Opera files antitrust complaint with the EU

Opera Software ASA, the only company that can put the Web on any device, filed a complaint with the European Commission yesterday which is aimed at giving consumers a genuine choice of Web browsers.

The complaint describes how Microsoft is abusing its dominant position by tying its browser, Internet Explorer, to the Windows operating system and by hindering interoperability by not following accepted Web standards. Opera has requested the Commission to take the necessary actions to compel Microsoft to give consumers a real choice and to support open Web standards in Internet Explorer.

Video: Video of Opera CTO HÃ¥kon Wium Lie discussing Opera's antitrust action


"We are filing this complaint on behalf of all consumers who are tired of having a monopolist make choices for them," said Jon von Tetzchner, CEO of Opera. "In addition to promoting the free choice of individual consumers, we are a champion of open Web standards and cross-platform innovation. We cannot rest until we've brought fair and equitable options to consumers worldwide."

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 preinstalled 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.

"Our complaint is necessary to get Microsoft to amend its practices," said Jason Hoida, Deputy General Counsel, Opera." The European Court of First Instance confirmed in September that Microsoft has illegally tied Windows Media Player to Windows. We are simply asking the Commission to apply these same, clear principles to the Internet Explorer tie, a tie that has even more profound effects on consumers and innovation. We are confident that the Commission understands the significance of the Internet Explorer tie and will take the necessary actions to restore competition and consumer choice in the browser market."

Opera has long held the position of innovator in the Web browser market, having introduced and pioneered features like tabbed browsing, Speed Dial, integrated search bar, mouse gestures, Opera LinkTM and many others. Absent Microsoft's abuse, Microsoft would have been forced to compete on a level playing field with Opera and other browsers. Instead of innovating, Microsoft has locked consumers to its own browser and only recently begun to offer some of the innovative features that other browsers have offered for years.

Both of Opera's requested remedies are intended to give consumers greater freedom and flexibility while at the same time ensuring that the Web further develops into a platform for innovation. Opera believes that the remedies will help promote consumer rights worldwide and force Microsoft to begin competing with Opera and others on the merits of its browser.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Micron shrinks DRAM process technology

Next Story

Toshiba tech paves way for 100Gb Flash chips

123 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Lawsuits like these are unrealistic and bad for progress. The reality is, there aren't any major OSes on the market (or available freely) today that do not come bundled with a web browser. This absolutely gives Microsoft the right to bundle a web browser.

By bundling software, Microsoft has to be able to support it. Bundling, or allowing Automatic Updates to download and install any other company's browser can create a situation where MS is expected to support them. It is ridiculous to expect Microsoft to offer support to users for, say, Firefox (and the irony in such a situation would be Firefox users refusing support from MS in the first place). The only browser we can fairly expect MS to bundle and support is Internet Explorer.

The world wide web is not the browser. And browsers are no longer limited to the world wide web. This stopped being an issue of 'domination' long ago, and now everyone just sounds like a bunch of 4 year olds stomping their feet and slamming doors, angry that their precious alternate browser that does nothing but browse the web can't compete with a browser-shell interface.

Guess what, Opera. You aren't even in IE's market.

Joshie said,
Lawsuits like these are unrealistic and bad for progress.

this is not a lawsuit, but a complaint to the EU. Like the antitrust cases in the US, Korea, etc. of the past.

The reality is, there aren't any major OSes on the market (or available freely) today that do not come bundled with a web browser. This absolutely gives Microsoft the right to bundle a web browser.

holy crap! how often is this nonsense going to be repeated?

microsoft is in a special position in the market, which means that it has a responsibility not to be anti-competitive. the company has been anti-competitive, as found by several countries, and will not pay.

other operating systems that bundle browsers are not near-monopolists and cannot be compared.

The world wide web is not the browser.

microsoft begs to differ. they WANT the web to be their browser alone.

This stopped being an issue of 'domination' long ago

80% of the market is not domination?

Guess what, Opera. You aren't even in IE's market.

correct. ie is not in the market at all. it is not competing due to microsoft's position in the market. it is preventing competition.

You have to be a sorry ass looser to sue MS for this, Opera is truly grasping for straws, as it is a sorry ass browser!
And yes I have tried it before so I don't wanna hear your BS whining(Opera fan boys).

hal90001 said,
You have to be a sorry ass looser to sue MS for this, Opera is truly grasping for straws, as it is a sorry ass browser!

opera is profitable, its revenues grew by more than 50% last quarter, and when nintendo needed a browser they talked to opera. hardly a 'sorry ass browser'.

And yes I have tried it before so I don't wanna hear your BS whining(Opera fan boys).

so because you are an ms fanboy that means that no one else can like the browser?

sorry, but i trust nintendo more than you when looking at choosing a browser.

CoolCatBad said,
Opera is gone, finished, extinct, it is no longer a player.

that must be why opera is profitable, and its revenue grew by 50% last quarter (desktop revenue was up by more than 100%). yeah, finished indeed. a profitable company with lots of cash is 'extinct'. a company whose customers include nintendo, sony, nokia, motorola, samsung, htc, t-mobile, adobe, and so on is no longer a player.

yeah, good one.

the wheel on the short bus goes round and round, round and round, round and round. The wheel on the short bus goes round and round... all day long.

There's nothing more special than companies who make ****ty software going complaining to the EU's antitrust board about the size of their insignificant penis'.

seta-san said,
There's nothing more special than companies who make ****ty software going complaining to the EU's antitrust board about the size of their insignificant penis'.

opera is well known as one of the best browsers (the best on mobile phones, certainly). then nintendo needed a browser they went straight to opera because of opera's reputation and quality standards.

opera is also profitable, and grew its revenue by more than 50% last quarter.

****ty software?

heh, you are just a microsoft employee.

standards should be independient of any big corporation, so its open for everyone which its not M$ case.

Anyways opera should do this long time ago its incredible how patience they have been.

eilegz said,
standards should be independient of any big corporation, so its open for everyone which its not M$ case.

