Opera Software, maker of the Opera browser, says it has filed a complaint against Microsoft, accusing the company of abusing the dominance of Windows to give Internet Explorer an unfair edge in the market.
However just under a year ago Opera CEO Jon von Tetzchner was asked by SeattlePi in an interview about Windows/IE antitrust issues, he responded at the time that his company had no intentions of taking action. Here is a summary of Opera's complaint:
However just under a year ago Opera CEO Jon von Tetzchner was asked by SeattlePi in an interview about Windows/IE antitrust issues, he responded at the time that his company had no intentions of taking action. Here is a summary of Opera's complaint:
Opera requests the Commission to implement two remedies to Microsoft's abusive actions. First, it requests the Commission to obligate Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows and/or carry alternative browsers pre-installed on the desktop. Second, it asks the European Commission to require Microsoft to follow fundamental and open Web standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities. The complaint calls on Microsoft to adhere to its own public pronouncements to support these standards, instead of stifling them with its notorious "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" strategy. Microsoft's unilateral control over standards in some markets creates a de facto standard that is more costly to support, harder to maintain, and technologically inferior and that can even expose users to security risks.
And Microsoft had this to say about the complaint:
News source: SeattlePi
"It's important to note that computer users have complete freedom of choice to use and set as default any browser they wish, including Opera, and PC manufacturers can also preinstall any browser as the default on any Windows machine they sell. Microsoft is committed to ensuring that freedom through our Windows Principles. Internet Explorer has been an integral part of the Windows operating system for over a decade and supports a wide range of web standards. We will of course cooperate with any inquiries into these issues, but we believe the inclusion of the browser into the operating system benefits consumers, and that consumers and PC manufacturers already are free to choose to use any browsers they wish."It makes you wonder if Opera are suffering after they changed their flagship product to "Freeware" where-as before you had to purchase a license for the ad-free version of Opera browser suite. Generally speaking people will use the product if it is good, Mozilla Firefox hasn't gained a significant market share for nothing!
News source: SeattlePi
Windows doesn't have aptget, and even if they did people wouldn't know how to use it.
Windows N editions were ridiculous enough (can't play media out of bo
Anyway, I would love for I.E. to be replaced with Firefox - or at least I.E. to follow web standards. It would save so much of my time wasted on writing 2 different versions of the same thing so that it'll work on I.E.
lots of possible solutions. oems could add a browser. there could be some kind of system to choose a browser when you install or when you connect to the internet for the first time, etc.
can't it be something more user friendly?
opera is not asking for windows to come without a browser, but for there to be a real choice.
A: The complaint doesn't mean that Windows must be stripped of all browsers. What matters is that there is actual choice.
Currently, Microsoft is bundling their browser with the dominant desktop operating system. This would not have been a problem in itself if Microsoft did not actively undermine open standards. Basically, Microsoft's position in the browser market allows it to lock people to their proprietary technologies.
With this two-pronged approach, Microsoft would be forced to adhere to standards, and at the same time they would not be as well equipped to repeat their actions in the future because their browser would no longer be as dominant.
Source: http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/microsoft-antitrust
You people need to focus on the #1 main issue here, open standards. Opera really wants Microsoft to adhere to standards.
Opera does not say "unbundle now or I'll eat you". There's only option #2 if following standards is not possible. Opera is confident in knowing that Microsoft will adhere to standards rather than unbundling so #2 isn't the main problem.
If Microsoft adheres to standards, then #2 will be completely ignored.
This is bad for competition and for all other browsers!
Which is precisely why MS does it this way...
I use ie as a backup and to download drivers and stuff when I do a fresh install. If you have one browser and it breaks, then your a bit screwed really. Thats why I like having ie. IMHO it's Microsoft's Operating System they should be able to bundle what the hell they want with it. Opera want in so bad.. make your own OS then.
lots of possible solutions here. oems could add a browser. there could be some kind of system to choose a browser when you install or when you connect to the internet for the first time, etc.
not when they abuse their market position to stifle competition. ever heard about antitrust laws?
Netscape 9 is the first good version they've released in ages, but then it's basically just Firefox so...
lots of possible solutions here. oems could add a browser. there could be some kind of system to choose a browser when you install or when you connect to the internet for the first time, etc.
not when they abuse their market position to stifle competition. ever heard about antitrust laws?
You really are a parrot, aren't you? You've said the same exact thing in two comments on THIS article.
I bought my copy of Windows from the store. What OEM will install my browser?
Just enough browser to get you by until you can download Real IE, Firefox, Opera, etc, just enough to display things like HTML help files.
Basically, make Light IE to Real IE what WordPad is to Word.
Then the market for an aftermarket browser is restored, and Real IE, Firefox, and Opera all have an equal shot of being chosen.
Similar could be done with WMP-- maybe no playlist/synch/ripping support in the packin version, and then they can provide the full version to compete on its merits as a seperate download.
Just enough browser to get you by until you can download Real IE, Firefox, Opera, etc, just enough to display things like HTML help files.
Basically, make Light IE to Real IE what WordPad is to Word.
Then the market for an aftermarket browser is restored, and Real IE, Firefox, and Opera all have an equal shot of being chosen.
Similar could be done with WMP-- maybe no playlist/synch/ripping support in the packin version, and then they can provide the full version to compete on its merits as a seperate download.
