In December, the European Commission and Microsoft arrived at a resolution of a number of long-standing competition law issues. Microsoft made a legally binding commitment that PC manufacturers and users will continue to be able to install any browser on Windows, to make any browser the default browser, and to turn access to Internet Explorer on or off. In addition, Microsoft agreed to use Windows Update to provide a browser choice screen to Windows users in Europe who are running Internet Explorer as their default browser.

So, when I install shiny new Windows 7 machines for my clients with a perfectly serviceable browser (IE8) with some great security features such as protected mode, I make sure the Windows Update has brought everything up to date and BAM! An icon appears on their desktop and prompts them to choose what browser they want.

So I choose IE, delete the icon and everyone is happy.

This is a complete waste of everyone’s time and money. The users who want an alternative still go and download the browser of their choice. Most don’t bother. Making a bad choice from the popup screen and deciding a while later you want to switch, or revert to IE is just a waste of people’s time, and in business this time will cost money. Across Europe this hidden cost will be huge.

The choice screen is currently only being pushed to users in UK, Belgium and France, but later will cover the whole of the European Economic Area. Just like the pointless “Windows N” without media player, this panders to niche software vendors without delivering any real value to anyone that cares. Pushing this out via Windows Update will only serve to confuse huge numbers of consumers. Many consumers are perfectly happy with the browser, media player, calculator and notepad that come with their computer. A few are not, and may go out and freely choose to install any software they wish, and pretty easily make it their default. Should we take away the simplicity of buying a PC, turning it on and using it? Why not strip out all of these free applications and make people go and download only the ones they choose? Once upon a time it was seen as a great idea that Microsoft (and Apple, and anyone else) gave away free software with their OS so you could just get up and running; this is now seen as anti-competitive.

There is lots of media buzz around Firefox, Chrome and other alternatives. Anyone that cares has probably read about these and can easily find out more and make their own choice. Presenting them with a screen in this way makes it feel like they have to make a choice, and then gives them options which are virtually impossible to distinguish – the fastest, shiniest, safest, most standards-compliant, most popular browser. How is any of this helping them to make an informed decision?

Next time you buy a box of cornflakes should it have a money-off voucher on the side which gives you a discount from any brand of breakfast cereal? Should it have helpful descriptions so you can choose an alternative to your normal shopping option? How would they differentiate themselves? The tastiest? Crispiest? Sugariest? Healthiest?

Is Internet Explorer really all that bad anyway?

Yes, I know some users will never hear about, or understand, or care enough to change their browser to an alternative. So what? IE8 is really a pretty good browser. I’ve been a Firefox user for years, and still use it as my main browser on a regular basis, mainly for some of the add-ons like NoScript and AdBlock Plus, but I do find myself using IE more often for sites that don’t load properly. In fact, the main thing which keeps me from using IE8 as my default browser is probably that I use IE for my Dynamics CRM work, and it is much easier for me to mentally separate by application than merely by tabs or sessions. The jump list for IE on Windows 7 makes more sense than for FF (frequent sites rather than local pages) and the ability to jump straight to a tab or open window from a list would be useful if I didn’t tend to have several dozen open tabs at any given time. I do find that Firefox seems to recover better than IE from crashes (of the app or of Windows) and get my tabs back more reliably (my laptop sometimes locks up when undocking and has to be forcibly powered off and cold started, and FF usually picks up where it left off).

I understand that publicly funded institutions like the BBC should not be in the business of advertising, and need to have disclaimers like “other listings magazines are available” (just in case you did not know there are alternatives to the Radio Times because you have lived in a cave and never visited a newsagent or supermarket in the last 25 years). I just don’t get why this should apply to a company whose prime objective is (and should be) to increase shareholder value. It’s that simple – their shareholders want to earn money, not make the world a fluffier warmer cuddlier place.

I tried Opera a year or so ago and at the time it was no better than Firefox (and worse in some ways), so inertia won out and I stuck with what I had been using for a few years. I would need a compelling reason to change, and I have not seen one yet from Opera. IE8 is beginning to convince me that Microsoft has the best alternative for me. Firefox went from nothing to holding a significant market share. Google Chrome is following nicely, albeit with a much bigger marketing budget and established brand.