"Open for everyone" in this case means a set of small competitors. Just take a look at the CSS 2.1 candidate recommendation, and current CSS 3 drafts, and see how many of them are written by employees of Opera, Apple, and Google/Firefox. How many of them have the "big corporation" Microsoft been involved with? Why does Opera think that Microsoft should be legally obligated to follow any standards that were written by its competitors? What other market operates this way -- name me one.

And who decides which standards are relevant? CSS 2.1 isn't even finalized yet. And why should CSS be more important than ____ (fill in the blank with some little standard that no one's ever heard of). Plus, why is XHTML in Opera's list? XHTML was a flop, and not just because IE didn't support it; even Opera/Mozilla/Apple realized this and thus their decision to independently come up with their own HTML5.

Lastly... this is setting a very bad precedent. Think of the effect this would have on the broader industry. For example, Apple doesn't want to add WMA support, despite some people's view that it would be good for consumers. (And no, if WMA were non-proprietary, that doesn't change anything. I don't see Apple forced to support Ogg Vorbis, for example.) What if Porsche and Lambourghini could write auto standards and force all automobiles to adhere to them?

PatriotB said,
Just take a look at the CSS 2.1 candidate recommendation, and current CSS 3 drafts, and see how many of them are written by employees of Opera, Apple, and Google/Firefox. How many of them have the "big corporation" Microsoft been involved with?

actually, microsoft is involved in many web standards. they just undermine them at the same time.

microsoft IS a member of the css working group, by the way:

http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/members.php3

Why does Opera think that Microsoft should be legally obligated to follow any standards that were written by its competitors? What other market operates this way -- name me one.

the car industry, the aviation industry, the hardware industry, etc. there are standards, and without them there would be chaos.

but that's irrelevant here. the relevant thing is that microsoft is subject to antitrust laws due to its market position.

Lastly... this is setting a very bad precedent.

the precedent is already set, in countries like the us and korea, and also in the eu (the real networks case, remember?).

For example, Apple doesn't want to add WMA support, despite some people's view that it would be good for consumers. (And no, if WMA were non-proprietary, that doesn't change anything. I don't see Apple forced to support Ogg Vorbis, for example.)

this is irrelevant since apple is not subject to antitrust laws, since they are not in a dominant position.

What if Porsche and Lambourghini could write auto standards and force all automobiles to adhere to them?

a better analogy would be if those had 80-90% of the market together, and decided to violate standards to kill competitors.

but your comments fall apart anyway because MICROSOFT IS A CSS WG MEMBER

PatriotB said,
...
"Open for everyone" in this case means a set of small competitors. Just take a look at the CSS 2.1 candidate recommendation, and current CSS 3 drafts, and see how many of them are written by employees of Opera, Apple, and Google/Firefox. How many of them have the "big corporation" Microsoft been involved with? Why does Opera think that Microsoft should be legally obligated to follow any standards that were written by its competitors? What other market operates this way -- name me one.
...

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#acks

Look at the authors of some of these specs, 4 MS guys, 1 Opera guy, 2 Phillips guys and 2 IBM guys worked on XHTML (among others).

The problem is MS helps in the writing stage, but not in the implementation stage.

Just a dumb set of questions...
A) Who came up with these "standards"? I got to their home page and even my Firefox fails their test page. From what I have read on the site they have a good quote... "Browser makers are no longer the problem. The problem lies with designers and developers chained to the browser–quirk–oriented markup of the 1990s—often because they don’t realize it is possible to support current standards while accommodating old browsers." (Reference - http://www.webstandards.org/about/history/) Even the people who made the standards that Opera is yelling about don't think the issue is the browser developers.

B) Second question is, if IE has such a dominant share of the browser market, then aren't they in fact THE STANDARD, regardless of what the researchers at the W3C think should be the standard?

Just an aside, I find it funny that on one hand these complaints claim the regular consumers are to stupid to go out and download an alternative browser, yet on the other hand they claim those same users would be smart enough to shop around and somehow get an alternative browser if MS just wouldn't install any browser with their brand new machines.

Seems no matter how you cut it, Opera is trying to hurt their competitor by using the courts to do their work for them. I realize they won't see a dime from this suite, but it will make MS look worse in the public eye even if the claims are totally baseless. Worse case for Opera, they get their name in the headlines for a few weeks for something other than making a good product. Their browser is good enough to stand on it's own, it doesn't need underhanded tactics like this.

Haven't we been through this already? Opera has always been my favorite browser so go Opera! I really just don't care that much tho.

Yay! About time that someone spoke up about this in a legal manner. Not only that, but it isn't an optional component. Neither is Outlook Express for that matter. Every time you "uninstall" it and delete the remaining directory with its contents, it comes back anyway with all of the contents that were deleted. Now tell me that isn't an issue. Microsoft is forcing their own software on users, even those that don't want it.

One might argue that a browser is required for an OS these days. That isn't the issue, however. The issue is the fact that it isn't optional. Since MS controls a large market share with its OS, they are a prime target, unlike Apple who is surely becoming more popular as MS bombs with so many of its customers because of Windows Vista.

Name me one other market where 1) the majority of the "standards" (which are actually just "recommendations") are written by vendors with less than 20% total market share (remember it only takes 2 compatible implementations to make a W3C recommendation -- if Opera+Firefox+Safari all do something, it becomes a recommendation), and 2) one of those vendors claims that the 80% vendor has a legal obligation to follow those recommendations that the small group of competitors created?

Remember, even CSS 2.1 isn't an official "recommendation" yet. It's still in the candidate phase. And who is in charge of deciding *which* of the multitude of W3C recommendations, ISO standards, and RFCs a company is legally obligated to follow? It's lunacy.

PatriotB said,
Name me one other market where 1) the majority of the "standards" (which are actually just "recommendations") are written by vendors with less than 20% total market share

web standards aren't just written by vendors, but by several interested parties, including web developers.

2) one of those vendors claims that the 80% vendor has a legal obligation to follow those recommendations that the small group of competitors created?

microsoft participates actively in the standardization process. at the same time, it is actively undermining it.

And who is in charge of deciding *which* of the multitude of W3C recommendations, ISO standards, and RFCs a company is legally obligated to follow? It's lunacy.

it is not lunacy. it is just you who has a poor understanding of things.

the problem isn't standards that haven't been implemented. the problem is that microsoft uses its market power to get rid of standards and use its own proprietary technologies instead.