Yeah, that's a good idea. Confuse the non tech savy people as much as possible. My dad gets confused enough as it is on a PC. I can guarantee that he would just get confused by what browser to choose and give up. You've got to have a full featured browser in there by default. My dad isn't all that uncommon either, there are millions of people just like him.
On a side note I have to say that Linux and OSX also have a full featured browser built in. Pretty much every OS does. So why are we just targetting Windows? Just because they have market share? That's not fair.
If we're going to do that, we may as well just make it illegal to bundle any software in with the OS. Oh yeah, then the OS would suck because it would pretty much be Windows Explorer or Finder and nothing else. That's a big part of what an OS is: a collection of apps and suites that enable you to get your work done. Why cripple one of them just because they have market share?
Yet people figure out "WordPad is not sufficient to work with, I should get Office or OpenOffice or ..."
Yet people figure out "WordPad is not sufficient to work with, I should get Office or OpenOffice or ..."
First that's a really bad analogy (wordpad is not even meant to compete with products like OpenOffice) and second, yes there are plenty of people who use Wordpad for their word processing because that's all their computer came with. However most computers bought in stores come with Microsoft Works or something of that nature. The people who figure out that Wordpad isn't good enough are the same people who download Firefox or Opera. Most people don't.
There's a chicken-egg thing there:
OEMs pack in aftermarket wordprocessors and office suites because it's known that the pack-in ones are insufficient. If it was sufficient for most users, they probably wouldn't bother.
When they put in a full-featured app, like IE, there's no need to pack in a substitute.
when people keep repeating the same fallacies over and over without bothering to read the existing comments, why should i have to rewrite the comment when responding?
the store can include a browser. or a browser can be downloaded the first time you connect to the internet. or you could get it from any magazine cd/dvd. or... lots of possibilities here. oem was just an example.
can't make money?
opera is a profitable company. it's MAKING money.
opera's revenue increased by more than 50% in the last quarter.
opera has lots of cash in the bank.
also, this is not a litigation. it is not a lawsuit. it is a request for the eu to look at microsoft's practices.
can't make money?
opera is a profitable company. it's MAKING money.
opera's revenue increased by more than 50% in the last quarter.
opera has lots of cash in the bank.
also, this is not a litigation. it is not a lawsuit. it is a request for the eu to look at microsoft's practices.
Their profits have only increased because of licensing for embedded browsers like the Wii. What has that got to do with Windows? Or are they trying to be more like Microsoft and take over all the browser markets?
wrong.
opera's DESKTOP revenue increased by more than 100% in the last quarter.
Maybe MS should sue them because I don't have the choice to install IE on my Wii! !!!Rabble Rabble Anti-Trust Rabble Rabble!!!
how many times are clueless newbies going to repeat this fallacy? the comparison is completely invalid. wii is not a dominant player which prevents others from competing in a different market, and neither is opera. you don't need wii to browse the web.
Why not go after Apple, because of them bundling Safari? Howver, with Safari you can get rid of it.
lots of possible solutions. oems could add a browser. there could be some kind of system to choose a browser when you install or when you connect to the internet for the first time, etc.
except this is not so much about bundling as it is about abusing one's position in one market (desktop) to stifle innovation in another one (browsers).
At this point, ANY OS needs to come with a browser. Since IE7 > Firefox > IE6, I really don't care until someone leapfrogs IE7. And when they do, I'll use IE7 to download THAT browser.
is irrelevant.
first of all, apple isn't in a dominant position to abuse it to prevent other browsers from competing with safari. apple's desktop market share is FAR to low.
secondly, safari is actually standards compliant.
but windows should perhaps not come with msie (especially when it isn't standards compliant) since it prevents competition, which is illegal.
Opera doesn't care about the standards portion. They're only using that to disguise the antitrust whine.
Opera doesn't care about the standards portion. They're only using that to disguise the antitrust whine.
If IE followed standards, it would make things much easier for Opera and friends.
To be a viable browser, you have to be reasonably compatible (nobody's going to write seperate stylesheets for Opera and such).
With IE non-compliant, the world is full of pages packed with CSS hacks to work right in IE. Opera has to be built to handle those, not according to a clearly explained standard, but according to an undocumented binary-only program's actions.
actually, they do. from the q&a:
"Q: Opera doesn't really care about open standards. This is just a cheap way to gain publicity!
A: While this has certainly given Opera Software quite a bit of publicity, one must understand that open standards are absolutely central to Opera Software. Opera has spent a lot of money on promoting open standards through the years, because open standards is what allows relatively smaller players like us to compete in the market.
One could say that the fight for open standards is a key component to Opera Software's business model."
actually, they do. from the q&a:
"Q: Opera doesn't really care about open standards. This is just a cheap way to gain publicity!
A: While this has certainly given Opera Software quite a bit of publicity, one must understand that open standards are absolutely central to Opera Software. Opera has spent a lot of money on promoting open standards through the years, because open standards is what allows relatively smaller players like us to compete in the market.
One could say that the fight for open standards is a key component to Opera Software's business model."
Yes, we all know the plaintiff in a situation is the best place to get unbiased information.
it doesn't have to be unbiased. all you need to do is to understand that open standards benefit opera, and they also happen to benefit the market as well.
opera does care about standards because that's what allows them to compete.