Arguments may be made about which browser is the most secure – for me probably the biggest reason choose one over another right now since drive-by malware infections seem to be getting more frequent and worse to remove. There is certainly a discussion to be had about whether the same ruling should be made about Apple’s software bundling – I don’t care if they ship Safari and IE, should they not also be forced to provide the same breadth of choice as MS? What about their productivity applications? Should you get the choice to install OpenOffice (or some other third party option)? I have nothing against Apple, but they do seem remarkably immune to these sorts of legal challenges (because of their market share) when they are actually a much more closed shop bundling hardware and software together.

I wish the European Commission had better things to do with their time and my taxes than this kind of nonsense. I wonder if it makes any difference that the company making the noise about it (Opera) is European, and they felt duty bound to stand up to the perceived might of a US software giant.

What about non-MS applications bundled with new PCs?

A much better use of their time would be considering banning PC manufacturers from bundling trialware with PCs, or at least restricting this in a variety of possible ways:

• all trialware must come NOT installed, but give the user the choice to install it as part of their setup. This is NOT the same as giving them a choice not to register and run it.
• trialware must be free for at least the period of warranty of the hardware, usually at least a year
• before installing, the consumer should be told the current cost of continuing their subscription for longer than that trial
• if we can’t force them to not install it in the first place, there must be penalties for having uninstall routines which fail since the hardware is not fit for purpose with a half-uninstalled Norton suite on it which prevents other AV products working properly. Been there, sworn at that. Forcing me to download a separate removal tool is not an option unless you pay for my time in doing this. About £100 penalty should suffice.

I even object to bundling of unnecessary applications, browser toolbars, gadgets and other crapware, and double FAIL points for those which insist on trying to update themselves every day. Some are arguably designed to get the most out of your hardware (such as a utility to selectively switch off WLAN, Bluetooth or 3G connections), while others are just generic fluff. If a system builder installs Google toolbar I am surely less likely to feel a need for Yahoo toolbar. Isn’t this just the same anti-competitive behaviour MS is being accused of? Please at least give me the choice at the time of purchase to avoid all non-essential apps, especially those I could easily install later for free if I choose to. And while we are on the subject, Acrobat reader is NOT an essential app, and in light of recent security vulnerabilities, not far away from installing a backdoor for malware.

What do you think? Is this a big waste of money or an important decision for fair business practices? What browser(s) are you using right now and why?

It seems that Microsoft have listened to the community and brought back their Second Shot offer much earlier than most people expected. Previously this seemed to run only once each year (albeit for several months at a time), and the last one only closed for taking exams the first time round at the end of May and the retakes by the end of June. Re-opening this in August 2008 and leaving it open right through to June 2009 seems to indicate that this will effectively become a permanent fixture, but you can’t just roll your retakes forward forever, you will have to use the second chance within the year-long programme, which seems perfectly fair.

The same launch page is being used as last time, although until today this was not live for the new offer and still showed the old information.

Microsoft Second Shot Exam Offer 2008

You have until June 30, 2009, to register, obtain an exam voucher, complete your first exam and retake your exam (if you did not pass on your first attempt).

There is no limit per person: If you register for this offer, you will receive one free retake for each paid exam that you take and fail.

To take advantage of this offer:

• Step 1: Register for Second Shot on the Microsoft Web site and receive an exam voucher number.

• Step 2: Schedule and pay for your initial exam through the Prometric Web site, call center, or test center.
  Note You must have the voucher number before you register.

• Step 3: Take the exam.

• Step 4: If you do not pass the exam on your first attempt, register for your free retake exam through the Prometric Web site, call center,* or test center by using the same voucher number. Then, take your Second Shot!
  Note You must wait one day after taking your initial exam before you can register for your retake exam. This time is required to enter test results into the system.

Which exams qualify for this Second Shot offer?
Any Microsoft Learning IT professional, developer, or Microsoft Dynamics exam qualifies for this offer.

You have to register here, and for that you need a Windows Live ID / MS Passport / hotmail account. That said, I can’t get the registration process to go through at all right now, I’m getting an error on the page with three different browsers when I try to update my profile . I’ll be trying again later, as I have some exams on the horizon and this could be useful.

I have to make a choice though, since I have a whole bunch of exam vouchers (from various MS Press exam books and other sources) and the way this works you can’t use those and the 2nd shot ‘voucher’ code at the same time.

So I can use up a voucher (which is already paid for a while ago and therefore is “free” in terms of this month’s bank balance), or I can pay real money (88 GBP at the moment for most MCP exams) on the basis that if I fail I get a retake for free. I did this last time and passed, so I would have been better off using a voucher, in hindsight. Overall, I suspect Microsoft are simply trying to encourage more people to take exams without so much fear factor, although whether having even more people with a MS certificate devalues them for existing badge holders is an unanswerable question.

