Browser Bundling

I’ll admit it – I don’t understand the European Commission’s (EC) position on just exactly what they want from Microsoft.

As far as I understood; way, way back when Microsoft purposely bundled IE5 into Windows 95 to kill the Netscape browser and thus win the “Browser Wars” of the nineties, Microsoft’s actions effectively killed the competition and gained a monopoly share of users browsers. The actions of Microsoft were highly questionable and they got into a lot of trouble – rightly or wrongly over the whole affair, but please lets move on.

The European Commission’s investigation into this same case has been dragged on and on, requiring Microsoft to pay massive billion dollar fines and make API’s and documentation available to all those who wish to “play nicely” on Microsoft’s Operating System. Initially Microsoft refused to pay the fines and instead tried to fight the actions...eventually they opened up their API’s and provided the documentation that was required of them, but they stead-fast refused to release certain part of the Windows Operating System code (and rightly so in my opinion).

The EC then went on to investigate Microsoft’s decision to bundle Media Player as the default player within Windows. Again after lengthy legal proceedings Microsoft backed down and agreed to play ball with the EC, releasing a version of Windows that didn’t include the Media Player application. Sales of this version of Windows bombed in comparison to those versions which still included the Media Player (I mean, why pay the same amount of money for a version with less features?).

This time around the EC have once again been gunning for Internet Explorer ; only this time Microsoft headed them off at the past, by announcing that in Europe the new Windows 7 Operating System would not be released as an “upgrade” and instead only full versions of the OS would be released without an Operating System (very different to the US where upgrade versions are going to be released and Internet Explorer will be bundled in as standard), this would be known as “Windows 7 E”.

Obviously this meant that anyone in Europe who bought Windows 7 would have to download their own internet browser software prior to installing the new operating system. Microsoft planned to give away free copies of IE7 on separate discs to those who bought in store – also on these discs would be the Windows Live installer (Live Messenger, Live Movie Maker, etc, etc).

The EC though were less than impressed at Microsoft’s apparent showboating antics at unbundling IE before they were asked to (go figure!). This was because the EC was more interested in having a voting engine built into the Windows installer that prompted the user to select which browser they would like to have installed at the time of installation. This meant Microsoft would have to gain authorisation (presumably really easily), from their competitors to include their browsers installers in with the Windows 7 installation routine.

Whilst we’re still a few good months away from Microsoft releasing Windows 7 (October 22nd being the day it ships), it seems that Microsoft are still weighing up the options as whether to include this voting system or not. My question is why should Microsoft include copies of their competitor’s products in the Windows 7 OS for selection or not include their own browser at all?

Most version of Linux are bundled with Firefox, Apple bundle their Safari browser with their Operating System and presumably Google’s Chrome OS will use their Chrome browser as their default internet navigation tool? Why are Microsoft being singled out over which browser does or doesn’t come with Windows 7 – especially when users are still free to install alternative browsers and make the selections on which one is to be the “default browser” on their systems?

To me it makes no sense, Microsoft write the code, so why do other external bodies get to say which features or selections of code make the final release? If consumers were so dead against Internet Explorer being bundled with Windows 7, surely they wouldn’t buy Windows and instead opt for something else? But as I pointed out earlier, switching to Apple would mean a Safari client, Google a Chrome client and Linux a Firefox client – each have the ability to change their default, yet no one is investigating these “monopolies” or coding practices.

Also, which browser you use is not just limited to the desktop anymore – every mobile phone sold these days has their own browser preinstalled. The iPhone uses a version of Safari, Windows Mobile IE5/IE6, Nokia uses their own designed for their Symbian OS, etc. No where has the issue of which browser software that is bundled with your mobile been highlighted and its possibly even more difficult to remove or change a mobile phones browser than is it to change a desktop’s default software – yet I can’t seen the EC switching their attention to handset manufactures any time soon.