Besides, it's not like Opera can perfectly replace IE. There are still those websites written for IE only.
That said, even if MS removed it, Opera would probably turn around and sue them again because Windows users cannot access the Opera website (duhhhh).
that's part of the point of this whole thing. opera are saying IE is the main browser on the web because of its integration, and due to its bad 'standards' support its making problems for opera/mozilla/whoever that are 'standards' compliant. i can't see opera caring if MS say they'll fix the 'standards' support as it'll make a better browsing expierence for everyone as well as people coding up sites. a better / more complete 'standard' would help too :p
except this is not so much about monopoly as it is about abusing one's position in one market (desktop) to stifle innovation in another one (browsers).
except this is not so much about monopoly as it is about abusing one's position in one market (desktop) to stifle innovation in another one (browsers).
Squawk! I said this before! Squawk!
except this is not so much about monopoly as it is about abusing one's position in one market (desktop) to stifle innovation in another one (browsers).
</sarcasm> ?????
why?
I think the easiest way to solve this (forgetting about the web standards since that's an obvious given that needs fixing), Microsoft should just include a dialog box when you first run IE that mentions a few other browsers and has a link to their main site. It should be shown the first time IE is run only, after that it should be accessible from the help menu.
lots of possible solutions. oems could add a browser. there could be some kind of system to choose a browser when you install or when you connect to the internet for the first time, etc.
lots of possible solutions. oems could add a browser. there could be some kind of system to choose a browser when you install or when you connect to the internet for the first time, etc.
Squawk! Squawk! Polly want a browser!
lots of possible solutions. oems could add a browser. there could be some kind of system to choose a browser when you install or when you connect to the internet for the first time, etc.
On-topic:
Yes, there are alternatives, maybe stores can offer free CD's with a mix of browsers on them or something like that. Point is, I don't see how creating a browser and packing it in with a OS that YOU created is abusing one's power. I run windows but I don't use IE at all unless I want to update my computer. I use firefox on my PC and Opera on my windows mobile PPC. I don't think M$ is the best company in the world but this is getting outta hand. I wish I could sue the American government for stealing over 30% of my yearly income...lol
that was an example.
windows magically installs itself on all best buy computers?
how is it getting out of hand when a company well known for its anti-competitive practices is taken to task for its actions?
the comparison is invalid. this isn't even a lawsuit, but an antitrust complaint.
that was an example.
windows magically installs itself on all best buy computers?
how is it getting out of hand when a company well known for its anti-competitive practices is taken to task for its actions?
the comparison is invalid. this isn't even a lawsuit, but an antitrust complaint.
no, the purpose of business is to make money. competition makes for a healthy market, and the market dynamics can grow the market and make everyone more money than if they were alone.
depends on whether antitrust laws apply or not.
that could possibly be the case. again, this is subject to antitrust laws.
Yes, there are alternatives, maybe stores can offer free CD's with a mix of browsers on them or something like that. Point is, I don't see how creating a browser and packing it in with a OS that YOU created is abusing one's power. I run windows but I don't use IE at all unless I want to update my computer. I use firefox on my PC and Opera on my windows mobile PPC. I don't think M$ is the best company in the world but this is getting outta hand. I wish I could sue the American government for stealing over 30% of my yearly income...lol
One problem is that a good amount of people who use IE use it simply because "it works for me so why bother with something else?" I've even seen people argue that IE is the best browser even after I point out it's lack of proper CSS 2.1 support, it's proprietary CSS, and more.
Most people who use WMP have probably heard of WinAmp from a friend or two, some may have even heard of other music players. When was the last time WinAmp complained? A media player war is pretty much exactly the same as a browser war, only difference is web language support would be comparable to file format support. If two media players both support the same files you go for the one you like more. If IE adds support for all current web standards then what would make Opera stand out as a more preferable browser?
Really, I think IE should fully support all current web standards, as should every other browser, and it should include a list of 3-4 alternative browsers that pops up when first run. "Microsft Internet Explorer is an internet browser, however it is not the only internet browser. Several third-party companies have made other equally reliable and remarkable internet browsers. Among these are Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc, etc, etc."
That would probably solve this entire issue.
Yes, there are alternatives, maybe stores can offer free CD's with a mix of browsers on them or something like that. Point is, I don't see how creating a browser and packing it in with a OS that YOU created is abusing one's power. I run windows but I don't use IE at all unless I want to update my computer. I use firefox on my PC and Opera on my windows mobile PPC. I don't think M$ is the best company in the world but this is getting outta hand. I wish I could sue the American government for stealing over 30% of my yearly income...lol
One problem is that a good amount of people who use IE use it simply because "it works for me so why bother with something else?" I've even seen people argue that IE is the best browser even after I point out it's lack of proper CSS 2.1 support, it's proprietary CSS, and more.
Most people who use WMP have probably heard of WinAmp from a friend or two, some may have even heard of other music players. When was the last time WinAmp complained? A media player war is pretty much exactly the same as a browser war, only difference is web language support would be comparable to file format support. If two media players both support the same files you go for the one you like more. If IE adds support for all current web standards then what would make Opera stand out as a more preferable browser?
Really, I think IE should fully support all current web standards, as should every other browser, and it should include a list of 3-4 alternative browsers that pops up when first run. "Microsft Internet Explorer is an internet browser, however it is not the only internet browser. Several third-party companies have made other equally reliable and remarkable internet browsers. Among these are Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc, etc, etc."
