> there's presumably no technical/compatibility issues that would stop the rest of the world using it to.

There never were an technical issue in defining the default browser. It's something that worked on any OS since nearly 30 years, including Windows.

It's 100% disrespect.

Not to mention that MS already went out of their way and spent considerable technical effort to not have the system apps respect the default browser setting - such as introducing a separate URL scheme for "edge-only" links, then later patching the scheme registry so that no other app could register itself as a handler for that scheme.

It was never a technical issue, on the contrary.

Correct, merely a money issue. Incentives are in the wrong place here.

Not completely correct. In the past there were technical issues opening "system service sites" with any other browser, because ActiveX controls only worked in Internet Explorer

Complete disrespect for the end luser is nothing new with Microsoft.

I feel like there are two Microsofts. There are parts that make some honestly good software. And then there are parts touched by Bing and MSN, and they're some of the most hideous, dark patterny piles of user hostile garbage. Win11 search, widgets. Edge. Now Skype. They just ruin things that might otherwise even be great. Edge has a bunch of good ideas going on the UI but it hates user choice so much it just feels bad to use.

> I feel like there are two Microsofts

Same with most companies. The business side tends to steer, resist and fight the creative side. The irony is that in the long run, these two are aligned.

Sad that higher management feels the need to use short-term mechanisms for profit at the expense of reputation and what's best for their users in the long run.

Let's see what the people always screaming about how the EU only cares about fining American tech companies who do nothing wrong will respond to this.

I think mostly people condemn the eu for its attempt at censorship.

The eu would actually have to have a big tech company consumers actually interface with in order to fine them -besides just hardware.

They have a suspicious lack of coup attempts in the last decade.

Is the idea that it would have been really good if the person who organized the insurrection also had the ability to censor people who disagreed with him?

Are you paying attention to their current argument about why it was legal to conspire to overthrow the government?

Are you paying attention to how ridiculous that sounds? I voted for Biden and this sort of hyperbole makes me think some of what trump says is right.

The hyperbole of Trump claiming his conspiracy is covered by the first amendment?

That's basically fact. Perhaps you derailed somewhere. Free speech is not absolute unless you are the king.

Ok man whatever you say. I’m just saying while you think you’re making some major point here it’s just pushing people away because it sounds so ridiculous.

The manipulators mostly reach for low-effort high-exposure interventions. They wouldn't actually engage in honest debate.

I think the stance is that while what the EU does is good for the consumer it's annoying as hell for American tech companies to be assessed billion dollar fines all the time. If the punishment was "comply in 180 days or we'll suspend your business charter" I think you'd see a lot more support.

If they obeyed the rules to begin with they wouldn't be fined. It's literally a calculated risk by the big tech companies that the cost of compliance will be less than the profits during the time of non-compliance.

Sadly it pays off. The biggest ones are the worst. Windows has been rewriting boot loaders and bullying smaller companies with SmartScreen Application Reputation. Android has forced everyone through FCM (or suffer degraded experience). Apple adds software glitches if you replace iPhone parts.

Where are the regulators? Asleep, underfunded, or being paid off to close their eyes. And then, these companies get to write the laws through lobbying.

Not sure why the proposed alternative is better to anyone at all.

> If the punishment was "comply in 180 days or we'll suspend your business charter"

The punishment is generally "comply in 180 days [actually it's usually measured in years] or we'll fine you". And they often don't comply, and then get fined and sometimes end up complying.

Why would your proposal be better?

Because the fines are just priced in as cost of doing business. They don't actually change anything.

But the very article we are discussing shows that it does change things, though?

It’s the exception that confirms the rule.

It is just a culture difference basically.

I hope someone manages to write a crack or something that enables the same behaviour in non-EEA locales, if only to see what mental gymnastics MS will engage in to explain why that would be bad for users.

How are they going to implement it anyway? Based on the location you provide while setting Windows up? IP lookup?

I mean, there needs to be a safe way, so I invite everyone to become European for this patch. :-)

I have to ask a really basic question: Why does Microsoft have such a vested interest in users using Edge over competitors?

I get the argument: "it's their browser, of course they want people to use it" but for me that answer isn't satisfactory. What is the financial motive to go through all the trouble of pushing Edge? The only reason I can think of is "your data" but even then, what sort of data might MS want to extract from your browser that they can't get from the underlying OS?

Not necessarily an answer, but an overview of the topics in the domain space of your question might include:

Revenue Generation: Advertisements and search engine partnerships generate revenue for Microsoft when users utilize their browser.

Ecosystem Integration: Encourages use of other Microsoft products, like Office 365, creating a more unified user experience.

Data Collection: Allows Microsoft to collect user data for analytics, targeted advertising, and product improvement.

Vendor Lock-in: User familiarity with one Microsoft product may discourage switching to competitors, ensuring long-term revenue.

Competitive Advantage: Maintaining a popular browser helps Microsoft negotiate better deals with third-party service providers.

Software Control: Allows Microsoft to guide software standards, impacting how web apps and sites are built.

User Experience: Direct control over the browser allows Microsoft to provide customer support and troubleshoot issues more efficiently.

Thanks, ChatGPT

Yeah, I've reorganized and edited a bit some ChatGPT answers—it's quick at sketching out the big picture, and it's easy to fact- or logic-check if needed. Also helps me catch stuff I might miss if I'm in a hurry.

A generous interpretation is that they don't want to worry about the resources used by internal OS components being compatible across infinite variety of browser vendors, versions, add-ons (and those versions), etc.

Have you used Microsoft Edge recently? It is a dumping ground for all things that Microsoft wants to try in a way that is easier to do than sending A/B testing out via Windows Update.

* Collections

* Shopping

* Browser Essentials

* Website scanning

* Outlook integration

* Games integration

* ...

They have a OneNote feed sidebar now, too. Actually great for quick notes during browsing. Except that it's part of Edge, which is a privacy disaster full of dark patterns.

Your web browsing habits reveal a lot more about you than your desktop habits.

Really hard to hide your web browsing habits from the OS itself. They could trivially grab most of the data, if they wanted.

And lose either 4% of their global revenue or the european market

Default Bing and Microsoft integration. So ad revenue.

> I have to ask a really basic question: Why does Microsoft have such a vested interest in users using Edge over competitors?

FOMO and Paranoia. Anything that looks like a market they might miss out on they get scared, freak out, create a shit product and jump in the market with HUGE marketing/info campaigns to convince everyone theirs is the best product, and then it turns out it's not really a profitable market at all. But at least they weren't usurped.

Advertising is really lucrative. MS wants to get a bigger share of the pie, and that's done by driving people to use Bing. Also, if Bing Chat gets people used to using AI chatbots for search, that dramatically increases the cost of delivering search. Search results are not a huge chunk of Microsoft's revenue, but they are Google's main source of income. Search standardizing on LLM chatbots would take a huge chunk out of Google's margins.

Just see chrome current intention now? What purpose they promote chrome crazily in the early days. It's to monopolize and becoming the dominant player which control how the policy of interneting favor to their ads activity

Microsoft is unwilling to evolve ethically as a company on this point. They don't understand that we remember who they are, and you don't have to use the wayback machine to remind yourself: https://www.theringer.com/tech/2018/5/18/17362452/microsoft-...

With Github. Microsoft now controls much of the world's open source code. Future will be interesting.

It also shows how the EU keeps mega corps in line while other government bodies allow companies to get away with these things.