Opera has a great idea,everyone that cant push their products should lodge complaints.

I am the owner operator of Tbob Tires I'm getting ready to file a complaint on behalf of all consumers who are tired of having a monopolist auto manufactures make choices for them.I'm not doing this so I can sell more tires.I'm doing it because it's unfair when a consumer buys a car and tires are bundle with the vehicle.I cannot and will not rest until I've brought fair and equitable options to consumers worldwide.

120 said,
Opera has a great idea,everyone that cant push their products should lodge complaints.

actually, opera is a profitable company with million dollars in cash, and a revenue growth of more than 50% last quarter.

I am the owner operator of Tbob Tires I'm getting ready to file a complaint on behalf of all consumers who are tired of having a monopolist auto manufactures make choices for them.

there are no monopolist auto manufacturers, because there is actual choice.

I'm not doing this so I can sell more tires.I'm doing it because it's unfair when a consumer buys a car and tires are bundle with the vehicle.I cannot and will not rest until I've brought fair and equitable options to consumers worldwide.

as i said, the comparison is invalid.

As much as I would like Opera to be the browser that comes with Windows - never going to happen - it's better to have IE than to have no browser at all. I mean what other means would you have to quickly download another browser right after Windows installation? FTP from the command line?

While nearly every single MS software that comes bundled with Vista or XP has a far superior 3rd party alternative, there needs to be something to handle things like WWW and video files. I bet you can count Windows XP/Vista "N" version owners with one hand.

Still, I think SOMETHING has to be done. I'd be really glad if the EU forced MS not to remove IE from its OSs, but to push IE7 (or IE8 ) to ALL customers instead of the "update if you can be bothered" policy they use now. As a web developer I still need to deal with far too many clients who still use IE6 because they don't know any better and because web developers have to support the damn browser. IE in general is IMO the reason why advancement in web technology is always several years behind. IE7 still doesn't support CSS2 properly and I bet IE8 won't support CSS3, even though surely by the time it's released Opera, Firefox and Safari are CSS3 compatible. Microsoft really needs to put more effort on IE development on the standards front. One version every few years is not good enough. Sure, they fix security problems all the time but how about fixing flaws in standards support?

LaXu said,
As much as I would like Opera to be the browser that comes with Windows

opera's goal is not to become THE browser to come with windows.

rather, it wants to allow people to choose AND to make sure microsoft follows standards.

d_ralphie said,

opera's goal is not to become THE browser to come with windows.

rather, it wants to allow people to choose AND to make sure microsoft follows standards.

Yes, I'm totally aware of that. I just mentioned that I would like that. I know it's not their goal and will never happen.

LaXu said,
I bet IE8 won't support CSS3, even though surely by the time it's released Opera, Firefox and Safari are CSS3 compatible.

You are aware that the CSS3 spec itself years away from being completed, are you? Or should I say "specs", since CSS3 is being divided into modules that can be complted and implemented independently from each other.

Take a look at the current specs and tell me if you think that CSS3 is a) close to being complete, or b) at a level of completeness that would enable a browser vendor to claim "CSS3 compatibility."

http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work

d_ralphie said,
rather, it wants to allow people to choose AND to make sure microsoft follows standards.

How exactly is Microsoft not allowing people to "choose" Opera today? How do you claim they are foreclosing the browser market? Are they preventing OEMs from bundling Opera? Are they blocking access to Opera's web site? I don't think so.

PatriotB said,
How exactly is Microsoft not allowing people to "choose" Opera today?

by ignoring standards and pushing proprietary technologies while undermining open standards in order to prevent people from having a real choice.

have you ever noticed how many sites fail to work in firefox, safari and opera? that's because of microsoft's actions. if you want to browse the web today, you will still have to use msie for many sites.

How do you claim they are foreclosing the browser market? Are they preventing OEMs from bundling Opera? Are they blocking access to Opera's web site? I don't think so.

again, they are rejecting open standards and instead pushing proprietary technologies like activex, silverlight, etc.

d_ralphie said,

by ignoring standards and pushing proprietary technologies while undermining open standards in order to prevent people from having a real choice.

have you ever noticed how many sites fail to work in firefox, safari and opera? that's because of microsoft's actions. if you want to browse the web today, you will still have to use msie for many sites.


again, they are rejecting open standards and instead pushing proprietary technologies like activex, silverlight, etc.


tbh, your pushing importance of a problem that almost died out.
I can view anything on the net I want any time.
At home I use a mac with safari and opera on it... safari does em all for me.
Sure there are websites that might be difficult, but that must be FEW.

tbh this lawsuit makes me go "ah, not again" again...

Glassed Silver:mbl

Glassed Silver said,
I can view anything on the net I want any time.

not if the site requires msie, which many still do. like my bank.

At home I use a mac with safari and opera on it... safari does em all for me.
Sure there are websites that might be difficult, but that must be FEW.

EXACTLY, many sites still require msie, and microsoft is actively working to keep it that way:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/arc...ris_wilson.html

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es4-disc...ber/001309.html

tbh this lawsuit makes me go "ah, not again" again...

again what?

The fact that Apple bundles Safari:

1. It doesn't matter that they have a low market share; if its wrong that Microsoft does it, then its wrong that Apple does it. Right and wrong don't change when you have a high market share. This is not a legal argument.

2. As for a legal argument, Microsoft can say its only doing what is standard practice in the OS business, and what its competitors, like Apple do. An "anti-competitive practice" is a practice done to destroy a competitor; if on the other hand, its industry practice, Microsoft's intent isn't anti-competitive. You can't use the law just because you don't like how the market works.


PLUS, wait until there is an argument about Apple being a monopolist in the MP3 player business, and see if Opera complains about iPods and iPhones having Apple's browser and not theirs.

brianshapiro said,
The fact that Apple bundles Safari:

1. It doesn't matter that they have a low market share


it does.

the law says so.

if its wrong that Microsoft does it, then its wrong that Apple does it. Right and wrong don't change when you have a high market share. This is not a legal argument.

yes it is.