That would probably solve this entire issue.
you don't think violating antitrust laws should have consequences? have you actually READ opera's arguments, or are you just making assumptions from ignorance?
actually, the u.s. has antitrust laws as well. and GUESS WHAT, microsoft was convicted there as well!
you don't think violating antitrust laws should have consequences? have you actually READ opera's arguments, or are you just making assumptions from ignorance?
actually, the u.s. has antitrust laws as well. and GUESS WHAT, microsoft was convicted there as well!
Antitrust is not a criminal offense, it's civil. You don't get convicted in a lawsuit.
you don't think violating antitrust laws should have consequences? have you actually READ opera's arguments, or are you just making assumptions from ignorance?
actually, the u.s. has antitrust laws as well. and GUESS WHAT, microsoft was convicted there as well!
Where in the anti-trust laws does it state the MS can't bundle IE with Windows?
Don't come at me with the whole preinstalled thing either, most tech savy people, first thing they do is fire up IE to go dopwnload the saftware they actually want to use, as for the non tech savy, IE works just fine for them and for the most part aren't interested in switching anything. I've tried but the "average" Windows user could care less about anything not made by MS. Maybe later on they get curious but for the most part IE is all they want.
you don't think violating antitrust laws should have consequences? have you actually READ opera's arguments, or are you just making assumptions from ignorance?
actually, the u.s. has antitrust laws as well. and GUESS WHAT, microsoft was convicted there as well!
Where in the anti-trust laws does it state the MS can't bundle IE with Windows?
Don't come at me with the whole preinstalled thing either, most tech savy people, first thing they do is fire up IE to go dopwnload the saftware they actually want to use, as for the non tech savy, IE works just fine for them and for the most part aren't interested in switching anything. I've tried but the "average" Windows user could care less about anything not made by MS. Maybe later on they get curious but for the most part IE is all they want.
What if the user can't physically switch from IE because the site he/she needs to access specifically requires IE and nothing else?
The problem is, although there is choice, microsoft undermines web standards and doesn't bother to implement it as quickly as rival browsers, thats one of the main points.
Also, in addition to that at the same time, microsoft are trying to promote their own standards which specifically require IE browser to use. Silverlight for example wasn't really meant for multiple OS's or browsers but for only IE itself.
The whole idea of this anti-trust claim is to prevent vendor lock-in, to prevent the use of only one browser for the whole web.
you don't think violating antitrust laws should have consequences? have you actually READ opera's arguments, or are you just making assumptions from ignorance?
actually, the u.s. has antitrust laws as well. and GUESS WHAT, microsoft was convicted there as well!
Where in the anti-trust laws does it state the MS can't bundle IE with Windows?
Don't come at me with the whole preinstalled thing either, most tech savy people, first thing they do is fire up IE to go dopwnload the saftware they actually want to use, as for the non tech savy, IE works just fine for them and for the most part aren't interested in switching anything. I've tried but the "average" Windows user could care less about anything not made by MS. Maybe later on they get curious but for the most part IE is all they want.
What if the user can't physically switch from IE because the site he/she needs to access specifically requires IE and nothing else?
The problem is, although there is choice, microsoft undermines web standards and doesn't bother to implement it as quickly as rival browsers, thats one of the main points.
Also, in addition to that at the same time, microsoft are trying to promote their own standards which specifically require IE browser to use. Silverlight for example wasn't really meant for multiple OS's or browsers but for only IE itself.
The whole idea of this anti-trust claim is to prevent vendor lock-in, to prevent the use of only one browser for the whole web.
Silverlight works perfectly in Firefox.
is this a joke? you think a law must state companies by name to be valid
that's not the way it works.
microsoft is abusing its market power in the desktop market to prevent competition in the browser market. this is illegal.
and yet they need to fire up msie for many sites, since many still REQUIRE msie to work.
irrelevant to the question about whether microsoft is abusing its market position o rnot.
in a market with actual competition?
not necessarily, but this is irrelevant to today's situation.
But of course Microsoft would never do that. Monopoly, monopoly, monopoly, monopoly.
I agree. People already complain enough about Microsoft having multiple Windows SKUs... (Oh no! A company has more than one product!
As Microsoft has stated for the past many years, computer manufacturers are free to pre-install any browser they want. There is no obligation on Microsoft's part to include third party software (why force Pepsi to throw a can of Coke in every box?) but users and manufacturers can certainly do that if they wish...just as you can have Pepsi and Coke in the same fridge.
Please consider reading up on "monopoly" before commenting again.
"monopoly" doesn't have to mean "100% of the market".
how many times are you going to repeat this already refuted fallacy? the faq again:
Q: How does forcing Microsoft to adhere to standards promote choice in browsers?
A: While it is easy, at least for tech-savvy people, to install a different browser, many sites still require you to use MSIE due to their use of proprietary MS technologies supported only by IE, or hacks designed to fix IE's broken standards support, which can themselves break in other browsers. For there to be actual choice, Web users must be able to choose another browser and use it on any site they wish.
there is if microsoft has abused its dominant position to impede competition. look up antitrust laws.
ditto.
actually, profits from the free desktop browser were up by more than 100% in the previous quarter.
also, the company is profitable and had a total revenue growth of more than 50% in the previous quarter of this year.
actually, profits from the free desktop browser were up by more than 100% in the previous quarter.
also, the company is profitable and had a total revenue growth of more than 50% in the previous quarter of this year.