The Court of First Instance essentially upholds the Commission’s decision finding that Microsoft abused its dominant position…The Court criticises, in particular, the obligation imposed on Microsoft to allow the monitoring trustee, independently of the Commission, access to its information, documents, premises and employees and also to the source code of its relevant products.

Microsoft had previously been fined EUR497 million for anti-competitive practices in the way they write and sell their software. Specifically they were found to be less than forthcoming in giving away information on APIs in their operating system products (particularly Windows server), which prevented other software authors from writing code which would operate and interact with the OS as successfully as Microsoft’s own offerings.

They were also found guilty and for bundling applications which stifled competition since end-users would be less likely to download a third-party alternative even if were better, since in most cases they simply would not feel the need to. The hugely important bundled software in question? Media Player. Yawn. I have used other players for various reasons such as different formats (QuickTime, Real Player), improved control of audio ripping and better looks (WinAmp), and I know lots of people who use iTunes because – oh yes, it came bundled with some popular music device (I forget the iName of it). Can we really get all that excited about this? Apparently the lawyers can. Microsoft were obliged under the original ruling to produce and offer for sale a version of Windows which did not have Media Player built in.

When they failed to do everything the court had asked to their satisfaction they were penalised on a daily basis, which soon added up more than 50% on top of the original fine, although payment was deferred due to the ongoing case. A year ago Microsoft were claiming that the court’s failure to clarify some issues might delay the European launch of Vista. Although Vista was not specifically a subject of the ongoing case, it was obvious that some parallels between the features of XP and Vista might lead to an obvious extension of the previous ruling.

Microsoft now have about 60 days to appeal the decision, but this has to be on a point of law, rather than any of the detailed technical matters and grey areas of opinion which made the original case and this appeal too esoteric for many outside commentators.

Read the rulings on the various stages of the case against Microsoft at the CURIA website (Court of Justice of the European Communities)

So, is this a storm in a teacup?

Microsoft face huge fines and have to pay 80% of the court’s costs as well as their own. Perhaps some people won’t feel too much sympathy here and cynics would argue that this cost will simply be passed on to their customers anyway in order to protect the shareholders, as any decent publicly-traded company should.

The question is: who really gains from this apart from the lawyers? Will this really make a difference to Microsoft? Will we see a radical shift in the functionality and stability of third-party products? Will everyone stop using Media Player (and who really cares if they do)? Who will be next now that this precedent has been set?

Let me know what you think (and rate your apathy on a scale of “mildly interested” to “yeah, whatever”). Comment form below.

Spread the word :

Fundamentally, one size simply does not fit all. The particular firewall configuration you create for one client will not be suitable for another with different needs.

Does the manufacturer’s configuration manual tell you which options to choose? Probably not, it tells you how to change the setting, which options do what, but it is down to your experience to match the need to a solution and then implement it.

Generally speaking the licensing programmes themselves are reasonably easy to choose between, if the right questions can be asked and answered. The extra benefits which come with some of the programmes are often not the main reason to choose them, but perhaps these are too often allowed to cloud the issue. I’ve tried to discuss the questions below without getting bogged down in the details of exactly which programme offers what, partly since that will change over time and partly because introducing Microsoft’s own terminology is the fastest way to lose people in this minefield.

Do I need to understand all the options in order to get some of the advantages of a volume license deal?

For many smaller businesses, they simply do not have the option of the larger volume deals anyway, so the main choices are:

1) Do I want to own perpetual licenses for my software so I can keep it (at this version) forever after I have paid for it or would I rather rent it on a subscription model, paying out every year until I decide not to use it any more? There are different ways to account for the capital or revenue expenditure of these two methods which may also affect the decision.

2) Am I happy to just buy a single version, and to pay a second time if I want to upgrade later, or would I rather pay a little more and “insure” myself against better versions coming out which I would like to use by choosing Software Assurance?

Timing may be everything on this one – a new version of Windows (Vista), Office 2007, and Exchange 2007 have all just been released. It is quite likely there won’t be another release of these in the next three years. However, for Windows server a new version is expected next year (2008, previously known as Longhorn). Companies using Small Business Server may have to wait slightly longer to get a new version of the fully integrated product (codenamed “Cougar”) and this is likely to require new hardware in many cases since it will only run on a 64-bit platform.

