There is only one feasible solution: to offer various browsers in the OEM installation, from which the end user will pick the preferred one on the first start of OS. This way the choice is done by the user, not an OEM vendor thus eliminating any chance MS motivates those vendors, who install IE. The vendor would be only responsible for providing up-to-date versions of relevant browsers.
MS would also have to make sure, all the online services (e.g. Windows update, Support, Hotmail, etc.) run by MS allow competitor's browsers.
This addresses PC's only. How about mobile phones?

The solution that I see happening is some kind of browser installer embedded in a future version of Windows. In my theoretical installer, when you install windows, or after the operating system is installed and it is being initially configured, it'd have to ask which Browser out of a selection of three or four that you want installed, it would then download and install whatever your selection is. Of course, it'd take a court order to do this and it will probably never happen, but then again, no-one ever figured that something like Firefox would come out of the ashes of Netscape.

Funtomas, who would be responsible for selecting the browsers offered? Are you saying that OEMs would be responsible for this and not Microsoft? What piece of software would present these browsers to the user? Who would be responsible for writing that software? If this is extra work or extra cost, is it fair to impose that on OEMs because of Microsoft transgressions? Who pays for this? Who designs the user experience.

I'm not trying to knock your idea down, just looking for more details.

(Let's not talk about mobile phones here. Thanks.)

- A

Franklin, who designs and builds your theoretical installer? Microsoft? Who decides which browsers belong in the list? Where does the installer download the browser from? The browser vendor? Microsoft's site? If the user has a slow internet connection, is that an awful user experience? What about just including the various browsers and only downloading if there's an updated version?

Again, I'm not trying to say anything's wrong with your idea. I'm just interested in the specifics.

- A

I agree with Asa regarding the completely valid points above me. But there are too many thorny issues: Who gets to be on the installer? In what order? Can vendors pay for higher priority?

We're ignoring a critically important point here and one that those of us even moderately tech-savvy find impossible to believe: Most people don't care. If there was a giant list of every possible browser, from IE to Firefox down to Amaya and friggin' Links, the average user wouldn't give a fig. They'll pick the first one, or the default one (which to most users is the same thing).

Considering that, how does the first not end up having undue influence? No browser should have ever have 90%+ market share again.

How do you educate the user on the pros and cons of such a choice considering that it's a historical fact that user education isn't a viable solution to computer related task? You can't. That sucks but is kind of understandable. I had stick shift versus automatic transmission explained to me in detail and my eyes glazed over. This is the same kind of thing.

So the only realistic choice to make is to take the decision away from the user. But who's left in the chain? Asa highlights the only other entity in the supply chain: the OEMs... with it's own host of issues and licensing costs an such.

The only thing I can think is to borrow an idea from copyright: the statutory license fee.

If the OEMs had a choice between paying $X for IE or the same $X for Otherbrowser then the original point Asa made is at least mitigated. It doesn't prevent someone from changing their choice later but there a chicken/egg issue on Windows whose only resolution is to provide some sort of internet access through something first.

The important points about this is that Microsoft can't permitted to even allow the possibility that the license cost for Windows would be lessened with a version of Windows with IE. The OEM pays $Y for Windows and they pay an additional $X for IE or Firefox or whatever. The total cost should *always* be $X+Y or Microsoft has skewed the game again and should be smacked down with such a litigative wrath as to make the OJ trial look like a parking ticket appeal.

The only problem I have with that is that I LIKE the idea of Opera undercutting Microsoft for the IE license but any scenario like that has Microsoft undercutting everyone to zero cost and we're back to square one.

Matt, you raise a lot of good points and I think your remedy is certainly worth further consideration and discussion. There might be some way to make something like that work.

On the user education front, I'm wondering about a slightly different approach. You rightly suggest that users don't want to make this decision and don't have enough information to make this kind of decision so they'll go with which ever is first or default. Educating them would be extremely difficult. I'd add to what you said with the suggestion that they'd also go with what they recognize, such that even if you randomized which was first on the list, people would opt for the "blue e" more often than not because that was more familiar to them.