2. As for a legal argument, Microsoft can say its only doing what is standard practice in the OS business

which doesn'f fly with the investigators.

An "anti-competitive practice" is a practice done to destroy a competitor; if on the other hand, its industry practice, Microsoft's intent isn't anti-competitive. You can't use the law just because you don't like how the market works.

the law dictates how the market works, my friend.

PLUS, wait until there is an argument about Apple being a monopolist in the MP3 player business, and see if Opera complains about iPods and iPhones having Apple's browser and not theirs.

apple does not have a monopoly on mp3 players. nor does apple undermine open standards for their own gain.

in fact, safari is an amazingly standards compliant browser.

d_ralphie said,

it does.

the law says so.


yes it is.


which doesn'f fly with the investigators.


the law dictates how the market works, my friend.


apple does not have a monopoly on mp3 players. nor does apple undermine open standards for their own gain.

in fact, safari is an amazingly standards compliant browser.

If you're going to gloss over what I'm trying to say, and instead parse every bit of my post to make non-responses, then I'm not sure its worth talking to you. All I can say is if you think that an anti-competitive practice is anything that hurts competitors, you don't understand anti-trust law. And as other people have also said, keeping standards is not required by law.

brianshapiro said,
If you're going to gloss over what I'm trying to say, and instead parse every bit of my post to make non-responses, then I'm not sure its worth talking to you.

i corrected your false assumptions.

All I can say is if you think that an anti-competitive practice is anything that hurts competitors, you don't understand anti-trust law.

it is you who think so, since you think that apple and microsoft should be treated equally.

And as other people have also said, keeping standards is not required by law.

and as i said, this has been addressed already:

'Opera isn't suing them for not following standards, they're suing them for the implications of not doing so on a large scale. Opera fully realize following standards is not legally binding. For example, Opera would likely not have a problem if all IE did was not supporting the SVG graphics format.'

it was about time, i wouldn't expect this but good for them, competition its good, firefox changed many things but it wont be enough if Microsoft continues with their bad business practice. Opera cant find its place and not because their product its inferior its because microsoft abuse of its monopoly.

I've lost all respect for Opera now. I liked their browser, except for the compatability issues, but this is just wrong. Suing a company that's doing better than you is just childish.

MightyJordan said,
Suing a company that's doing better than you is just childish.

opera is NOT suing microsoft.

opera does NOT get any money from this.

opera logged a COMPLAINT WITH EU as part of the undergoing investigation eu is doing on microsoft.

Not bundling a browser is a really bad idea. Does anybody remember windows 95 and earlier? There was no browser included and you had to rely on your ISP to supply you with one.

Do we really want the ISP or OEMs to be dictacting what browser everybody is going to use?

ironnerd said,
Not bundling a browser is a really bad idea.

you can still bundle a browser, but it needs to be a real choice.

Do we really want the ISP or OEMs to be dictacting what browser everybody is going to use?

do you want MICROSOFT to dictate it?

Talk about beating a dead horse.

The Microsoft IE "monopoly" issue has been argued from every angle and the DOJ dealt with it years ago. In fact, they were monitoring Vista and IE7 pretty closely during their production, bundle, and release, and seem satisfied with it.

This is a dead issue. Find your cash elsewhere. Start by building a better browser.

Ellianth has a good point: FireFox got where it is today without being bundled or by suing other organizations. Maybe Opera should try other options before the desperate, ground-less Microsoft cash grab.

It's interesting how quickly some people are dismissing Apple's bundling of Safari in OS X because of their single-digit marketshare. The principle is exactly the same. Apple offers you no greater freedom of browser choice than Microsoft yet they duck under the radar because so few people have a Mac? That's a pretty lame excuse. And pretty hypocritical for an organization whining about "standards".

C_Guy said,
The Microsoft IE "monopoly" issue has been argued from every angle and the DOJ dealt with it years ago.

and yet microsoft continues to ignore standards.

This is a dead issue. Find your cash elsewhere. Start by building a better browser.

there is no cash in this for opera. all there is is a more open web without a monopolist destroying standards.

Ellianth has a good point: FireFox got where it is today without being bundled or by suing other organizations.

actually, it got there by being funded by huge corporations like google, ibm, nokia, sun, etc.

Maybe Opera should try other options before the desperate, ground-less Microsoft cash grab.

again, THERE IS NO CASH IN THIS FOR OPERA. opera is NOT GOING TO GET ANY MONEY FROM MICROSOFT.

It's interesting how quickly some people are dismissing Apple's bundling of Safari in OS X because of their single-digit marketshare. The principle is exactly the same.

no, it is not. please pay attention.

Apple offers you no greater freedom of browser choice than Microsoft yet they duck under the radar because so few people have a Mac? That's a pretty lame excuse. And pretty hypocritical for an organization whining about "standards".

you are wrong.

apple has a low market share.

not only that, but their browser is actually STANDARDS COMPLIANT.

and it can be REMOVED.

d_ralphie said,

and yet microsoft continues to ignore standards.


there is no cash in this for opera. all there is is a more open web without a monopolist destroying standards.


actually, it got there by being funded by huge corporations like google, ibm, nokia, sun, etc.


again, THERE IS NO CASH IN THIS FOR OPERA. opera is NOT GOING TO GET ANY MONEY FROM MICROSOFT.


no, it is not. please pay attention.


you are wrong.

apple has a low market share.

not only that, but their browser is actually STANDARDS COMPLIANT.

and it can be REMOVED.

good point, agree with you microsoft keep bundling stuff and making windows more and more expensive so they earn money and forced their competitors go for free, its not a fair practice, besides IE CANT BE REMOVED, microsoft created this whole escenario to have a big advantage over others.

lets hope a good resolution for this.

STANDARDS COMPLIANT, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards... standard complaint, complaint standards.

d_ralphie, that's about all you're saying. How about we FORGET about STANDARDS COMPLIANTS for a minute. Apple BUNDLES Safari JUST LIKE Microsoft BUNDLES IE. There's no other way to look at it. You ship your OS with a browser, you bundled it. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with... can you guess??? STANDARDS COMPLAINTS! On the same token, shouldn't Opera sue the maker of Ubuntu for BUNDLING FireFox? Think about that before you start with the stupid, pointless, moronic, absurd argument about....... STANDARDS COMPLIANTS.