It annoys me that Microsoft are singled out and their code has to be tweaked to satisfy each countries governments or legislations – I can understand if Microsoft weren’t bringing support to each country such as including language packs, locale settings, etc, but to tweak the underlying code to each and every whim is surely not the best way forward in creating a generic underlying codebase from which to progress and build upon for future releases and improve security, features, additions.

A great example of this would be Microsoft’s soon to be released Anti-Virus product “System Essentials”. It would be outstanding if Microsoft could bundle this into Windows 7 and everyone, regardless of their computer experience got a product capable of providing some protection over their computers, thus preventing the spread of viruses and malware, etc. Instead, they have to offer this as a separate download – something the user must go out and actively seek, which means it must be something they understand and ultimately want. By the time they have been bitten by a virus or been taken over with adware, it’s often too late – and Microsoft get blamed for not doing more to actively encourage system security and protection.

More technical users would know how to disable/remove any software that is bundled with Windows 7 and replace with their own, perhaps more trusted alternatives – and that’s fine, at least they have the option to step back and customise on their own terms, but there is no way Microsoft could provide voting menus and customisation of each and every application contained with the OS – it just wouldn’t be viable.

As a consumer and buyer of Windows and Microsoft products is exactly what they offer right now – a base system with a number of applications pre-bundled that work, the ability to download additional features (Live Messenger, Live Movie Maker, etc), or updates to existing pre-bundled features and then the option for me to install third-party applications from other vendors and select which applications I want as my defaults. I then know exactly which errors that are generated to blame Microsoft for and which are belonging to those I chose to install myself as alternatives.

Simples!

I don’t need the EC putting pressure on Microsoft to deliver the product I want from them – if I was so dead against something I (and presumably others too), would write to Microsoft and leave feedback on what they wanted instead on the various message boards – if not, I always have the choice to vote with my cash and switch to an alternative Operating System.

Read more here.

A Smart Decision On A Smart Phone

Anyone who’s been following my Twitter feed over the last few weeks will have noticed that I’ve been sorting out my mobile phone contract – as one service came to an end, I moved to another provider for hopefully a better quality of service or at least the minimum (same) amount of hassle – I’ve been very fortunate to never have to call up customer services with issues and problems about my service or my bill. It’s simply been paid monthly and without any worry or hassle.

Why, you may be wondering, have I decided to switch my mobile provider then? Well, the answer is simple and perhaps a little boring – I needed an unlimited web/data package as I’m soon to be without the constant stream of a wireless internet connection nearby for much longer – and I cannot live without being “connected” to the online community of the internet.

What I have not done however, is switch my mobile phone handset – yet! And the reason for this is that I am undecided on which handset to actually switch to. I have therefore decided to stick with my trusty HTC Touch for a little while longer whilst I carefully watch the market and eventually make the mistake of picking the wrong handset for me.

Of course, there is nothing stopping me from sticking with my HTC device, but the device is over a year old now and has adapted to that “worn” look that no body ever wants from their favourite gadgets. The screen has been cracked, scratched and the body of the phone has been bashed and dropped – but more than this, the technology within has become out-dated; the browser is slow, the touch screen seems to be annoying (when compared with newer touch screen phones), the OS is outdated and after so much time spent with the device, its no longer keeping up with expectations and awe at the newer devices being snapped up around me.

It seems just about everyone has or is talking about the Apple iPhone and how it has set the benchmark in mobile phone markets – not me however, I don’t get it at all. For a start, I’m still disillusioned with Apple’s hardware after not one but two of my iPods unfortunately malfunctioned and refused to no longer operate, but that’s not all, (true) stories I’ve read about Apple’s closed off operating habits (such as refusing to let any other device apart from those branded with the Apple logo sync with iTunes – what’s so special about Apple devices only getting access to my music files anyway?), and the doctorial approach they have for selecting applications for their “Apps Store”, making developers jump through hoops to satisfy Apple’s own needs and wants for their beloved device.

