“The current Microsoft announcement is too little, too late. Such a move would have been appropriate in 1997, but further action is needed to undo the effects of a decade of abuse,” said Thomas Vinje, spokesman for the anti-Microsoft lobby European Committee for Interoperable Systems. “Microsoft must give users real choice, and this should include not just buyers of new computers, but also existing users.” And just what is Vinje’s idea of “real choice”? Ballot screens offering a choice of at least five preloaded browsers for buyers of new PCS as well as Microsoft’s installed base of Windows users, via Windows and IE updates.

Mitchell Baker, Chair of the Mozilla Foundation, took a similarly dim view of Microsoft’s (MSFT) plans for European versions of Windows, questioning the company’s motives and wondering if it might not intend to somehow give PC makers an incentive to bundle IE back into Windows at the OEM level. “It’s impossible to evaluate what this means until Microsoft describes–completely and with specificity–all the incentives and disincentives applicable to Windows OEMs,” she wrote in a blog post. “Without this it’s impossible to tell if Microsoft is giving something with one hand and taking it away with the other. For example, if Windows marketing dollars are tied to IE or browser-based programs, then the ties to Windows are still distorting the browser market. One could think of many other examples. As a result, it’s also impossible to tell whether this does anything more than change the technical installation process of the OEMs.”

Baker did, however, concede that Microsoft’s solution will achieve one thing: annoying the hell out of Windows users abroad. “It will certainly make life more difficult for people upgrading to Windows 7,” she said.

The European Commission claims that Microsoft’s practice of bundling Internet Explorer with Windows violates European competition laws, so the company strips IE out of European versions of Windows 7. Now the Commission can’t argue that Microsoft’s behavior distorts fair competition in the browser market because, well, there’s no browser.

And if there’s no browser, there’s no need for the “must carry” provision the EC is mulling, which would require Microsoft (MSFT) to ship Windows 7 with a choice of browsers, rather than with IE alone.

And if there’s no “must carry” provision, Microsoft’s rivals in the browser market must continue to bear the costs of their own advertising and distribution (I’m talking to you, Opera). They can’t piggyback on Windows as the provision would have allowed.

And if there are no browsers whatsoever bundled with Windows 7, the European Commission’s constituents are going to be very unhappy. Because they’ll be paying full price for a defeatured version of Windows 7. Microsoft can call it Windows 7: FeU Edition and it can launch with a splash screen that says “Due to the limitations imposed upon Microsoft by the European Commission, this version of Windows does not include a Web browser or media player. It does, however, include the e-mail address of European Commissioner for Competition Neelie Kroes with whom Microsoft encourages you to voice your displeasure.”

And make no mistake, they will be buying Windows. And in the end, that’s what’s important, right? A Windows user browsing the Web with Opera or Firefox is still a Windows user. And hey, they may soon be a Bing user as well.

Well played, Microsoft.

No wonder the EC is already wrinkling its nose at the move. “The Commission will shortly decide in the pending browser tying antitrust case whether or not Microsoft’s conduct from 1996 to date has been abusive and, if so, what remedy would be necessary to create genuine consumer choice and address the anticompetitive effects of Microsoft’s longstanding conduct,” the EC said in a statement issued late Thursday. “In terms of potential remedies if the Commission were to find that Microsoft had committed an abuse, the Commission has suggested that consumers should be offered a choice of browser, not that Windows should be supplied without a browser at all….As for retail sales, which amount to less than 5 percent of total sales, the Commission had suggested to Microsoft that consumers be provided with a choice of web browsers. Instead Microsoft has apparently decided to supply retail consumers with a version of Windows without a web browser at all. Rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less.”

Perhaps. But Microsoft’s obligation isn’t to provide more choice. It’s to refrain from restricting it, which is exactly what the EC demanded and exactly what Microsoft is doing here. Sadly for Redmond, it’s likely too little, too late. The tone of the EC’s response and its mention of “Microsoft’s longstanding conduct” clearly suggest that the agency continues to mull corrective action. So in the the end this may be all for naught. But you can’t say that Microsoft didn’t attempt to “restore genuine consumer choice and enable competition on its merits,” as the EC has called upon it to do. It just didn’t take on the costs of advertising and distributing the browsers of its rivals. And, honestly, who can blame it?

With a 20 percent share of the the world-wide browser market and 31 percent of its European segment, Mozilla’s Firefox browser has clearly proven that Microsoft Internet Explorer is not immune to free-market competition.