So, what about not trying to educate them and simply not offering a choice and just having it be random? 25% of the installs end up with IE and a mechanism for switching, 25% end up with Firefox and said mechanism for switching, 25% end up with Opera and 25% end up with Chrome? (or whatever list of browsers were chosen) If a user was unhappy with that random default, they could just open up the "Windows Defaults" panel and switch.

Another possibility, maybe don't show the icons, just ask the user "would you like to get your Web through Mozilla's Web browser, Microsoft's Web browser, Google's Web browser, or Opera's Web browser? The list could be randomized so users selecting which ever was first wouldn't all end up with the same browser.

Just some more thoughts. I'm not advocating these approaches, I just want to foster discussion here.

- A

I thought of that too.

If I had to select all of the components of an automobile I wanted to buy from all the possible suppliers attempting on my own to balance cost versus performance versus quality versus whatever I'd be looking at bicycles really fast instead.

If I found out that the parts were selected by through a series of fair die throws I'd be likely to pick a different company to make my car. And if they all did? Once again I'm thinking a nice Schwin 10 speed with extra padding in the seat.

The OEM seems like the only entity capable of making an informed decision on behalf of the user. That doesn't prevent me from either overriding their decision before the fact via a selection option on the website or via my freedom to do what I please after I get the PC. But I'm an outlier. Anybody reading this is an outlier. By and large the OEM selection would be the final choice.

Other options I don't like but that are possible:
The EU could pick one. But that switching one monopoly for another.
The EU could pick one on a rotating basis. That arbitrary and too much work for everybody involved.
The EU could commission a Eurobrowser.
The EU could adjust the cost of the browser-buy based on the inverse of it's market share. IE would cost more than FF which would cost more than Links. That has possibility but I have a feeling that MS would game the system somehow. At best it's a variation on my statutory license idea but would attempt to level the playing field. Plus that would be a lot of work to determine the ratios. How often would they be updated?
The EU could mandate MS cease and desist development of IE, disband the team and destroy evidence of the code, possibly via bonfire or nuclear blast. Then let MS pick the successor. But it has to license the code from them, probably via arbitration or statute.
The EU could require that MS spin off a separate company to handle IE development. Let the OEMs pay for it separately and let the free market take care of how this all shakes out. Given the lack of for-profit browser guys out there (Opera and ?) I doubt that would work.

I did think of one important point.

MS would HAVE TO decouple IE completely from the OS. No component could have a dependency. I understand that updates are handled by a distinct app on Vista now so there's one example of a decoupling. I'm sure there are others. It would HAVE TO be possible to run Windows without IE. That a browser has to be on there is a separate issue but realistic in the abstract. I'd have a perverse thrill if Windows update could be accessed via a Java applet because FF doesn't support ActiveX. (Of course how quickly would an ActiveX plugin suddenly appear from Redmond.)

"Are there any changes that could either remove Microsoft's advantage, or remediate other vendors' disadvantage, or some combination of the two?"

Yes:
* the mobile platform
* the netbook platform
* the console platform
* the PC as pure internet browser
* the Apple Mac
* or the Linux (etc.) desktop.

If you really wanted to introduce laws as a solution, then you could require the standardisation of every input format and remove software patents.

Because the main problem here is that people don't know that they have a choice but most people don't want to choose we could make it very simple. Leave IE on the PC but give the people a presentation in video/flash in their native language made by all competitors of IE. Either let them watch it immediately or leave an icon on the desktop. After this presentation give them a link to a neutral browser page where you see a top 10 of browsers ordered by either clicks or market share.