Do you understand? I'm sure it's hard for you.

RAID 0 said,
How about we FORGET about STANDARDS COMPLIANTS for a minute.

how can we forget about somethign that is central to opera's complaints about microsoft?

Apple BUNDLES Safari JUST LIKE Microsoft BUNDLES IE. There's no other way to look at it. You ship your OS with a browser, you bundled it. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with... can you guess??? STANDARDS COMPLAINTS!

if you had paid attention, you would have know that there are TWO parts of opera's complaint to eu. one is the bundling thing, and the other one is microsoft's rejection of standards.

On the same token, shouldn't Opera sue the maker of Ubuntu for BUNDLING FireFox? Think about that before you start with the stupid, pointless, moronic, absurd argument about....... STANDARDS COMPLIANTS.

first of all, ubuntu is not a monopolist abusing its market power, and neither is mozilla.

secondly, see above. opera specifically asked the eu to force microsoft to follow the standards in its complaint.

you see, there were two parts to opera's complaint:

1- microsoft bundling msie
2- microsoft ignoring standards

read the original press release:

'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.'

Asking Microsoft to appreciate web standards could have been the argument a few years ago, but seeing as they have become actively involved in browser development again, and standards compliance is the number 2 priority (behind security), I can't see how they can be sued for something they are actively trying to rectify anyway.

The bundling issue is a non-entity. It's the chicken and the egg: You need a browser to download your preferred browser, but if the OS doesn't come with a browser installed, how are you going to get online and download your browser? It would not make sense for Microsoft to provide Windows with Firefox installed, or Opera installed, because thats like them saying "F*ck it! Have some of our user base for free".

I can't disagree that Microsoft have taken advantage of their OS market share to boost IEs footprint, but I truly believe that browsing the internet should be a natural extension of the OS, like notepad is for text, and with that, it makes sense for the OS to have the browser pre-installed.

Antaris said,
Asking Microsoft to appreciate web standards could have been the argument a few years ago, but seeing as they have become actively involved in browser development again, and standards compliance is the number 2 priority (behind security), I can't see how they can be sued for something they are actively trying to rectify anyway.

they are not being sued. it is not a lawsuit.

and microsoft CLAIMS to be all about standards, but they have ALWAYS done that, and their actions prove otherwise. just look at how they are trying to sabotage ecmascript 4 to replace it with c#/silverlight.

The bundling issue is a non-entity. It's the chicken and the egg: You need a browser to download your preferred browser, but if the OS doesn't come with a browser installed, how are you going to get online and download your browser?

it could offer several browsers, or it could download one when you connect to the net for the first time if you haven't already gotten one from a cd or whatever.

It would not make sense for Microsoft to provide Windows with Firefox installed, or Opera installed, because thats like them saying "F*ck it! Have some of our user base for free".

actually, they may be forced to do so. that's the price for being an abusive monopolist.

I truly believe that browsing the internet should be a natural extension of the OS, like notepad is for text, and with that, it makes sense for the OS to have the browser pre-installed.

and opera is NOT asking for windows to come without a browser, but rather to offer real choice.

Just make a better browser and pay for advertising and people will switch. I hate lazy companies that complain. Firefox wasn't bundled with my OS way back when, and because they advertised I gave it a try and ended up sticking to it.

Pay for real advertising or stfu!

ellianth said,
I hate lazy companies that complain.

lazy? opera has been doing browsers for more than ten years. most of the things you take for granted in modern browsers like the search field, popup blocker, etc. were pioneered by opera! unlike mozilla, who has been relying on other people's money, opera has had to make its own money from its own business.

Firefox wasn't bundled with my OS way back when, and because they advertised I gave it a try and ended up sticking to it.

Pay for real advertising or stfu!


firefox's advertising was paid for by huge corporations like google, ibm, etc. opera is an independent browser vendor. it doesn't have a fraction of the monetary power that mozilla's sugar daddies do.

Then get someone to pay for advertising for your browser. We're suing microsoft because they don't support open standards. So let's say they win, how much of that money is going into their pockets? I don't think any of it should since they aren't doing this for themselves. If they want their browser to support open standards that's their business. Why do they care if IE doesn't? If open standards take off and IE doesn't support them then people will switch. Which brings me back to one of my original points, when (I prefer to say if, cuz no one cares) people start switching browsers because of this, if opera takes the money that they'll be spending on legal fees for this case and puts it towards advertizing, then people will be aware of their browser and perhaps they'll switch to it.

At the time when I switched to Firefox, all those years ago, it was completely free and open source. Opera was NOT free. I know for a fact that Opera wasn't free, but I'm unsure if it was open source. But one of the reasons why companies donated money to Mozilla was because their stuff was free and open source. Tell me why a large company should donate to a smaller so that they can have money for advertising, when they are charging money for their stuff and don't want to spend their earnings on advertising?

I think they (opera) squandered what little money they earned and now they're looking for someone else's hard earned cash to turn a profit.

ellianth said,
We're suing microsoft because they don't support open standards.

it is not a lawsuit. it is a complaint to eu, in connection with the ongoing investigation there.

So let's say they win, how much of that money is going into their pockets?

NONE. this will not lead to any money directly to opera.

If they want their browser to support open standards that's their business. Why do they care if IE doesn't?

because ie has more than 80% market share, and microsoft has used illegal methods to rely on proprietary technologies, stifling competition and user choice. did you even READ the official press release?

http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2007/12/13/

If open standards take off and IE doesn't support them then people will switch.

again, msie has more than 80% of the market, and is actively undermining those open standards.

I think they (opera) squandered what little money they earned and now they're looking for someone else's hard earned cash to turn a profit.

you are of course completely wrong.

why can't you even check the facts before shooting your mouth off?

FACTS:

1- opera software is profitable
2- opera software has millions of dollars in cash
3- opera software's revenue grew by more than 50% from the third quarter of 2006 to 2007

There aren't any "web standards". There are RECOMMENDED standards, but they are by no means "official". How does Opera expect to force anyone to use "recommended standards"?