But the natural course of the free markets is apparently not moving fast enough for the European Commission, which is mulling forcing Microsoft (MSFT) to include browsers other than IE in its Windows OS.

Seems that the idea of unbundling IE from Windows has been superceded by a push to bundle even more browsers with it. People close to the case tell The Wall Street Journal that regulators may demand a so-called ballot screen that would present PC users with an array of browser choices, and the option to designate one of them as a default. The EC believes doing so would dilute Microsoft’s advantage in the field and certainly it would do that.

Though at this point, one wonders why that’s even necessary. In April, IE’s market share in Europe was about 48 percent, down from more than 80 percent a few years ago.

“Q: Do the Office Web Applications require Internet Explorer?

A: No! Office Web applications will work across multiple platforms and browsers including Safari and Firefox, too.

Q: Will the Office Web Applications work on the iPhone?

A: Yes, in the Safari web browser.”

OK, sure it’s not a native app, but Microsoft (MSFT) says it will support “lightweight editing,” which is likely all you’d want to do on an iPhone, anyway.

Google (GOOG) has thrown its backing behind European antitrust regulators’ latest complaint against Microsoft (MSFT), which accuses the software behemoth of illegally bundling its Internet Explorer Web browser and Windows operating system. Like Mozilla before it, the company is applying to become a “third party” in the European proceeding.

“Google believes that the browser market is still largely uncompetitive, which holds back innovation for users,” Sundar Pichai, a vice president for product management, wrote in a post to the Google Public Policy Blog. “This is because Internet Explorer is tied to Microsoft’s dominant computer operating system, giving it an unfair advantage over other browsers.”

Really? Then how does one explain the 20 percent share of the the world-wide browser market and 31 percent of its European segment that Mozilla’s Firefox browser holds today? Or the fact that Google’s own Chrome browser has exceeded Opera in market share less than a year after its debut? Clearly, IE is not immune to free-market competition. So why bother getting involved at all? Perhaps to ensure that if the EU does force Microsoft to bundle alternative browsers with Windows, Chrome is among those chosen for inclusion.

Among the browser’s new features: an Opera-like Top Sites, which displays a mosaic of frequently visited pages; a Cover Flow visualization of browsing history that allows users to peruse previously viewed Web sites as they would albums in iTunes; improved tabbed browsing; Full Page Zoom, for a closer look at any Web site without degrading the quality of the site’s layout and text; and improved Windows integration that gives Safari a native look when its running on XP or Vista. Safari 4 is also Acid3-compliant, which means it has passed the Web Standards Project’s Acid3 Browser Test.

Notably absent from Safari 4’s new features list: further security enhancements, something that rival browsers have been quite focused on as of late and which Safari could clearly use.

Mozilla is not only adding its voice to that of European antitrust regulators who claim Microsoft’s (MSFT) bundling of IE with its Windows OS is anticompetitive, but offering its counsel as well. In a post to the Mozilla blog last weekend, Mozilla Corporation CEO Mitchell Baker said that she had “not the single smallest iota of doubt” that the European Commission’s preliminary conclusion that “Microsoft’s tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between Web browsers” is correct. “I’ve been involved in building and shipping Web browsers continuously since before Microsoft started developing IE, and the damage Microsoft has done to competition, innovation, and the pace of the Web development itself is both glaring and ongoing,” Baker wrote. “There are separate questions of whether there is a good remedy, and what that remedy might be. But questions regarding an appropriate remedy do not change the essential fact. Microsoft’s business practices have fundamentally diminished (in fact, came very close to eliminating) competition, choice and innovation in how people access the Internet.”

A brutal attack and one that’s apparently only just beginning. Baker concluded her missive by volunteering Mozilla’s advice on potential remedies. “I’d like to offer Mozilla’s expertise as a resource to the EC as it considers what an effective remedy would entail,” she writes. “I’ll be reaching out to people I know with particular history, expertise and ideas regarding these topics.”

A bit like Muhammad Ali offering tips on how to score his historic fights with Joe Frazier, no? Anyway… the EC has reportedly accepted Mozilla’s offer and will allow it to participate in the case as an “interested party.”

A note about the headline: It’s a joke. I am well aware of FTP and KDE, Gnome, etc. and their non-IE browsers. No need for lectures.

[Image Credit: DeviantART/letitbeatles]