Ideally, I think the DOJ was right to desire separating IE from Windows. How MS convinced them that IE sharing code with the shell required using IE for a web browser is beyond me. If public libraries can tweak Windows to disable the browser piece of the IE code, surely MS can. Either:

*Spin IE into a separate company (ideally)
*Force the IE division within MS to financially support itself
*Or kill IE or threaten to

Then let all the browsers compete for installation in Windows the same way hardware manufacturers compete for OEM inclusion. I'm estimating pennies or dimes per inclusion based on Asa's explanation of Fx paying for inclusion a few posts ago. They don't need to go all or nothing - Mozilla may buy 100 million installs, IE 200 million, etc. The money could go to Windows or the OEM; I don't know that it matters.

Alternatively, or if no browser organization can afford to pay, use the OS setup strategy. You just need to create an arbitrary algorithm. Remember in the US primaries and TV networks had to decide which candidates to include in their debates? E.g., the top 4 most popular browsers for Windows in the given language. Or, the 5 browsers scoring highest on the latest Acid test. They'll never agree on a perfect algorithm but anything is better than nothing.

I don't really see the problem. We want competition, we like competition, competition helps us enormously. So why some aren't interested in that aspect is beyond me, and most of the comments seem like they're just really, really keen on making the noise go away rather than improving anything.

See, most of the arguments come from the wrong direction. Firefox has an open source movement that permits it to be popular, in addition to user-generated additions to it that only serves to enhance that communityesque popularity.

Safari's bundled. It's ok, but it's bundled, and that's why it's as popular as it is. Nothing more to it imo.

Opera has a different tack. They added a load of features from start and skipped the marketing that Firefox did, in addition to the lack of user generated content. They're commercially oriented and their particular model is in fairly direct competition with Microsoft, which is one reason for their current approach.

It should be easy to add a simple navigator on the same line as the "Help & Support" centre we see today (which is based on IE anyways) where you have links to the various browsers. Something a la an app store. Click a link, start downloading. If you can't download a browser, then you obviously don't have the internet either, and won't need a browser preinstalled.

I think the solution would be Linux finally getting mainstream (how to achieve that is another question, though).
Every modern OS needs a default browser to ship with, even if it's for the sole purpose of downloading another browser. Window's default browser is IE, Mac OS default browser is Safari and Linux default browser is mostly Firefox.
If all of these operating systems had close-to-equal market shares, no company would have unfair advantages for distributing any kind of software.

The solution is, commercial OEM channels for OS and browser should be obsolete and superseded by more modern distribution channels.

FOSS is the way to go. Commercial OEM distribution of OS and software will die out. So the market is going in the right direction. Trying to go back to the old commercial ways is stupid.

Asa, the thing you want to do should NOT be how to make another commercial browser to compete against IE. The software market is already DIFFERENT from those hardware parts like CPU, RAM, etc. With the advance of FOSS, the software side is already lightyears ahead of hardware side in terms of market model. So it's simply WRONG trying to go backwards in the wrong direction. It should NOT be about another commercial browser beating IE, it should be about free software beating non-free software, FOSS beating commercialism as a whole!

glastheim, I just fundamentally disagree with you. A software developer or group of developers (call them "a company") should not have to be non-commercial and operate like Mozilla to be able to participate in today's software ecosystem.

I'm all for more modern distribution channels, but it's not clear to me what you think those modern distribution channels are. Are you saying that all software products will require mobilizing and sustaining large-scale grassroots charitable advocacy campaigns? That doesn't sound reasonable to me.

And, until someone shows me that Mozilla's model is repeatable in consumer desktop software, I'm not at all convinced of your premise. I appreciate your enthusiasm for FOSS, but I just don't think your anti-commerce vision meshes well with reality.

- A

Matthias, I just don't see Linux going mainstream. It's come a long way since I first started using it almost a decade ago, but it's still got a very long ways to go before it'll be a real replacement for its commercial counterparts.

I also can't think of any effective remedy to Microsoft's browser distribution advantage that has anything to do with Linux. Getting people to switch browsers is hard enough. Raising the bar to switching entire operating systems just seems like a non-starter to me.