RichardK said,
There aren't any "web standards". There are RECOMMENDED standards, but they are by no means "official". How does Opera expect to force anyone to use "recommended standards"?

read the thread before commenting. this has been addressed:

'Opera isn't suing them for not following standards, they're suing them for the implications of not doing so on a large scale. Opera fully realize following standards is not legally binding. For example, Opera would likely not have a problem if all IE did was not supporting the SVG graphics format.'

Im a proponent of their desktop browser but not really digging this move by the company. I liked the fact that they churned out good stuff regardless of what browser marketshare they had. I also doubt this was done for the advancement of web standards alone.

.AlleymaN said,
I also doubt this was done for the advancement of web standards alone.

what else? opera has always put big money into web standards.

What? When did Microsoft build a browser following standards as well as Firefox or Opera? IE 7 is only half way there if you've checked any decent CSS compliance test recently.

Jugalator said,
What? When did Microsoft build a browser following standards as well as Firefox or Opera? IE 7 is only half way there if you've checked any decent CSS compliance test recently.

Back (in fact, way back) when IE 3.0 was still in development, Microsoft (and Spyglass, who was the original source of the code that became IE 3.0) went to Netscape in an attempt to license Netscape's un-patented plug-in *standard* that they used for Netscape 2.x. (However, Navigator 3.0, whihc had already shipped, didn't follow the *standard*, much to the anger of, among others, Macromedia; this literally forced plug-in developers to develop two different sets of plug-ins just for Netscape's browsers.) In short, Microsoft tried to *play ball* and got rebuffed. (Remember, this was when Microsoft had practically zero market-share in Web browsers.) That was the start of Microsoft going its own way. So you can get off that tired old chestnut, as you seem to forget exactly *why* Microsoft was given no alternative *but* to go their own way.

C_Guy said,
Another irrelevant post. Standards compliance has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

actually, it does. opera's complaint is that microsoft consciously ignores standards.

norky said,
i dont see how opera is losing money to ms, they give their browser away for free now.

they are not losing money, but ms is keeping the market back by making it more difficult for other browsers to compete on equal footing.

they are losing money giving browser for free when microsoft charged for it inside the whole bundle windows practice...

make a modular windows cheaper and less bloat its a real deal that promote competition...

eilegz said,
they are losing money giving browser for free when microsoft charged for it inside the whole bundle windows practice...

wrong. opera's revenue from the desktop browser increased by more than 100% from the third quarter of 2006 to the third quarter of 2007. they make money off searches, just like mozilla.

make a modular windows cheaper and less bloat its a real deal that promote competition...

how do you make a better windows without access to the source code? you would be forever forced to chase microsoft's changes. just like on the web!

in fact, there have been many project to try to re-implement windows to run windows programs on other platforms. they have mostly failed, or have taken an extremely long time, and there are still huge and serious bugs.

Personally, I hate to say this, but I think this is a wee bit of MS style tactics by Opera. Their main seller is the mobile browsers. Before the iPhone and iPod Touch mobile browsers weren't an enormous deal and I think MS was focusing on IE7 to IE8 development. Opera was clear to take a huge slice of the mobile market, becuase MS didn't value it that highly. Now MS is probably making moves to bring Mobile IE into the same active development IE7/8 is in rather than the IE6 style stagnation of the past. The biggest loser in that fight would be Opera.

I really love Opera, but the timing of this just stinks. MS is slowly (but it is) moving towards standards and Opera's complaints seem a little strained compared to if they complained in the IE6 days.

Chrispynutt said,
Personally, I hate to say this, but I think this is a wee bit of MS style tactics by Opera.

only because of misunderstandings on your part.

Opera was clear to take a huge slice of the mobile market, becuase MS didn't value it that highly. Now MS is probably making moves to bring Mobile IE into the same active development IE7/8 is in rather than the IE6 style stagnation of the past. The biggest loser in that fight would be Opera.

that's assuming that windows mobile will take a huge chunk of the market. it has failed so far.

and besides, this lawsuit is IRRELEVANT to mobile manufacturers since they are the ones who choose browsers anyway.

I really love Opera, but the timing of this just stinks.

no, the timing is exactly right. it is right now that the eu is investigating microsoft.

MS is slowly (but it is) moving towards standards

really? then why are they consciously undermining the standards process? for example, mozilla has recently complained publicly about how microsoft lies and deceives people regarcing the new javascript standard.

and Opera's complaints seem a little strained compared to if they complained in the IE6 days.

nope. microsoft is still as bad as ever.

Microsoft can argue the case that they already complied with the IE issue when they decoupled it from the OS, but bundling IE with Windows is really no different then Apple bundling Safari with Mac OSX, or Google bundling they crappy software with virtually every other third party developer out there.

The real gripe here is that Opera are finding it hard to increase they marketshare, which is a shame because the Opera browser is quality. So to try and get over this they are pushing for an antitrust case on grounds which have been established (and settled with) in previous cases.

I can see why they would use Standards as a mechanism for the case, but I don't think anything that is not bound by law is going to be admissable.

You have fallen Opera, a long way.

The E.C. atleast has ruled that bundling software with Windows to be illegal, previous cases have actually found that too in the U.S. and elsewhere ...

In all honesty though, I can't see a better situation, an OS with no browser is no good ... how would one go out and get Opera without IE? Bundling other browsers doesn't seem wise, we'd be stuck again with software chosen by other people and the development schedules would mean we'd probably have a 2 year old version of Firefox when we buy the OS, its silly.

SimpleRules said,
The E.C. atleast has ruled that bundling software with Windows to be illegal, previous cases have actually found that too in the U.S. and elsewhere ...

In all honesty though, I can't see a better situation, an OS with no browser is no good ... how would one go out and get Opera without IE? Bundling other browsers doesn't seem wise, we'd be stuck again with software chosen by other people and the development schedules would mean we'd probably have a 2 year old version of Firefox when we buy the OS, its silly.

actually that has nothing to do with it. It would be nice if people actually read the documents that are issued.