I’ve looked seriously (and honestly), at the iPhone – I bought two iPods, so my hatred of Apple devices can’t be that big – but there is just something about it that puts me off every time. Perhaps its the thought that everyone has one, maybe its because I want to differentiate myself from the rest of the pack, perhaps I’d prefer to support the underdog or maybe its that its just not the device for me. I can see the appeal of being able to download applications to my phone, but once I’ve got my top five or so apps, I’m not going to care too much about looking for new ones, which means that the basic premise of the phone needs to be intuitive and to my needs – the iPhone doesn’t seem to tick those boxes for me.

My choice for a long time has been the Palm Pre. Ever since the device was announced I’ve followed its progress – it seemed the ideal underdog which did everything the iPhone did yet did away with the closed minded approach and instead reached out across the web, using it as a platform upon which to populate and operate within. A Palm device would return me full circle to my roots, back when I purchased and used Palm Pilot PDAs as my mobile, sync’d device for writing emails (offline), on the go and writing task lists and keeping calendar appointments.

But it seems now that the device has actually launched, its been blighted with some negative points in reviews that have started to make me question if it is the device I’d be most happy to use for the next two years. Reports that whilst the phone “feels good” in the hand, it also had a plastic feel and has sharp edged around the difficult to use physical keyboard and whilst the WebOS is totally brand new and has received numerous positive reviews, there are still some edges that need smoothing over for the next release/update of the OS software. The Pre isn’t available in the UK yet, so my decision on the device can only be made as a ‘guess’ or with a reliance on other reviews – I’m hoping by the time it gets to the UK, some of the issues have been worked out and resolved.

People tell me that Blackberries are the way to go – and I tend to agree now that I’ve had the chance to play with a couple – however I have an issue here too. The BlackBerry Storm bombed, the Bold is too big and chunky and the Curve lacks 3G connectivity. For a device I’m going to be using for the next 18 to 24 months, in a world dominated by “iPhone 3G (s)”, the lack of 3G is a problem for me. There are rumours a new Curve is just around the corner – but information is all based on rumour and speculation at the moment – not enough to base a solid decision on at this time.

Today I’ve looked at the HTC Hero – an Android based smart phone that can apparently do everything. Yet the downside is, the device is sluggish and unfinished in places with the feel of a Linux distribution – polished and smooth in places, but look under the hood and it’s not so pretty or slick.

So there it is a decision that lacks a conclusion.......or does it? I’ve said for a while that there is a race for my cash and it’s between the new BlackBerry Curve (if it has 3G), and a gamble on the Palm Pre. Whichever one makes it to market first and satisfies those who review them, I will buy first. In the meantime, it may not be the slickest or the sexiest or even the newest phone on the market, but I’m sticking with my good, old, reliable, bashed up HTC Touch.

Punch and Counter Punch

These last few months anyone who has been following along with the technology scene will have noticed an interesting game developing between Google and Microsoft across a number of different business sectors.

First of all, the re-branded Microsoft Live.com search engine as Bing seemed to set the ball rolling. Prior to the re-launch, Google had little to be worried about as they already seemed to have the search market pretty much tied up. Microsoft had its sights set on taking the number 2 spot from Yahoo! however and had reasonable expectations when pitching itself against Google all in one foul swoop (I believe). Whilst Microsoft’s ultimate desire would be to dominate search, search is an ever changing beast and it’s likely that no one company will dominate forever before being replaced by something more appropriate or faster or less advertisement driven, etc. Just being “in the game” is all that matters at this point and Microsoft’s Bing was their pitch to be in the game.

Reporters however made the story far bigger than what it should have been though and pitched the new Bing into comparisons with Google Search from the off – surely the precursor to what was to follow.

Google’s Chrome Browser – an attempt to lure users away from Firefox, not Internet Explorer – was earlier in the year, surrounded by talk of a potential Google Operating System, something Google denied vigorously at the time; entering Microsoft’s territory market seemed like a no go area for the search company. However, it now turns out that Google were plotting their way into this market all along and last week announced their plans to release a “Chrome OS”, initially aimed at netbooks, for next year to compete directly with Microsoft’s new, netbook optimised, Windows 7 product due for release on 22nd October 2009.