- A

Ferdinand, I like your idea about the educational video. I'm afraid that most people won't want to deal with "advertising" of that sort though, even if it would be good for them. But yes, something has to be done to help people make a better decision. Right now, "the blue e" is a familiar synonym for "the Web" and that's a real problem. Educating the world that the other browser logos also mean roughly the same thing is a herculean task that just doesn't seem doable to me. Perhaps the better approach would be to take the blue e away alltogether and let users chose between "Microsoft's browser" and "Mozilla's browser" (or whatever other alternatives.)

- A

Asa, I thought about randomizing the default browser myself (or about presenting the user with a list of choices in random order which will have the same result). However, this won't necessarily help competition, browsers won't be chosen by their merits (or lack thereof). If we have four browser choices, these browsers will stabilize around 25% and changing that will require the same extraordinary effort required to compete with IE. Any browser, no matter how crappy, will immediately gain market share when added to the list. Any browser, no matter how good, will have a very hard time competing if not added to the list. In other words, there will be lots of fighting about who gets on the list and that fighting will replace competition rather than help it.

Having OEMs choose the browser and requiring everybody to charge the same amount for a license sounds like the best idea to me. However, preventing Microsoft from pushing OEMs into installing IE (by whatever means) will be hard. Not to mention that you cannot force the end users to pay the same license fee when downloading browsers - and that will make for some interesting loopholes.

Hypocrisy...

1 - I use several applications on daily basis which came with Windows (for free) like Notepad and Windows Explorer but i don't read about MS Notepad monopoly.

2 - Does Apple gives a choice of a browser?

3 - I have tried Ubuntu (most popular linux distribution) few months ago and only browser available after installation was Firefox

I tried to make it clear in the initial post that I really really wanted people to stay on topic here. I'm not a big fan of deleting comments, but I did make an explicit request that you all help keep things on track.

dXm99, your comment has almost nothing to do with the topic of this post. Please try to keep things on topic or you will be deleted. Thanks.

- A

Wladimir, yeah. That's why this is so tricky. It may be, and I sure hope it's not, but it may be the case that the last decade or so of Microsoft behavior has actually broken the PC OEM channel beyond repair. The incentives for the current participants are all out of whack and there don't appear to be many obvious solutions to bringing them back in line without pretty bad side effects.

Then again, there's no saying that such a remedy would have to be permanent. If a few years of offering alternatives randomly brought more choice and user education to the market, perhaps after lifting such a system, a more "normal" competitive marketplace would come about.

Or, maybe we have to just write off the whole PC OEM channel and seek out mechanisms for building or improving alternative channels to be more effective. How to combine that task with a Microsoft-specific remedy also seems very tricky, but it probably won't happen on its own.

- A

I'm in a troll feeding mood, so bear with me.

"1 - I use several applications on daily basis which came with Windows (for free) like Notepad and Windows Explorer but i don't read about MS Notepad monopoly."
The difference is the negative impact. Notepad doesn't hinder web progress, prevent standards from spreading, waste developer's time, or anything like that. IE does.

"2 - Does Apple gives a choice of a browser?"
Other than the fact Apple isn't in a monopoly position, Mac users can easily uninstall Safari, because it isn't tied to the OS. The same can't be said about Windows users and IE.

"3 - I have tried Ubuntu (most popular linux distribution) few months ago and only browser available after installation was Firefox"
Same as above.