Squawk! Oh, wait. This is different. Their profits from their free browser are up 100%? 100% of free is still zero.
Bundle its not bad but everything forced its a bad thing, make the bundle custom install and why not easy removable the modular approach its a way to go.
Bundle its not bad but everything forced its a bad thing, make the bundle custom install and why not easy removable the modular approach its a way to go.
That means that IE's profit is zero also. And Apple's Safari profit is zero. Free products do not create revenue.
actually, profits from the free desktop browser were up by more than 100% in the previous quarter.
also, the company is profitable and had a total revenue growth of more than 50% in the previous quarter of this year.
Squawk! Oh, wait. This is different. Their profits from their free browser are up 100%? 100% of free is still zero.
Browsers profit from the google/yahoo searches you make through the toolbar.
the cost of ie its passed down to the user with windows wether you want it or not.
opera makes money from searches in the free version, just like mozilla.
then again, considering your comments so far, i am not surprised that you were completely unaware of this.
If you've ever actually wrote a couple pages that were standards compliant, you'd understand just how pathetic IE really is sometimes. Microsoft even admitted it, their entire arguement was pretty much, "oh but they have a choice!" They, at no point, defended their own browser at all. Well that's cute and all, but it's bull****. Most users on the internet now have no idea what a browser is, they just automatically open up IE because that's what they've always had, and that's the browser that always has problems. What's so wrong about maybe bundling more browsers with the operating system? What is that, 20 more megs? 30? What's the problem?
Also, if Microsoft is so sure that users really just love IE that much, why don't they bundle Windows with Opera or Firefox instead of their own browser and see how many people flock back to using IE fulltime.
And that last part about the Firefox having a fifth of internet users using its browser, I'm calling that. I've seen all those surveys and reports that spice it up and say Firefox easily has 200 million users and all that, but that's a lie. People download Firefox, sure, but they don't use it. The company even admitted that that was happening, and yet people plow on saying everybody who downloads it uses it fulltime. So, seriously, if anybody has a report that isn't based on downloads, and that's actually reliable, I want to see it. Really. I don't hate Firefox, and I'd believe it if I saw it.
And the last comment: "Generally speaking people will use the product if it is good, Mozilla Firefox hasn't gained a significant market share for nothing!" is plain stupidity.
It's something called "hype" (in this case a geek hype) that isn't directly connected to how good a browser is. And is you browse a few pages you'll see that some people don't use opera because it remembers them of the music style
oh, do you remember that case in 2003 where microsoft was sending a broken page only to opera? What's that called?
And the last comment: "Generally speaking people will use the product if it is good, Mozilla Firefox hasn't gained a significant market share for nothing!" is plain stupidity.
It's something called "hype" (in this case a geek hype) that isn't directly connected to how good a browser is. And is you browse a few pages you'll see that some people don't use opera because it remembers them of the music style
oh, do you remember that case in 2003 where microsoft was sending a broken page only to opera? What's that called?
Opera made a "bork" edition especially for msn pages because of microsofts sniffing out opera on their msn pages.
I'm glad they did. That POS should never have been released in the first place.
-Spenser
1. Security -- You can be sure that plugins aren't messing up your browser or doing any malicious activity in the background.
2. Stability -- How many times has firefox/internet explorer crashed because of a plugin? The blame is put many times on plugins that are not tested on newer versions.
Of course the obvious disadvantage is the lack of personalisation.
However, opera is very customisable, although its not always a "1 click install" thing like other browsers, it may take up to a good half hour to make it look like you want it.
Check out http://operawiki.info/Opera about customisation etc.
Fine, it doesn't have the easy extensions like Fx, but it is faster, easier on the resources and more secure than Fx/IE.
I've used IE6/7 and Fx for years, but Opera is imo the best and fastest. The only thing I missed from Fx was the ad-block extension, but blocking ads in Opera wasn't hard at all.
This way we might be able to use some 3th party window manager, media player, browser, whatever.
We all know how easy this works and how people love this approach, take a look at the widespread linux adoption for instance...
[/sarcasm]
I just don't buy the freedom of choice argument coming from a company with something for sale.
As far as MS being the end of freedom of choice as we know it I just have a question.
If given the choice between MS and Apple which would you prefer?
opera's ceo drives a worn-down car and always travels economy class.
after more than a decade and BILLIONS of dollars spent on this thing, firefox only has about 15% market share. msie still has 80% of the market. and many sites still require msie. yes, that's right, i can't visit my own bank with firefox. i need to fire up msie.
the validity of the argument does not depend on who made it, but on whether the argument itself is sound or not. microsoft has abused its power to prevent competition.
opera's ceo drives a worn-down car and always travels economy class.
after more than a decade and BILLIONS of dollars spent on this thing, firefox only has about 15% market share. msie still has 80% of the market. and many sites still require msie. yes, that's right, i can't visit my own bank with firefox. i need to fire up msie.
the validity of the argument does not depend on who made it, but on whether the argument itself is sound or not. microsoft has abused its power to prevent competition.
