bundling features?
So, splitting bundles is not good idea, as it would harm consumers and increase overall cost (people would have to search for different applications and waste their time on that, although they won't feel it is the value for their time in most cases).
To solve the problem, one thing should be banned, and that is monopoly to bundle. So, Mozilla would have been able to sell Mozilla OS which could be based on Windows with Firefox as default browser. And 90% or more of revenue would still go to Microsoft, accordingly. Here is a bit more elaborate story, that goes to the feature level:
http://features20.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-to-make-software-companies-compete.html
Posted by: Ivan Ičin | January 18, 2009 3:52 AM
@Asa: Something along the lines of "Package Managers" / "Packagekit" / "Add/Remove" or the "I-Phone App Store"? I think there are a lot of people who have already said that if this and a unified updater were included with Windows or OS X that would be very cool. Anyway, not installing a browser from the beginning would still not be an option, Windows Help requires a browser as do Encarta or Windows Media Player and a lot of other software. Letting people choose or even opt out of installing one would get developers in deep trouble.
Posted by: Aaron Strontsman | January 18, 2009 3:53 AM
This can't be solved.
To provide a choice, the OS provider MUST trust in alternatives. I know webkit team tests webkit against virtually every important site and gain trust in their own application. Internet browser is vital part of OS and even minor glitch renders full OS unusable in the eyes of typical aunt Tilly.
So. Let's assume that Firefox must have some plugin without it won't work at all. Mozilla makes that plugin and I make alternative plugin. You MUST offer users a choice. What do you do if my plugin has bugs which render Firefox somtimes into unresponsive state?
Posted by: Peter | January 18, 2009 3:59 AM
Asa: While I completely agree that both OS vendors' choice to bundle browsers in the OS gives them an insurmountable advantage, and that this stagnates competition and innovation, accusing Apple of typing the browser to the OS in the same way that Microsoft has, is simply untrue. As an OS X user, I have the ability to delete/uninstall Safari, while as a Windows user, I do not. Apple's use of Webkit as a display API does not tie me to having Safari installed in the same way that Microsoft programs using the IE engine to render, meant that I was unable to uninstall IE as a browser.
Posted by: Colin Scroggins | January 18, 2009 9:48 AM
Colin, sure the technology aspects of the tying are different but the outcome is the same because the state of the market has very little to do with the actual technology and has very much to do with the distribution channels.
It doesn't matter that I can remove Safari and that I cannot remove I.E. What matters is that both of those operating systems come bundled with the OS vendor's browser. How that bundling is accomplished, with loose or tight coupling, really doesn't have much of an impact on how the consumer deals with her OS and browser relationship.
Or, to put it another way, installing a browser has everything to do with this issue and uninstalling has very little to do with this issue.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | January 18, 2009 10:35 AM
Your supposition that superior products are being crowded out is a fine opinion. However it matters little in a free market. Windows offering me IE for free is a *value* to me. My choice in browsers is large; you have named many in your op-ed. That I do not choose another browser is not a market defect. It is my free choice; if some other browser can't offer me a compelling reason not to use the browser in my OS, how am I suffering?
I find these anti-market arguments in the putative name of competition to be not merely counter-intuitive but very insulting. I have freedom of choice in a browser, in the status quo. The fact that so many browsers fail to take share from IE, is a sign that they are marketing poorly or offer no compelling advantages.
Posted by: Kevin | January 18, 2009 5:02 PM
Windows offering me IE for free is a *value* to me. My choice in browsers is large; you have named many in your op-ed. That I do not choose another browser is not a market defect. It is my free choice; if some other browser can't offer me a compelling reason not to use the browser in my OS, how am I suffering?
I find these anti-market arguments in the putative name of competition to be not merely counter-intuitive but very insulting. I have freedom of choice in a browser, in the status quo. The fact that so many browsers fail to take share from IE, is a sign that they are marketing poorly or offer no compelling advantages.
Posted by: Kevin | January 18, 2009 5:03 PM
Kevin, your argument falls flat in the face of illegal monopolist behavior. We don't live in a free market utopia and there are rules, laws actually, for companies with monopolies. I'd suggest you read up a bit more on the law and history and then try again.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | January 18, 2009 6:02 PM
Asa, sorry for the multiple posts. You offered not a counter-argument here but question-begging. Law and anti-trust history are not relevant to the fact that I am free to choose whatever browser and OS I desire in the status quo. That fact alone rebuts the claim that MS is anti-competitive. You even note and for no apparent reason dismiss your own counter-example of Firefox gaining market share in the status quo. As a reductio, by your own reasoning, GM's automatic installation of a non-essential system like A/C in a car, is flagrantly anti-competitive and cries out for a remedy.