I see a different problem. many here are talking about a setup routine that gives you a option. the problem is that i'm going to my discounter or preferd computer-market and buy a pc. I don't want to deal with the technologie of a pc, i only want to put power on it and working! with ms office, my browser and in the evening/night to shut down and going sleeping.
nobody cares which mail application is installed, I'm uinga webbased app.
etc...
The user don't want to install. he has no knowlege for that!
linux has another problem (and that shouldn't b discussed here) --> it isn't familiar with the users' experience. my mother is always asking me if something is popping up and she asks me what she have to do, because she has fear to install a virus o.O (reading helps, but she doesn't understand it. that happens also for ff updates :O )

The OEM should choose a browser for its customers. ok. fine. I do think, that most of them will choose the ie. ms gives for the ie support. the ofters don't. (and I don't mean that you have to go on any bugzilla/forum/usegroups/irc/etc) normally the customer take the telephone and search for the number of ms/pc-market/whatever!
As I said the oems will do choose the ie! Even they have to install it by hand. (msi update tool is based on active x for example!)
And can the EU prefent the oems for selling the ie with windows?

Again, not speaking on behalf of Mozilla here... how about preventing Microsoft from making deals to share browser-related revenue with OEMs and requiring them to allow an OEM to ship an alternate browser with Windows. This would provide an incentive for an OEM to go beyond just shipping IE because it's easy. If they picked something else, they would have a chance to get some revenue share from search engines and ads. Yes, IE would still be there, but it would be minimized in favor of the browser the OEM prefers.

This might be a bit subtle, and it could degenerate into OEMs shipping substandard browsers that pay out big (browser crapware), but it would probably lead to more alternate browser share and a healthier web.

At this point I tell everyone to use firefox and it's my browser of choice. It's just better.
If IE becomes better I'll go back, and if Chrome is ever worth my time I'll switch. When it comes to computers, I go with what works. And for the last few years Firefox just works the way I need it to, and that's what's important.

With that said, I am so tired of everyone going on and on about Microsoft and Windows, the reason people use it is, it makes sense. Period. If you think they have an unfair advantage, build an OS. MS didn't win the battle of the search engines, and you could easily make the argument that they should have because it was the default on IE. But Yahoo beat them out, then Google crushed everyone, because it worked.

AOL was by far the default provider for dial up, everyone had them. They shipped those damn cd's to everyone by the truckloads everyone knew about it and how to get it on their computer. Then higher speed alternatives came around and they didn't know how to compete. They died.

Basically what I am saying is stop making up excuses, stop worrying about the other guy and find a better way to get to where you want to go if you don't like the way you are going now.

And why the computing blogging world lets Apple get away with their monopolistic ways is beyond me. You have to buy their machines with their software, with their parts at heavily inflated prices because why? They have a cool factor. I know it works, I just can't believe everyone buys into it with no critics calling them out.

All the proprietary crap that goes on today, it's insane. We wouldn't have TV or radio if the world always thought that way, hell electricity itself had to be standardized so we could have progress. Maybe someday someone with half a brain will realize there is more to be made if more was a shared technology and less was proprietary.

I'm done ranting for now.

The agencies and governments that help to regulate this process are part and parcel to the problem.

Had the US Government let a DOD contract that would have led to the development of an operating system that did not require any browser interface or elements or would not require these elements of a browser platform for operation or security updates -this may/might have solved the issue long ago.

I use the DOD as an example but the same could have been said for an industry or other governmental element.

An OS that "requires" exposure of a computer or computer network to security flaws and exposure to portals which can be accessed or exploited through a web browser is flawed.

Granted Microsoft would have the "inside" position on "developing" such an OS - one that does not require any browser embed but simply does not "see" any benefit and maybe we should not "blame" them or it.

Rather, let a contract for bid if no takers or goal is not reached with a reasonable window - say 2 years. Then, if none of the existing platforms can or have developed a marketable OS that can be used to run without exposure to elements inherent to IE or other browsers then a more useful and stable platform needs to be developed.

The scientific and engineering community starts over. The existing platforms have failed (no system has been developed) and a new paradigm is needed. Any elements of the existing platforms can be incorporated as needed (a form of eminent domain so to speak) and in the process a more secure and stable platform is developed to facilitate governmental activities and support essential industries such as finance, medicine, education.