The issue is leveraging a monopoly in one market to gain dominance in another; the issue with IE is the fact that Microsoft leveraged their monopoly in the operating system market to gain a foothold in the browser market. What made the issue worse was the fact that through exclusive OEM deals, they strong armed hardware vendors into not offering Netscape (and later Mozilla) so that the only browser on offer was Internet Explorer.

But lets remember, it is a two way street. Netscape did very little to improve the quality of their browser - by the time Communicator 4.79 was released, it was a bloated POS that should have died long ago.

kaiwai said,

actually that has nothing to do with it. It would be nice if people actually read the documents that are issued.

The issue is leveraging a monopoly in one market to gain dominance in another; the issue with IE is the fact that Microsoft leveraged their monopoly in the operating system market to gain a foothold in the browser market. What made the issue worse was the fact that through exclusive OEM deals, they strong armed hardware vendors into not offering Netscape (and later Mozilla) so that the only browser on offer was Internet Explorer.

But lets remember, it is a two way street. Netscape did very little to improve the quality of their browser - by the time Communicator 4.79 was released, it was a bloated POS that should have died long ago.


How is that not what I said? That is bundling software ... I did read the documents etc.

Antaris said,
bundling IE with Windows is really no different then Apple bundling Safari with Mac OSX, or Google bundling they crappy software with virtually every other third party developer out there.

it is.

apple is not a convicted monopolist, and does not undermine web standards. in fact, safari is amazingly standards compliant.

The real gripe here is that Opera are finding it hard to increase they marketshare

no, opera's market share has gone up for a long time. last quarter, opera's desktop revenue increased by more than 100% due to more users too.

I can see why they would use Standards as a mechanism for the case

they are not merely a mechanism, but a key component of the complaint.

You have fallen Opera, a long way.

fallen a long way because they want to force microsoft to follow standards?

d_ralphie said,
apple is not a convicted monopolist, and does not undermine web standards. in fact, safari is amazingly standards compliant.

Another parrot? Wow, this discussion is full of birds today.

GreyWolfSC said,
Another parrot? Wow, this discussion is full of birds today.

wow, what a great argument. your employer will give you a raise now, no doubt.

d_ralphie said,
apple is not a convicted monopolist, and does not undermine web standards. in fact, safari is amazingly standards compliant.

Conviction or not, it is still the same process.

d_ralphie said,
no, opera's market share has gone up for a long time. last quarter, opera's desktop revenue increased by more than 100% due to more users too.

Ok, but I think your perspective on increase is somewhat skewed, a 100% increase of ~ 1% is not as significant as a 100% increase of say ~5%. Opera has been holding steady relative to the overall % of other browsers. The only browser really making any headway is Firefox, but even that seems to be levelling out at the moment.

d_ralphie said,
they are not merely a mechanism, but a key component of the complaint.

I disagree, although PREFERRED standards aid the evolution of the web, they are by no means the required solution.

Antaris said,
Conviction or not, it is still the same process.

it is not the same. microsoft is a monopolist, apple is not.

Ok, but I think your perspective on increase is somewhat skewed, a 100% increase of ~ 1% is not as significant as a 100% increase of say ~5%.

i was talking about revenue.

Opera has been holding steady relative to the overall % of other browsers.

which is strange, since they get something like more than 100% revenue growth each quarter for the desktop version due to more users. then again, these stats services are extremely unreliable:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archive...eter_backw.html
http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2005/05/statistics-nonsense

I disagree, although PREFERRED standards aid the evolution of the web, they are by no means the required solution.

i was referring to how they were a key component of opera's COMPLAINT. the fact that standards are indeed a key component of the internet (it wouldn't exist without them. at all) is a different discussion.

SimpleRules said,

How is that not what I said? That is bundling software ... I did read the documents etc.

lets also not forget that microsoft opened up the world wide web by making internet explorer for FREE. I'd rather have FREE than open standards. Microsoft innovated webbrowsers just by doing this. by telling people that the web should be free, save for the people who maintain your ip address.

seta-san said,
lets also not forget that microsoft opened up the world wide web by making internet explorer for FREE.

this is pure ignorance. there were several FREE browsers at the time, and msie was not one of them.

microsoft bundled msie in order to kill the competition and prevent the web from becoming a threat to their monopoly.

but guess what, msie was part of a PAID operating system!

I'd rather have FREE than open standards.

msie was not free. it was part of the commercial windows operating system. there was no way for you to run msie without using this paid operating system.

Microsoft innovated webbrowsers just by doing this. by telling people that the web should be free, save for the people who maintain your ip address.

this is complete and utter nonsense. netscape was free, msie was not. msie required you to pay for windows.

d_ralphie said,
it is not the same. microsoft is a monopolist, apple is not.

Again, I have to disagree, maybe not in the same market, but Apple is a monopolist. They are locking people into the iTunes/iPod platform with their range of devices, yet you don't see Creative or Microsoft trying to push for an antitrust case against them for monopoly they have in that market. I truly believe that under the skin, Apple is just as bad as Microsoft, the only thing Apple do different is that they are really childish about it.

d_ralphie said,
which is strange, since they get something like more than 100% revenue growth each quarter for the desktop version due to more users. then again, these stats services are extremely unreliable:

Most only statistics about browsers are inconsistent, I never take it as a concrete source.

d_ralphie said,
i was referring to how they were a key component of opera's COMPLAINT. the fact that standards are indeed a key component of the internet (it wouldn't exist without them. at all) is a different discussion.

I still don't its a viable part of their case, because standards don't hold any legal merit.

Antaris said,

Again, I have to disagree, maybe not in the same market, but Apple is a monopolist. They are locking people into the iTunes/iPod platform with their range of devices

can you listen to music without using apple products?

yes.

therefore, apple is not a monopolist.

apple is not preventing anyone from accessing music. this is unlike the web, where msie is required for many sites.

also, itunes is a private service. the internet is public.

if you are going to come up with analogies, at least make sure they are valid.

I truly believe that under the skin, Apple is just as bad as Microsoft

apple is even worse in many ways, but the difference is that THEY DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ABUSE THE MARKET. microsoft does.