Whilst Chrome OS will be based on the Linux kernel, it will be difficult for Google (again, I believe), to launch themselves into a fully blown OS platform that will compete directly with Microsoft Windows. Not only because entering a market full of a wide range of devices (which, lets remember not even Apple can really support – hence their model of doing their own hardware), is difficult and resource intensive, the users will have to be aware of how to manage any new operating system and they will of course still want their favourite applications to work using Chrome just like they would with Windows.

And there in is the battle – are users ready to move everything to the browser or do they still want to live in their current online vs offline, local vs cloud based storage and local vs online processing? I’m not sure computer users are ready to move fully to an online model; I think they are still more likely to want to retain control over their local PC and not have to answer questions around privacy or trust by storing files fully online by a single company and using “only” online applications.

That’s not to say Google’s Chrome OS isn’t going to take some market share – those die-hard Google fans and those less-technical users who know the Google name may buy up netbooks pre-installed with Chrome, but the transition of businesses making the move won’t happen. The reason why? Businesses need to control their machines with things like Active Directory and Group Policies and they need to protect their data and files at a company level, not on some third-party cloud based service.

As the leader in the OS market, Microsoft should easily be able to retain control and leadership over their market space, just like Google will retain leadership of Search. Microsoft’s Singularity OS plans (the cloud based, thinner Windows currently in their Labs) and Gazelle Browser (which sounds complex and rather well developed as a platform in its own right for the future), will keep them out in front in the business space and with the large amount of home users, especially those who use Microsoft products at work and/or have a requirement to play the top games on their PC.

More recently this week, Microsoft have announced that its popular Office applications (Word, Excel, OneNote), will be going online directly available for free within the browser against “Google Docs & Spreadsheets”. Whilst Docs & Spreadsheets isn’t widely used due to MS Office apparent dominance in this market, Microsoft has felt the need to move its Office 2010 offering into the cloud. This could be either to re-enforce its position against Google or it could (more likely), be more to move one of the companies most successful products into the cloud based arena - lets not forget Microsoft’s Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie has completely realigned the company towards a cloud based strategy in its products and offerings.

Quite who will move directly from Office application to “online Office application” straight away remains to be seen? I’ve tried Google’s Docs & Spreadsheets online and found myself going straight back to the more traditional Microsoft locally installed application – there’s something about writing and editing documents outside of a browser that makes me feel far more comfortable. Guess my mind hasn’t quite made that paradigm jump yet to working on documents on the web, despite my love of Web 2.0 – yet I’m more than happy to move my email there (Gmail).

It seems its punch-counter punch with Google and Microsoft at the moment. I don’t see either winning outright in any sector (or I would certainly hope that neither wins outright), but what I do hope for is that this competition continues to force both companies to better themselves and create products that customers can intuitively use and continue to define the computing era as an exciting and creative industry.

All News Travels Fast!

June 25th 2009 was the day Michael Jackson was reported to have died from cardiac arrest at his rented home in Los Angeles, later that same day the story was confirmed. This post isn’t dedicated to the story of Michael Jackson though - fear not, there are already enough pages out there on that already - but instead a look at the ‘how’ and the speed of which the story broke.

On the very night the story broke, I was out at the time and had just climbed into my car when my phone started to vibrate in my pocket followed by the tone of the SMS text message alert.

Checking the message, it read “Looks like all those people who thought MJ would cancel are going to be proved right!” in reference, of course, to the proposed 50 gigs planned at the O2 arena starting this summer. Thinking it was yet another publicity stunt and having just got in the car to drive home, I placed the phone in cup holder and set off towards my home-ward bound destination, thinking no more of it and enjoying the sounds of Coldplay in glorious MP3 format on the stereo.