This should be approached as a matter of national security.

Will take more time, more resources, but not really sure that a finance officer or security analyst working to expose terror threats has to be using an OS that readily allows or enables a porn video to be viewed or downloaded or a lampshade to be purchased on ebay.

My take.........

The best solution would be to work hand in hand with Microsoft as they are "the opposition".

The very first question to be answered is: "What Microsoft gains in shipping IE with its OS?"

Then we should look at the situation, and try to work on that. Because if Microsoft finds interest in shipping other browsers, then everyone is a winner.

Someone said...
MS would HAVE TO decouple IE completely from the OS. No component could have a dependency.

----

There is some serious misunderstandings here. Instead of building a standalone application like they had in the early days (and FF and Opera now) they made a very smart choice. They would build components (HTML parsing, rendering, etc) and build an API so that any application on Windows could use them. They also used these components to build the entire shell (user interface). Numerous OS components and 3rd party applications rely on these API's. IE is merely a small application that uses these. When someone says they've removed IE from their system, it's actually only this small application since if you remove the API dlls, the operating system can't run.

So the big question is what is IE? Is it merely the small application? The API's that support internet services?

This came up at the DOJ lawsuit and the government refused to answer the question as to what they wanted removed. (Those academic guys made fools of themselves trying to show you could remove IE when all they could do was remove the little host application)

As a developer I (along with many others) expect Windows to have those DLL's in place. Removing them just increases costs for everyone else.

Well, now that we've talked about what ought to be maybe in the abstract maybe we should get back to what the EU can do practically.
They've identified MS's bundling of IE as anti-competitive. Opera and Mozilla (as of after this was posted) have filed suit.
We've noted the infeasibility of some sort of application to allow the user to pick. It's a great idea initially, but the issues it brings up are intractable.
We've lamented the unproductiveness of user education.
We've highlighted the important role OEMs play in a possible selection.
I've suggested a fixed statutory license fee paid by the OEM for the browser selection. Probably overridable at the time of purchase. Possibly weighted to assist in equalizing market shares. All of which requires that MS not undervalue Windows license cost if IE is installed.
We've suggested that MS spin off the IE product and let it fight it out fairly in the market.
We've noted how Microsoft's most important job is decoupling IE completely from the inner workings of the OS. I'd add that windows update shouldn't allow it as a supplementary download option either. Mozilla has shown us the way with regard to self updating apps.
I also can't help but think that if the OEM took some sort of liability with regards to the security of the software they bundle that IE's marketshare would drop. Although a decoupled IE might actually be good for IE as an application. Along the lines of due diligence since all apps are buggy.

While I am not proMicrosoft, I really don't think that Microsoft breaks regulation. I just think that regulation is flawed. So, competition is achieved by chance, and sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.

So, if kept PC architecture closed, it could use its own chips and everything, and we wouldn't have competition. IBM decided to open architecture in order to make it more competitive. But this didn't have to happen (actually, I think that IBM wouldn't do that now).

So, there is just one word between competition and monopoly: standards. If software industry had standards, people could produce parts that work together in combination. As it is not case, there can be only one 40 tons gorilla, as there is not enough food for other one. And it can't be changed artificially, or it will get even worse for consumers.

And just to note that I had written previously that although most remote controls suck, and although there are independent producers for this, I don't think bundling them with TV should be banned. Also, I don't think that Mozilla should be banned from bundling features to Firefox, although some extension might work better than Firefox original feature.

Matt Boehm said...
We've noted how Microsoft's most important job is decoupling IE completely from the inner workings of the OS.

----

No we haven't. You'll need to define what you want since OEMs can already remove/replace the IE host application with whatever they want. For the most part consumers aren't demanding they do so.

Developers and 3rd party companies don't want the dll's removed and neither does Microsoft since they need them for the shell anyway.

