In June of 2009, following the European Commission’s decision that Microsoft was abusing it’s monopoly position by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, I wrote an article called The Microsoft Dilemma. In the article, I discussed Microsoft’s options and issues with the European Commission’s decision.

Since then, to my great chagrin, the article has been one of the most viewed on the Big Bad Blog.

Perhaps this is simply the nature of writing about technology — within a couple of years, what looked and felt like an intelligent, reasoned article leaves the author looking like a dolt.

In any case, it has caused a dilemma here at the Big Bad Blog — this out-of-date article is the introduction many people have to the blog.

How do we remedy the situation?

Our answer is to take a second look at the Commission’s decision, the aftermath, and how things look now.

The end decision

As has been well-documented, Windows 7 users in Europe have been prompted since March to choose browsers based on a list. Living in the European Economic Area (which is the remit of the European Commission) and typing this on a new machine powered by Windows 7, we expected to be able to give a bit of first-hand insight regarding the ballot.

It was not to be. Our new machine came with Internet Explorer pre-installed (just like every other machine we have ever had). While this is not a bother to us, we do wonder whether this represents Microsoft disregarding the European Commission, working around it using deals with computer sellers, or simply that the UK lies outside the remit of such decisions. Alternatively, we could have simply been speeding through setting up our new PC, without much concern for our Internet Explorer settings.

This, of course, was one of the options — we thought it the best option, although our thoughts about how Microsoft could tweak this to their advantage have run-aground against Europe’s ability to be severely bureaucratic and keep a constant eye on what appears on the so-called “browser ballots”. We were foolish to think the European Commission would want to be hands-off. The first word, after all, is “European”.

The Impact of a Ballot

One of our original concerns regarding this option was that while it would certainly dent Microsoft’s web browser domination (which was the Commission’s intent), it might not create a more competitive marketplace. Which is to say that three of the four most popular web browsers are built by Microsoft, Google and Apple. Rather than being small companies struggling to compete, these are three of the largest technology companies in the world. (The fourth maker of a popular browser, Mozilla, is an open source project and has been competitive without the Commission’s help for years.)

So it is interesting that when we look at representations of the ballot online, that these three options are always on the table:

Of course, we can see that scroll bar down at the bottom, which apparently leads to less common browsers:

Still, the big winner would appear to be Opera, which has won a place on the first page alongside the big four. Smaller browsers are buried on later pages. But what of the overall effect?

Depending on where you find your numbers, they will be slightly different, but from March to December 2010, it appears that Internet Explorer usage dropped approximately 8%, Chrome usage increased by a similar margin, with other browsers remaining constant.

While this appears to be “mission accomplished” for the European Commission at first glance, it does raise some questions.

First, why did only Chrome rise? As a relatively new, built-by-Google browser, we would expect an increase in the number of users using Chrome in any case. That they are the only browser to gain a significant share makes it difficult to claim that the ballot is working. Rather, it looks as though it is simply another heavyweight contender entering the market alongside the traditional powers (Internet Explorer and Firefox).

Second, where are the page two browsers? The two sources quoted above would put 1.1% or 0.59% of users (depending on which table you are looking at) using a browser not on that front page of the ballot. The tables do not agree on whether that means the number of users is rising or falling in comparison to pre-Windows-ballot numbers, which leads to the conclusion that there is no significant impact there.

Our conclusion, therefore, is that the ballot has been largely pointless, and has not had a significant impact on browser choice.

What we missed the first time around

Our original article expressed reservations with the European Commission’s decision. In essence, we argued that the Commission appeared to be attacking Microsoft without regard for the interests of the average European, rather than attacking Microsoft because it was in the best interest of the average European citizen.

With the advantage of hindsight, we see now that both the Commission and the Big Bad Blog were mistaken in their analysis. In particular, we missed two things.

Chrome

First, we missed that the market was correcting itself. When we wrote our article in June of 2009, Google’s browser had approximately a quarter of the users it has now. There is no reason to believe that Chrome is finished gaining users. In fact, as we will see below, the trend is quite likely to intensify before Google’s market share stabilizes due to increased use of the Chrome and Android operating systems.

We can see above that Microsoft’s loss of market share has gone entirely to Google. This pattern began before the ballot was introduced, so there is no reason to suspect that the ballot is to be credited for the change in consumer behaviour. Instead, it appears that much effort has been put into trying to cause a trend that was already occurring.

Mobile Computing

Moreover, we paid so much attention to home computing that we missed the overwhelming trend of the past couple of years — the move towards mobile computing.

Smart phones are rapidly increasing their share of web traffic. With the more recent tablet explosion, the way that people are surfing the web is changing, and this new world is not dominated by Microsoft. Instead, the native browsers (which are rarely Internet Explorer) and third party apps (most often Mozilla-based) dominate the mobile-web marketplace.