That's totally untrue. He's quite highly paid. More than the industry average, in fact.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research...symbol=OPERA.OL
he is not driving a worn-out car? huh?
and what is the industry average? note that the page you linked to says 892k NOK. norwegian kroner. that's about $160-170k.
In the free market, we the people have the right to make a choice. If people are not willing to take the responsibility of obtaining knowledge of available products, it is them who has failed to take advantage of their capacity to express freedom to the full extent. Opera Software has the option of marketing their product to capture the people's attention to achieve a greater market share. No one but the will of the people can limit their potential, and no law will extinguish this will.
that is not the issue here. you shouldn't have to create your own os to compete with a browser.
except we don't have a choice because micrososft abuses its dominant position in the desktop market to prevent competition in the browser market.
except mozilla has spent a decade and BILLIONS of dollars and msie still has more than 80% market share. and lots of sites still REQUIRE msie.
this is not a lawsuit, but an antitrust complaint.
are you saying that all antitrust cases are merely marketing?
this is not a lawsuit, but an antitrust complaint.
are you saying that all antitrust cases are merely marketing?
Would you just shut it? You keep saying the same damned things over and over. You spew the same crap on mozillazine.org. Go use Opera and be quiet!
We don't have a choice? I didn't know IE blocks getfirefox.com, mozilla.org, opera.com, and apple.com to keep you from downloading other browsers. I also didn't know Windows denies all executables from these sites to run.
First, Mozilla had Gecko in very early alpha a decade ago. So to say they spent billions in a decade to market their software is a lie. Learn your browser history. Second, I highly doubt they've spent billions in marketing since the release of Firefox.
Microsoft isn't to blame for sites that require MSIE. Again, if you knew your browser history, you'd know that there was a span of about 5 or 6 years when the only browser worth using was IE. A few developers chose to include Netscape 4 in their support list, but most didn't. The sites today that require IE are hold overs from that era, and the developers of those sites are either lazy or just don't care.
already answered by the faq:
Q: How does forcing Microsoft to adhere to standards promote choice in browsers?
A: While it is easy, at least for tech-savvy people, to install a different browser, many sites still require you to use MSIE due to their use of proprietary MS technologies supported only by IE, or hacks designed to fix IE's broken standards support, which can themselves break in other browsers. For there to be actual choice, Web users must be able to choose another browser and use it on any site they wish.
nope. google, ibm and lots of other companies have pumped shitloads of cash into mozilla.
yes they are, because web developers have no choice but to code specifically for msie since it has poor standards support.
never the less, they show that ie's position is far too dominant.
Q: How does forcing Microsoft to adhere to standards promote choice in browsers?
A: While it is easy, at least for tech-savvy people, to install a different browser, many sites still require you to use MSIE due to their use of proprietary MS technologies supported only by IE, or hacks designed to fix IE's broken standards support, which can themselves break in other browsers. For there to be actual choice, Web users must be able to choose another browser and use it on any site they wish.
That's Opera's definition of choice.
You stated that a decade's worth of time spending billions of dollars to market their browser got them little results. I stated that you were giving false information, as Gecko wasn't being marketed while it was in its early alpha. To further provide evidence, Mozilla didn't really start marketing (if you can call it that) Gecko until Netscape 6's release.
...
never the less, they show that ie's position is far too dominant.
You make it sound like it is impossible to build a cross-browser website. Web developers are responsible for the work they put out on the web, not the browser vendors. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure their browser works in the browsers they want to target. If they don't, they're lazy. It's as simple as that.
Yes, we developers have to work around bugs, but that's not a new concept. We've been doing it since there's been more that one browser on the market. Every browser has it's own feature set and it's own set of quirks. It has been, and it always will be, that way. Any competent web developer can put together a standards-based site, script it, and deploy it in a minimal time frame. And yes, it would work in Gecko, IE, Opera, and Safari.
That is not to say that IE doesn't need improvement. It does, but Opera's attempt to get governmental force behind it simply to enact a change in standards support is evil.
I would encourage you to broaden your knowledge in web development. Learn the intricacies of the major browsers; learn what to avoid and what to embrace. Then you'll be successful in this field.
it's an explanation for why the choice is not a free one.
no, but it is very expensive because you have to write for different browser.
false.
microsoft dominates the market.
its dominant browser is not standards compliant.
in order to work with the dominant browser (the only realistic option), web developers have to design with the non-standard ie in mind.
in other words, governments dealing with illegal cartels is evil. good to know where you are coming from.
this comparison shows a complete lack of understanding of the mechanisms of this case, dp004i. try again, with less useless drivel and more thought process.
What if Coca Cola said to shops only to stock coke and not any competition(say if they were paid to not include any other cola product?). Thats unfair competition.
What if Coca Cola said to shops only to stock coke and not any competition(say if they were paid to not include any other cola product?). Thats unfair competition.
Microsoft has never told me that I couldn't use other browsers. In fact, I use Firefox. Besides, restaurants DO have exclusive deals with soda manufacturers. Ever try to order Pepsi at McDonald's? They don't have it.
Uh, soda companies do that. They have for decades, where have you been?
they haven't told you to your face, but they have actively worked to prevent competition in the browser market, and even today many sites REQUIRE msie. you need to use msie to access a lot of sites (like my bank).
they haven't told you to your face, but they have actively worked to prevent competition in the browser market, and even today many sites REQUIRE msie. you need to use msie to access a lot of sites (like my bank).