Of course, the right decision for this week will be very different a year from now, or two years. Do you take the gamble, pay less and then stay with the same version for longer until you finally bite the bullet and upgrade to Office 2015 (or whenever the next-but-one release gets here)? If not, you can pay more at the outset and then renew this Software Assurance to ensure that you are always entitled to use the most new-fangled version out there. Firms which like to stay current and have good processes for rolling out new software and training staff can gain more from this than the more risk-averse who still keep a typewriter in the corner “just in case”. You may also need to dispel the myth that older software is less secure, so you must always use the brand new version

What about bigger companies?

There are even better deals available for bigger firms (with hundreds or thousands of employees, rather than tens). Typically these require more planning and commitment, but larger businesses tend to be run along those lines in any case, a three-year IT strategy being quite common.

Similar choices are presented on these higher volume plans as those above, but they also need to consider if they will see more benefit from the reduced administration of one programme versus another, and the fringe benefits of things like the Employee Purchase Programme and Home User Programme.

Of course, there is a “third way” which is to not buy software at all, install nothing but rather pay for “software as a service” where someone else has the hassle of keeping the servers running, patched, backed up and so on. You get the luxury of just renting out this service on a per-user basis (or per-gigabyte for some cost models).

It sounds simple! Why do people think this is so complex?

Some of the difficulty comes about because the terms used in Microsoft Volume Licenses are of their own making and with very specific meanings. Open Value Subscription Select Enterprise Software Assurance – marketing speak at its best. This is simply compounded when people abbreviate everything to convenient but opaque acronyms.

Then there is the confusion over the simple concepts involved in the nitty-gritty of everyday purchasing decisions. “Why do I need a client access license when I already paid for the server?” The legal rights in the license may have no bearing on the actual technical capability of the product. You can install it and run it, but will it be legal?

Lastly, there are those specific scenarios as to exactly which license to acquire (by whichever route) which a particular business comes across; these may not have a straightforward answer because no-one predicted that particular usage. “Can I get a license to upgrade my product Foo to version X and at the same time allow an unlimited number of people to use that software as part of my web-based offering?”. These can only be addressed on a case-by-case basis, but do not usually impact the choice of a volume license programme. You may suffer if you have previously chosen a particular product or version which can’t be used in that way and your previous investment appears wasted. 20:20 hindsight is a wonderful thing in these situations.

Basically, you register for the deal with Microsoft, which gets you a voucher number. You then use this voucher number when you register and pay for your exam on the Prometric site as usual. If you fail the exam when you take it you can re-register to take the same exam again in a fixed timeframe.

The offer should be available from September 15th until January 31st, though whether that end-date is for the first try or your second attempt is not clear yet.

It seems that this will apply to all Microsoft professional and developer exams which are available through Prometric, but not Microsoft Office Specialist for example.

This offer will only be available from the 15th September, so you can’t register just yet, but there’s some information about the second shot offer on the Prometric website here which says:

Here’s how it works:

• Step 1: Register for Second Shot on the Microsoft site and receive an exam voucher number.
• Step 2: Using the voucher number, schedule and pay for your initial exam via Prometrics’s web site, call center or test center locations. (You must have the voucher number available prior to registering.)
• Step 3: Take your exam.
• Step 4: If you fail, register for your free retake exam via Prometric’s web site, call center or test center locations using the same voucher number. NOTE: Please wait one day after the failed exam to register to allow for test results to be entered into the system.

Thanks to Trika on her MS certification blog for giving us the advance warning of this coming up. It certainly avoids people being frustrated if they register for their exam the day before something like this gets announced. In another post she also talks about some of the changes following MS switching to using only Prometric for their exams now.

Share this post :

http://www.microsoft.com/surface

This seems very similar to this multi-touch screen with gesture-based control from Perceptive Pixel (a bit like the ones seen in the film Minority Report, albeit with a physical screen and 2d images, no gloves, and no Cruise).

And this intelligent white board for motion modelling based on engineering sketches just blows away any of the current crop of over-priced boards being installed in schools up and down the country.

Update: a much longer presentation with more background explanation from Mark Bolger, MS Director of Marketing for Surface computing can be found here: http://on10.net/Blogs/larry/first-look-microsoft-surfacing-computing/

…and another MS Surface marketing exercise published through Popular Mechanics

Update2: A further demo and talk by Jeff Han (founder of Perceptive Pixel) from Feb 2006 (just sit through a short advert first): http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/65