To the point, I could use Firefox, and I choose not to. Forcing MS not to give me IE at no extra charge with Windows, the OS I also freely chose, is stifling competition and my freedom as a consumer, not fostering it. The words "illegal monopolist behavior" are not a rebuttal. They are simple name-calling. If you have counter-analysis, I'd enjoy you offering it.
Posted by: Kevin | January 18, 2009 7:09 PM
Kevin, you're free to do whatever the heck you want. Monopolists are not free to do whatever they want. That's not a terribly complicated juxtaposition.
You can pretend that we live in a free market fantasy land but we simply don't and the existence of anti-trust laws and a history of court cases adjudicated under those laws is sufficient proof for most thinking people.
That you don't believe anti-trust laws exist to prevent abusive monopoly behavior is a larger problem than I care to take on here. The good news is that most of my readers do believe that anti-trust laws exist and that they are used by governments to prevent abusive monopoly behavior.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | January 18, 2009 9:17 PM
Well, Firefox comes with bundled rendering engine and bundled javascript engine. When will Firefox users have a choice? To choose Tamarin for example.
Posted by: Peter | January 19, 2009 2:27 AM
How many car owners have replaced the builtin car stereo or are happy with the radio that comes with the car?
Posted by: Andaya | January 19, 2009 3:37 AM
Kevin, your observation might be acceptable in a market where one operating system would not control 95% of the market. If there would be a dozen OSes and each had their own prebundled browser for example. But that's not the case, currently one player can determine the default browser for 95% of the market. An unfair advantage that has no relation whatsoever to the quality of the product.
Let's imagine, for the sake of it, that the first time someone uses a newly bought computer, he could choose which browser to download. I am willing to bet that IE would lose a big portion of its market share without the advantage of being the default browser.
Posted by: Otto | January 19, 2009 5:46 AM
Windows also shields potential file system makers from competing with NTFS, FAT32, etc. by bundling the NTFS and FAT32 file systems with Windows. I think they should remove those file systems so others can compete.
Also, Windows should remove their COM and API structure so other companies are free to create a competing way to call functionality from other programs.
Windows should remove their IDE and SATA disk drivers from Windows also, so that other companies can compete on the merits. Having these things bundled in Windows is anticompetitive.
Posted by: David Walker | January 19, 2009 9:52 AM
By the way, I have tried Firefox and Chrome, and I just wasn't all that impressed. The differences aren't huge. At the end of the day, we see the Web content that we're looking for. The frame around the Web content doesn't add THAT much (for my needs).
I agree with Kevin that "The fact that so many browsers fail to take share from IE, is a sign that they are marketing poorly or offer no compelling advantages". I found no compelling advantages to Google Chrome or Firefox. I know that there ARE differences, but to ME, the differences were not important. I don't spend all day obsessing about differences in browsers; I have better things to spend my time on.
Posted by: David Walker | January 19, 2009 9:58 AM
@Dave Miller: OEMs will preinstall a browser. That will cover just about all Windows users.
@Ivan Ičin: Did the TV manufacturer break the law with the remote? Microsoft did with IE.
@David Walker: Did Microsoft break the law with NTFS, FAT32, etc.? They did with IE.
@Aaron Strontsman:
Opera doesn't seem to be able to produce a compelling-enough browser.
So because you don't like, it no one does?
I guess Flock, Safari, Chrome etc. aren't compelling either since they have a low market share...
Posted by: Rick | January 19, 2009 12:11 PM
@David Walker:
I agree with Kevin that "The fact that so many browsers fail to take share from IE, is a sign that they are marketing poorly or offer no compelling advantages".
Except for
- performance
- security
- functionality
- user friendlyness
and more?
I don't spend all day obsessing about differences in browsers; I have better things to spend my time on.
Are you a Microsoft shill? Just because people prefer a different browser than IE doesn't mean they "spend all day obsessing about differences in browsers".
Posted by: Rick | January 19, 2009 12:18 PM
@Rick: You're right, that was my opinion. But I do think that there are many people who see it the same way I do (market share can pretty much tell you). And the situation with Opera is different from the other browsers you cite: Opera already try for years, they've been around since before Mozilla (with ad banners, admittedly).