Your bank sucks, then. My bank site works fine in every browser I've tried (including WebTV.)
sure. but that's how microsoft's abuse has manifested iself
Personally I haven't heard of MicroSoft telling people there are other browsers besides IE and that they are there to develop for too right?
Personally I haven't heard of MicroSoft telling people there are other browsers besides IE and that they are there to develop for too right?
Search MSDN. They do provide information about targeting more than Internet Explorer, including Opera.
so what?
why not sue apple for safari on iphone or macs???
why not sue KDE for using Konquerer??
why not sue nokia for the nokia browser on their mobile phones??
this is the one of the most ridiculous lawsuit i have heard... previously microsoft has encountered lawsuits due to IE... why the hell just IE why not the microsoft calculator included in windows?? why not freecell? why not the most ridiculously minor thing in windows?? or like picasa can sue windows for the photo gallery in vista??
opera work on your browser and i promise i will switch if its worth!!!
A: Bundling in itself is not a problem, but it becomes a problem when a dominant player in the market uses bundling in combination with other tactics to prevent others from competing in the market.
Please note that Safari and Firefox are very good at standards compliance. If they didn't have to deal with MSIE compatibility, they (and Opera) could have spent even more time on improving their standards support.
Source: http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/microsoft-antitrust
take MP3 players for example... IPOD pretty much got super popular at the right time so when "most people" think of MP3 players they overall tend to know the IPOD name and use that reguardless if theres better MP3 players out there. i think the same applies for web browsers... Firefox pretty much already established itself as "THE" alternative web browser so if people switch web browsers, odds are that they will look into Firefox before anything else even if something is better.
They make a really good browser, but why don't they just focus on the handheld market? It's very possible that the desktop web experience won't evolve much further, and browser/shell integration will be the logical conclusion (with all Apple users bothering only with Safari, Windows users with IE). With WiFi and wireless providers bringing us closer to the reality of a portable future, it seems like it would be SO much smarter for Opera to jump in and contribute.
But maybe they don't have the ability to innovate and lend a constructive hand to that world. After all, they just write around standards. It's all they've ever been able to do. Their browser is nothing but a browser--not even attempting to compete with IE on its own level, as something integral to the computing experience. They utterly fail to think outside of the box, and struggle on in a market of evolving internet technologies with their...oh how shall I put this...
File viewer. And nothing more.
Right on man, I'm glad the world is growing more and more people like you.
actual competition in the browser market. that you can use any browser and not have sites that require msie (which is the case even today).
because it's THE cross-platform browser, and they are making good money from the desktop version as well.
actually, this is where opera makes most of its money.
this is a lie.
first off, if opera was just written around standards it would not have worked on most sites since most sites are not standards compliant. opera has spent a lot of money on compatibility with msie, just like mozilla. chasing a moving target.
secondly, most of the things you take for granted in modern browsers, such as the search field, popup blocker, etc., were invented by opera. no one has innovated more in the browser market than opera.
what on earth does that mean? sounds like you are a microsoft marketing drone.
struggle? opera is profitable, has lots of cash, and increased its revenue by more than 50% in the last quarter.
have you ever used opera?
LOL, what?
i really hate claims by companies about this crap.
that is not the issue here. you shouldn't have to create your own os to compete with a browser.
not if they are abusing their dominance in one market to prevent competition in another one. antitrust laws, ever heard about them?
because that would be anti-competitive.
I think it is incredibly dumb for Opera to ask for Internet Explorer to be unbundled. A web browser is a basic and integral part of an Operating System and just looks like some dummy spitting on Opera's part.
Microsoft should be forced to be standards compliant where defined standards exist. This is a very important point as where defined standards don't exist, everyone should be allowed to innovate. It is this very same innovation which led to AJAX (which actually was born from Internet Explorer for those that think that Internet Explorer is the devil) and even CSS being implemented on a grand scale.
I don't know how you would force a vendor to be standards compliant when there is no official standards test to measure against (my understanding is while ACID2 is thought to be a good indicator it is not actually backed by the standards body - W3C).
nope! quote:
"Remember that there are two issues here: 1) Microsoft's dominant position, and 2) IE's poor standards compliance. Without Microsoft's dominant position, ignoring standards would be less of a problem. With proper standards support, Microsoft's dominance would be less of a problem. Dealing with both of these issues means that the situation is sure to improve.
Here's a list of reasons why there is a strong case for unbundling IE:
1 Enforcement is clear-cut: Whether IE is bundled or not is a lot more clear-cut than what being "standards compliant" means. As such, it is easier to measure whether Microsoft is following up correctly (depending on the outcome of the complaint).
2 Remove the possibility to impede competition: Unbundling IE would remove or impede the tool used by Microsoft to prevent competition in the market. To use an analogy: If someone keeps beating you with a stick even after you have repeatedly asked him to stop, is it not more efficient to remove the stick he is beating you with (or ask someone stronger than him to do so) if you want to keep him from doing it?
3 Limit the damage: If IE had not been in a dominant position, its damage would have been far more limited if Microsoft still failed to live up to the promises of proper standards support.