Just want to remind people that I'd really like this discussion to stay focused on the PC OEM Channel. Questions of Microsoft guilt or anything like that is off-topic here. Thanks for keeping things sane.

Matt you said that Mozilla had filed suit. That's not the case. Opera is plaintiff in this issue, not Mozilla.

- A

Asa, as of this morning Mozilla has decided to join Opera in the complaint as an "interested third party". It hit Slashdot a couple of hours ago linking to a ComputerWorld article here (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9127658)

@Todd: I disagree. MS's statement is that the browser is coupled to the OS is the root of the issue to begin with. As of XP it was the software update mechanism for non-critical systems was only available through IE. That changed with service packs but it was the default pre SP1 IIRC. I don't think you can actually completely replace the host app. Retheme, add extesions, toolbars etc. But XP will not work if the Trident rendering engine is not running somewhere on the box.
So that's what I want to aim for (and I think that's what the EU is aiming for too). Trident-less XP. Let the user decide (or OEM as proxy).
Could this be resolved as easily as making it selected via the OEM as not the default browser if they so wish? It may be necessary (or at least MS may claim so) for certain internet related maintenance tasks, but if the browser isn't on the desktop and the default one isn't IE then we're past the point of it getting undue market share. I've got Links on my Linux laptop and it actually came in handy when I broke X11, but I'm not running GMail on it no matter what.

Matt, don't believe everything you read. Mozilla has not "joined Opera in the complaint" That would suggest that Mozilla has become a plaintiff in the case and that's just not so.

I don't think you quite understand what Interested Third Party means (and that Computer World and other articles aren't helping.)

Interested Third Party is a status that can be applied for and if granted allows an "interested third party" to learn more about what's actually happening in an otherwise secret proceeding. An interested third party could actually be an ally of the defendant. It simply means what it says, interested third party.

- A

Stripping IE from Windows won't be a solution: Why should Windows be the only OS on the market that does not ship with a browser? Browsers are part of the OS nowadays. Anyone ever seen the enforced XP-without-mediaplayer in reality? No one wants that!

I think the only 'fair' solution would be to force MS to include concurrent products (browsers, media players, etc.) on their installation medias, for a fair (and probably regulated) price. There would still be some (probably IE) browser the default one, simply because no one wants to pick dozens of programs while installing, and because there must be an unique 'fresh install' state that is always the same, or company admins will kill you.

The best solution IMHO is a 'choose alternative software' program at a prominent place, on the desktop or at top-level in the start menu. Curious people will find it.

Another important question: Who is responsible for security updates? Currently, all that ships with Windows will be kept up to date by Microsoft. Will there be no updates for other programs? Do others have to implement their own update mechanisms? Do they have to supply updates for the whole Windows' lifetime?

My idea is similar to Franklin Adams' one. Supposing MS ships OEM version of Windows to OEM vendors only once, it won't contain up-to-date versions of the browsers. That said, MS would be ordered to provide the *choice* so they'd have to incorporate a tool or wizard for selecting and installing the preferred browser. The OEM vendor would be only responsible to provide the up-to-date installation packs of those browsers and put them into a specified folder of the freshly installed Windows. That's it.

are really OEMs responsible for serving pcs with the newest patches/updates?
and if so, why are oem cds normally without patches ?!?

Why not include a small stub browser that opens up http://browserchoice.org/ and gives the user a randomly-sorted list of the "big name" browsers for their OS, and a list of smaller, alternative browsers. They can then click on the one they want, and it downloads and installs it for them. For cases where users have limited internet connectivity, provide a few browsers on the OS install media as a fallback.

Actually, it'd probably be a good idea to do that for other things in Windows as well, like the media player.

@Wladimir Palant

If we have four browser choices, these browsers will stabilize around 25% and changing that will require the same extraordinary effort required to compete with IE.

@Asa

Opera isn't the defendant here. Opera didn't sue Microsoft. Opera simply reported Microsoft's crimes to the authorities.