With prognosticators seemingly trying to out-exaggerate each other regarding the positive future of tablet computing, it seems that the trend begun by Chrome will continue unabated as users on Android, Chrome, iOS and Blackberry powered devices become an increasingly common web presence.

In total, it seems as though the European Commission was entirely unnecessary. As in technology blogs, so in life — the decision is outdated and unnecessary before it had an opportunity to make an impact.

Just over a year ago, I began the fencing category on my blog with an entry titled The Return of the Fencer. With August (and much of July) being dead time during the domestic fencing season, it is a theme that will probably repeat itself ad nauseum.

Every September a new season begins. And every September I feel a bit of excitement as I try to get back into shape, and adjust my life around a fencing schedule.

Last year marked a return to fencing after a year off. Frequent travel and a developed distaste for British Fencing’s competition schedule meant that I didn’t practice as much as I would have liked, and competed even less than I practiced.

The practice front still looks dire. Travel for work looks less onerous in the coming months, but with a baby on the way there is simply no way I can dedicate one night a week to the sport, nevermind the three that I would prefer.

Competition is another matter. While I rationalized my absence from competition via my general disappointment in the quality of organzation and refereeing found at British Opens, I found I missed them. Because of this, my competition schedule is likely to be comparatively busy this year. Being spaced out and on weekends helps. So does the occasional attractive location that my partner might want to visit.

The competitive season began Saturday, with the Essex Open.

Not unexpectedly, the season did not start out well. Apparently, not doing anything athletic for four months is not a good preparatory plan for a fencing tournament. And the dearth of competition this past year meant that my seeding was low.

Low seedings lead to difficult pools, which lead to low seedings, which lead to early exits.

That said, with the exception of one bout in the pool, I comported myself fairly well through this first day back. Losses to all three top-50 fencers in my pool hastened a short day, but none of them ran over me — I had a chance to win every bout I fenced, there was just a bit too much rust there.

I’m hoping more competitions and occasional practice help to get rid of the rust. Because my usual method — regular practice — does not look likely to happen.

Of course, the baby’s delivery date likely mean another two months before I compete again.

The rust, it would appear, will remain for now.

The photo is not of Mr. Topp or the Essex Open. It is BY Mr. Topp, however, and can be seen larger here.

A new year — a new decade — approaches. Like everybody else, you’re probably wondering what did I miss out on reading over these past ten years? Never fear, dear reader — The Guardian has anticipated this concern, and is here to help with the decade’s best unread books.

I cannot figure out why anybody in the United States uses an AT&T phone. They are now telling potential customers that they cannot have the world’s most popular phone if they live in New York City, because New York City has insufficient infrastructure.

We also present (to our bling-loving math geek readers): Rings based on the Fibonacci sequence.

A popular topic in the press these days is that the newspaper business is struggling. It is not very surprising that the press reports on itself so thoroughly. In Saturday’s Washington Post, Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Bowen (henceforth called “the Bruces”) give some policy advice to the folks in Congress.

Today, the less esteemed Big Bad Blog retorts.

First, a summary of the issues at hand:

1. People do not read newspapers as often as they used to. Those who keep up to date with the news generally do so via Television and the Internet. Television is still far and away the number one news source, but the Internet has recently passed print media to enter second position.

2. Local newspapers used to have local monopolies. They were the only local source of in-depth reporting. The Internet has created a competitive atmosphere, turning a business that had a 30% profit margin into a money-loser in under a decade.

3. The traditional sources of money for newspapers — classifieds and advertisements — have also been changed by the Internet. A search-related ad is better than a content-related ad. Internet classifieds are easier to search, cheaper, and reach a broader audience than those in a newspaper.

Based on points one to three above, the newspaper business is struggling. It is arguably no longer a financially viable business.

From a certain viewpoint, this is fine. Industries throughout history have come and gone, and we are the better for it. Horses and buggies gave way to cars. The Walkman gave way to the portable CD player, which gave way to the MP3 player.

From another viewpoint (aside from those of newspaper owners) this is worrisome. Journalism — particularly investigative journalism — plays a large role in a democracy. It uncovers and informs the voters regarding important issues. Newspapers employ such journalists. They provide them with the necessary resources to uncover these truths and report them. And — unable to shed brands overnight — the good ones ensure the integrity of the stories they publish.

On the Internet, where does this happen? Who ensures that the Big Bad Blog reports honestly? (Well, Mr. Topp does — but the point is that I could buy a new domain name and be reporting under a different banner tomorrow, should the world lose faith in Mr. Topp. Also, I do not have millions of dollars in resources. Unless you donate. Comment to learn more.) Newspapers touch far closer to the core of Western idealism than banks do — as such, the case for a news bailout is certainly there to be made. While the news landscape is changing, there is certainly a need to make sure that a certain kind of news does not die with it.