As for Safari, Flock and Chrome: Safari doesn't fit into the Windows sphere, I really don't understand why Apple keeps the OS-X looks on Windows, instead of integrating at least a bit with the OS -- it feels foreign, and as there's no requirement to use it as there is with I-Tunes, it is not accepted; Flock was never made to attract more than a minority (but I think it serves its purpose well) and is always a bit behind Firefox's development; I don't know what will happen with Chrome, but I think it is a good browser and I can't really see what is holding it back (other than that people are scared about Google and that it is too new).
Anyway, Firefox still comes down to a great browser and clever marketing, while Opera is a good browser with apparently less successful marketing.
Posted by: Aaron Strontsman | January 19, 2009 4:26 PM
@Asa, Maxthon is actually more successful than you think. However since Maxthon is based on Trident, its marketshare is counted into IE's. And since Maxthon is based on Trident, it's only available on Windows as an alternate browser, unlike Firefox which is available on Linux and Mac OS too (and the default browser in Ubuntu, the most popular Linux distro).
Posted by: Salems | January 19, 2009 6:16 PM
Asa, you're dead on. It's unfortunate that even if the EC violently wins against Microsoft, as a Californian, the next 10 versions of Windows released in the US will probably still be bundled with IE 8. Microsoft has failed to show any real dedication towards making a superior product, nor have they disbundled the crap browser from the OS.
Posted by: IceArdor | January 19, 2009 8:26 PM
Asa, you're dead on. It's unfortunate that even if the EC violently wins against Microsoft, as a Californian, the next 10 versions of Windows released in the US will probably still be bundled with IE 8. Microsoft has failed to show any real dedication towards making a superior product, nor have they disbundled the crap browser from the OS.
Posted by: IceArdor | January 19, 2009 8:26 PM
While IE has the best distribution channel out there, Firefox has the 2nd best.
Firefox is advertised in Google's landing page, that means 90% of netizen sees it. Imagine putting up Opera in Google's landing page, will they grab 20% market share in a few years? I bet they would.
Also, Safari is monopolistic in it's own way. Why on earth do I need to go to Safari to set my default browser to another? This should not happen.
Posted by: zibin | January 20, 2009 1:04 AM
While IE has the best distribution channel out there, Firefox has the 2nd best.
Firefox is advertised in Google's landing page, that means 90% of netizen sees it. Imagine putting up Opera in Google's landing page, will they grab 20% market share in a few years? I bet they would.
Also, Safari is monopolistic in it's own way. Why on earth do I need to go to Safari to set my default browser to another? This should not happen.
Posted by: zibin | January 20, 2009 1:05 AM
I see the only "final solution": pin all hopes (read: encourage and support) on Fennec and mobile Internet gadgets especially those with open platforms. Number of mobile users of Internet will outnumber those wired ones in not-so-distant future.
Posted by: Funtomas | January 20, 2009 7:29 AM
@Aaron Strontsman
The Opera browser is plenty compelling enough. Opera's problem was that it wasn't free, and it doesn't have the marketing muscle of companies like Google, who helped push Firefox.
Your claim that Opera is not compelling enough as a browser is clearly completely bogus. If you read Asa's post instead of spreading drivel like that, you'll realize that Firefox has more than just being a good browser. It got the biggest advertising company in the world to push it out there.
Posted by: hrhm | January 20, 2009 8:49 AM
Last I heard, MS has a pretty good plan with Windows 7 - provide a base operating system and let users download the additions that they want. Wouldn't it be nice if the Windows 7 setup had a list of all of the major browsers and asked "which would you like to install as your default web browser?" It could even work along the lines of the search bar in IE 7, and if your browser isn't listed, you can provide the address where Windows can download it for you. I know it's a pipe dream, but who knows? Maybe MS will feel some pangs of conscious and make an attempt at integrity... hah! Now THAT'S a pipe dream.
Posted by: Topher | January 27, 2009 9:43 AM
I read through your missive. The EU wants me to have to PAY for what is free!!
The fact you mentioned there is money to be made is the key. I do not want to PAY anymore to get a browser. A browser is necessary to use the internet. I am not a hobbyists nor do I ar for most of the OS systems out there that are difficult to use,install,and don't run the Apps I want!!
What this Opera thing is about is money;clear and simple. It is about the customer being charged for "superior" product rather than having a "free" choice. It is profit that Opera is after and the population of the EU suffers by having to buy what was once free.
Posted by: Rio | March 17, 2009 9:23 AM
OEMs should be able to charge just as much for Microsoft to have IE bundled as the default browser as any other browser. Or some other similar set-up.
The problem is that people don't choose non-professional software like they choose other commercial products. The only way that we'll really have a flourishing software market is if we had OS vendors who encouraged choice of software.