It was only when I got home that I did my customary switch on of the laptop to take one final check of the emails for the day and catch up on any tweets I’d missed whilst I was out that whilst the laptop was booting, I text back asking for an update on the publicity stunt or announcement that had been made. The reply came almost instantaneously, reading “Maybe you should log on for a second”, further fuelling my interest in just what was going on.

Firing up TweetDeck, the application seemed to take forever to open up – before I departed towards home, my Twitter stream had hardly been no more busy than usual – when it eventually opened, the pop up of messages suddenly seemed out of proportion. Diving into my stream I quickly spotted the MJ reports and discovered reports that he had died – or was it hospitalised? The message was blurred at this point and the doubts of whether to believe everything you read on the web were starting to creep into my mind.

Finding the link to TMZ (the site that initially broke the news), on a number of tweets, I read the story that MJ had in fact died; but then with that doubt in my mind, fired up another browser tab and darted off to Digg the very same TMZ article was ranked number one, this was obviously big news and the message had started to spread rapidly. Wanting more information however, I needed a search engine – remembering an article I’d read on TechCrunch regarding real-time indexing, I headed for bing.com for further news. Finding the LA Times website and some other linked to news stories, the articles suggested that Jackson hadn’t died after all and was just “in a bad way”. Scooting over to Google, the news stories were less apparent in my search and I was presented with Wikipedia articles and other Jackson related websites (it seemed the TechCrunch article was correct in the speed to index stakes).

My SMS messages continued to make my phone beep and I fired back reply messages in between my searching of the web for a definitive report on what had happened. TweetDeck continued to stream messages into me and reminded me that the best place for breaking news was Twitter’s own search facility. I quickly set up a ‘search stream’ within TweetDeck that monitored the latest postings – whilst simultaneously switching on my TV and turning to Sky News, who were broadcasting the story as “BREAKING NEWS”.

My Twitter Search reported the news that Jackson was in a coma – this was minutes later reported on Sky News. The real-time stream of Twitter and the television broadcast were now competing for my attention; twitter reporting the news first, and using Sky as my ‘verification’ on the tweets that shaped the story.

It was only at that moment that I realised that it wasn’t the death of the “King of Pop” that actually had caught my attention, but the speed and power of web 2.0 social networking and the technology that brought this whole story together for me and possibly for millions of others.

From the very first text message, once again the sheer power of the Twitter to spread the speculating message and then the confirmations, the TMZ website initially breaking the story, social news site Digg working as expected bringing the breaking story to the very top of its feed – thanks to all those that had clicked the button to “Digg It!” and give it further attention, the search engines that helped make news and information on Jackson available right at the fingertips of those who wished to know, Facebook statuses also changed to spread the message. Strangely, I also saw YouTube videos posted of cafes that suddenly switched their stereos to play Jackson classics – and no doubt online music websites also saw an increase in MJ tracks being played.

Most Twitter users have already experienced its real-time stream and the power of spreading messages quickly, using hashtags and re-tweets – only recently, we’ve seen the power it’s had on the Iran elections. Being asked to re-arrange scheduled maintenance, Twitter kept their site up in order to allow Iranians and others around the globe to express their views, support and outrage. Campaigns involving avatars changing to show a green filter were organised and implemented – the power of the crowd speaking with one voice. None of this was evident on Facebook – or at least not within my circle of friends.

The vast increase in traffic on Twitter pushed their system to the limits, apparently with the “Fail Whale” only appearing a couple of times. Twitter shut down “search” and “trending” features at various points and a noticeable lagging under the strain placed on their servers was more than evident.

Removing myself from the tragic events, my fascination with the internet taking over, it was difficult to yet again ignore just how much the internet has changed in its “Web 2.0” guise. Social media sites working overtime and under strain to help spread the news appeared very apparent. Twitter being the most obvious service put under immense pressure during the breaking news cycle.

Viva La Internet and long live innovative real-time solutions.