Which brings us to the Washington Post article. It argues that regulatory law for Internet news-spreaders needs to change. While the article itself has five long-winded points, they can be boiled down to two:

One, that search engines and content aggragators ought to be illegal.
Two, that existing antitrust and anti-monopoly laws require exceptions for the newspaper business.

On the first point, their arguments are shocking: Search engines ought not to be allowed to index entire pages, and that repeating the core idea of a piece of content is tantamount to copyright infringement.

The former argument shows a lack of understanding regarding how the Internet works — it essentially requests that Congress tear down the Internet because it destroys the local monopolies on which the newspaper industry depended. From an intellectual standpoint, there is nothing wrong with a search engine indexing entire sites. It is essentially an artificial intelligence — the more of the article it reads, the better it understands the content, and the more accurately it can point searchers.

In essence, this is tantamount to complaining that University professors read materials and then make reading suggestions to their students. The publishers could then complain that if only the professor did not read so many books they might not occasionally refer people to sources other than theirs.

What should be the final nail in the coffin of this argument is that newspapers could easily request that the SEO experts they employ instead hide material from the search engines. The article claims that “publishers should not have to choose between protecting their copyrights and shunning the search-engine databases that map the Internet.” This is not true — they have chosen to publish their materials in this medium, and they choose who can view their content. Publishers need to live with these decisions — the claim that tearing down the “search-engine databases that map the Internet” is illogical. It is jumping into the ocean, complaining that it is wet, and demanding that somebody take all the water away.

The latter argument — that the core fact that is being reported should be protected by copyright — is simply ridiculous. The writers frame it well as a necessity to protect content creators’ rights — but in the end the essence of journalism is to learn something, somehow, write about it and share it — often as quickly as possible. In other words, exactly what the Bruces propose to outlaw. The real legislation being proposed by the Bruces is to have government approved Valid News Sources which are allowed to spread news.

One cannot imagine a court in the United States upholding such a law — it would be a clear Freedom of Speech infringement. Moreover, the Big Bad Blog feels that allowing governments to determine what news sources are valid is a bad idea.

The second point hopes to save the industry by allowing it to consolidate — either under a single owner, or to be permitted to ignore anti-trust law and create a non-competitive pay-for-content pay structure.

The former point would make saving newspapers a pointless exercise. The entire reason to save the industry is the important work they do in bringing information to the voting public. As soon as the entire public is viewing events through the lens of a single person or organisation, that reason is gone. There is a reason why totalitarian regimes control the media.

More than any of the rights that were taken away in the name of the War on Terror, allowing a news media monopoly would destroy the essence of what freedom means in America.

The latter point is short-sighted — it ignores the global nature of the Internet. While American newspapers might be able to engage in antitrust behaviour, their non-American competitors would not. Who will visit American newspaper websites when The Guardian reports on the Iraq war from the UK, The Toronto Star does an excellent job of covering sports, and The Economist covers American politics just as well as any American news organisation — and better than most. It is a recipe for disaster that is best not to follow.

So, Congressmen and women — if you are reading this — please do not take the advice given by the Bruces. It is bad advice, poorly thought out, by people who clearly do not have much understanding of the Internet or the functioning of a competitive global news environment. It is not their fault that they do not understand — the concept and delivery mechanism are both quite new.

It essentially begs to have the local monopolies restored by tearing down the Internet. Failing that, it asks to allow for the creation of new monopolies which would destroy the basis underpinning democratic freedom. The Bruces propose some very bad policy.

The Big Bad Blog’s Take

It is very easy to be destructive in one’s approach to this sort of thing, and spend one’s time pointing out the flaws in the ideas of others. Today’s newspapers appear to be on their way out — they will soon be a thing of the past. Any policy which tries to restore these businesses to what they feel is their “rightful place” will be bad ones — and even policies that look good are fraught with a risk of failure.

A good policy will be easy to recognize, however. It will not just push journalism over the edge of a cliff — it will recognize that journalism provides a service which is important to the proper functioning of a modern democracy. That service — and not the form it takes — needs preservation. Good policies will understand that something needs to be done to keep this service intact through this chaotic period where the printed press is fast approaching obsolescence, but Internet journalism is not yet mature enough to take its place.

For instance, France subsidizes newspapers — a valid route, if not an ideal one. Such subsidization will have to end eventually, and withdrawing it will prove more unpopular than continuing it past the point of necessity, ensuring that a valid policy will eventually turn into a poor one.

My personal feeling is that governments should take note of the journalism awards in their country — those that celebrate breaking huge stories, nailing politicians to the wall, and so on. Real, hard-hitting journalism. They should then put a lot of money behind these awards. Organisations who win them should receive large sums of government money.

This will allow those organisations who provide the best service — as judged by neutral parties — to be able to fund that sort of journalism. And the tabloids can become poorly written weblogs, much like this one.

Sources
The Washington Post
The Economist [2]
Buzz Machine