4 Encourage actual competition: If Microsoft had to compete on the same terms as everyone else, they would have to keep improving the product rather than putting the project to sleep for many years. In other words they could end up coming up with new innovations that would benefit everyone. As a response to Firefox, among other things, Microsoft released IE7 with the Quick Tabs feature, which I find to be rather cool. A company like Microsoft, with vast resources at its disposal, could have been an innovative and productive member of the community.
5 Encourage good Web development practices: If Web developers could no longer code just for IE because it was no longer the default option in Windows, they would have no choice but to do it in a cross-browser manner.
6 Better standards compliance for all browsers: Not having to worry about being compatible with IE anymore (a lot of time is spent on IE compatibility) would free up a lot of resources for browser vendors which could be spent on improving the support for actual open standards. This would benefit Web developers who could find themselves somewhat frustrated by the previous point, at least until all browsers reach a decent level of standards compliance.'
quote:
'Note that Opera doesn't want everyone to be browserless when they install Windows. That is not the goal of this complaint. The point is to give users an actual choice. It doesn't even have to be Opera
actually, the industry has pretty much decided on a set of web standards. microsoft is involved in several of them as well. at the very least, microsoft should properly implement the standards it has helped give birth to.
Asking for unbundling is a very dumb move on Opera's part because:-
1) It makes Opera look like a bunch of cry-babies because their browser doesn't get market share, so they ask for the current leaders to be stifled so they can play catch-up - regardless of whether this is fact or not, this is what it looks like.
2) Best case scenario, the EU can get Microsoft to create a version of their O/S without the browser bundled which will more than likely be a further crippled version of 'N' - the version that no-one buys and no OEMs choose to install.
3) Because of reason 1, it makes Standards Compliance not seem like their major concern - again, this may not be fact, but it is the impression they are giving.
Furthermore, asking a vendor to remove their own software and install someone elses is just ludicrous.
And I agree that there are some clearly defined standards, what their isn't is any clear way of measuring standards compliance which is endorsed by the W3C, and compliance is a very subject thing.
1) It makes Opera look like a bunch of cry-babies
that's irrelevant to the validity of the complaint. according your logic, no one should ever do anything because there will always be people who talk crap without having actual knowledge about the company or case.
leaders? only one, namely the convicted monopolist.
except opera does not want windows to come without a browser, so that is unlikely to happen.
no, this is in fact how it works in antitrust cases.
not really. there is a consensus on what browsers should be able to do. at the very least, microsoft should fully implement the standards they have claimed to support. that alone would be a good start.
It's far from irrelevant. The public choose based upon their perception of the organisation, meaning that Opera have not done themselves any PR favours by this course of activity. If the only thing that was important to Opera was standards compliance they could get that enforced without asking for unbundling - it is obvious that standards compliance isn't the only thing they want, regardless of how much FUD they wrap that up in on their Q&A.
Regardless of how many, you don't seem to disagree with the fact that is exactly what they are doing - Asking for the competition to be stifled such that they can play catch up with market share.
Unfortunately the EU or no other authority has any right to force Microsoft to bundle anything, they only have the right to force Microsoft to be open with their implementation and provide a level playing field. Regardless of what Opera want, all the EU can ask Microsoft to do is unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows which by law Microsoft only have to do for one SKU, a whole approach which has proven to fail with the Media Player and 'N' SKU debacle.
Please cite me one example of it working this way.
I disagree fundamentally with this comment. There is no objective mechanism to measure standard compliant. How compliant would Microsoft have to be considered standards compliant? More than Firefox? More than Opera? More than Safari? Less than all three? It is a very difficult question to answer and without a formal process put together by the W3C which certifies browsers for standards compliance - a process which doesn't exist at the moment.
your personal opinion of opera is indeed irrelevant.
unbundling removes ie as the dominant browser, leaving microsoft without the market power to repeat its deeds.
this is nonsense based on your own hatred and ignorance.
no 'the competition'. 'the competition' includes the likes of firefox and safari. please pay attention. microsoft isn't competing. it doesn't have to.
actually, they do. unless microsoft wants to lose money by no longer selling anything in all of eu.
you are making the false assumption that there is only one way to do it, and that the eu cannot demand to have it done differently.
did you actually READ the comment? microsoft is involved in developing several standards, and the claim to support many of them. and i wrote: at the very least, microsoft should fully implement the standards they have claimed to support
My hatred and ignorance of what?
I think you assume far too much. I use Opera as my first choice of browser. However, that does not change the fact that I think that this is a dumb move by the company - looking at it completely objectively, while I agree with some of what they are trying to achieve, I believe they have other motives as most companies which are out to make a profit do.
If you want to turn this into a personal attack assuming which line I am towing, then by all means stoop to that level. I was trying to objectively discuss this with you, but now all I get is personal attacks so I am done with this.
Seriously, how is this so freaking hard for people to grasp? Does Opera work with people who can't comprehend English?
Seriously, how is this so freaking hard for people to grasp? Does Opera work with people who can't comprehend English?
that quote is irrelevant. it is a non-response. it is already answered in a q&a:
Q: How does forcing Microsoft to adhere to standards promote choice in browsers?
A: While it is easy, at least for tech-savvy people, to install a different browser, many sites still require you to use MSIE due to their use of proprietary MS technologies supported only by IE, or hacks designed to fix IE's broken standards support, which can themselves break in other browsers. For there to be actual choice, Web users must be able to choose another browser and use it on any site they wish.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.