I still don't its a viable part of their case, because standards don't hold any legal merit.

they do if you are operating in a market and breaking the standards in order to prevent competition from occurring.

d_ralphie said,
can you listen to music without using apple products?

yes.

therefore, apple is not a monopolist.

Can you browse the web without IE? yes you can.

If your going to create a valid argument, make sure it is actually valid.

d_ralphie said,
apple is even worse in many ways, but the difference is that THEY DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ABUSE THE MARKET. microsoft does.

I their market, yes they do have the power, and actively abuse it.

Antaris said,
Can you browse the web without IE? yes you can.

many sites still require msie, so not fully, no.


I their market, yes they do have the power, and actively abuse it.

but not in a way which impedes competition.

They must not be getting many registrations so they're going the SCO way: income through litigation.

Oh, and Opera, sue Apple, too. They bundle their web browser with their OS.

Apple is:

1. Not in a dominant position of the web browser market to affect the market negatively if locking in users through poor standards support, and

2. Follow web standards far better than IE 7.

I'm pretty sure you've already posted this in this discussion.

However, both points are irrelevant. The fact is, they bundle Safari in OS X no different than how Microsoft bundles IE with Windows.

GreyWolfSC said,
They must not be getting many registrations so they're going the SCO way: income through litigation.

actually, opera's revenue grew by more than 50% in the third quarter of this year compared to 2006.

Oh, and Opera, sue Apple, too. They bundle their web browser with their OS.

apple is not a convicted monopolist, and does not undermine web standards. in fact, safari is amazingly standards compliant.

C_Guy said,
The fact is, they bundle Safari in OS X no different than how Microsoft bundles IE with Windows.

it is.

apple is not a convicted monopolist, and does not undermine web standards. in fact, safari is amazingly standards compliant.

Jugalator said,
Apple is:

1. Not in a dominant position of the web browser market to affect the market negatively if locking in users through poor standards support, and

2. Follow web standards far better than IE 7.

You've said that already in this section. Exact words, in fact. Are you a parrot?

Who cares if Apple has the dominant web browser? If Opera's real issue is that Microsoft bundles their web browser with their OS thus making it more likely that a user won't try theirs, then that same "issue" would apply on the Mac.

The real issue is that Opera's profits aren't what they want them to be so they're going to blame it on Microsoft and try to excise it from them.

d_ralphie said,

actually, opera's revenue grew by more than 50% in the third quarter of this year compared to 2006.


apple is not a convicted monopolist, and does not undermine web standards. in fact, safari is amazingly standards compliant.

Um, nobody is convicted in a lawsuit.

GreyWolfSC said,
Um, nobody is convicted in a lawsuit.

what on earth are you talking about?

microsoft has been convicted of illegal monopoly practices.

GreyWolfSC said,
Who cares if Apple has the dominant web browser? If Opera's real issue is that Microsoft bundles their web browser with their OS thus making it more likely that a user won't try theirs, then that same "issue" would apply on the Mac.

The real issue is that Opera's profits aren't what they want them to be so they're going to blame it on Microsoft and try to excise it from them.


You're missing the point.

Microsoft ties their browser to Windows, meaning that many people will, by default, use Internet Explorerer.

Now stop right there. Many people by default are going to be using Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer is not standards compliant, and has its own rendering deal. Have you ever run across a website that said "designed for Internet Explorerer, you can't come in because you're not using it"? How about having those scripts that cater specifically to Internet Explorer?

This is where the issue is. The standards don't exist because they're a law, they exist because ideally web browsers would be able to focus on just rendering right and then drawing people to use them by offering a better interface, features, and so forth. In that sort of a situation, people would not use Internet Explorer because it doesn't render webpages quite as nicely.

But web developers aren't going to develop based on standards alone. If enough people use Internet Explorer, those websites will get complaints from those people. They'll change the websites, and perhaps even go the IE-only development route. Microsoft just successfully jumped over web standards and made the internet revolve around its own browser. Other web browsers now have to develop to Microsoft's specifications. Microsoft is their competitor - how many companies develop based on a competitor's specifications?

And that's where the real issue is. Don't get hung up over the notion of the OS coming with a web browser - that's just the introductory part of it.

GreyWolfSC said,
You've said that already in this section. Exact words, in fact. Are you a parrot?

Facts are facts. Was he supposed to make the text bold and colorful or add in a few curses to make it different?
GreyWolfSC said,
The real issue is that Opera's profits aren't what they want them to be so they're going to blame it on Microsoft and try to excise it from them.

First off, and I apologize for this, but no ****. A company tried to get more money? Really?! The point of this entire thing is though; they have a point. If you would actually think about this instead of getting mad about a company being a company, it might make more sense.

I personally think microsoft if they are going to bundle it should follow web standards, though they have improved in IE7.0.

What I don't get is if MS are asked to not bundle browsers in windows, how is the user going to download another one?

I remember that old chestnut:
I needed a FTP program on a 8088, however, at the time, the only way to get an FTP program was to FTP it from somewhere like the stork server at Imperial College...

Even now Automatic Updates will offer you the opportunity of installing IE<insert latest version number here>, so I don't see non-bundling as much of an issue.

While I agree standards are important, I don't think Microsoft have any legal responsibility to follow them - they aren't legally binding, Opera would be best focusing on the bundling case.

Opera isn't suing them for not following standards, they're suing them for the implications of not doing so on a large scale. Opera fully realize following standards is not legally binding. For example, Opera would likely not have a problem if all IE did was not supporting the SVG graphics format.

It's not, not at all.

However, not doing this can implicitly lead to something that can be treated as anticompetitive business practices, especially if you are in a dominant market position.

neufuse said,
Since when are "web standards" laws you HAVE to follow?

That isn't the issue. The issue is by virtue of Internet Explorer not following web specifications they hold an unfair monopoly on the desktop - personally, however, I think its a bit of a stretch. The problems I experience with Opera in terms of website compatibility have to do more with the lack of actually address site compatibility issues than any sort of grand unified conspiracy theory.

I'd use Opera but I find that it is broken with so many sites; Google services like Youtube, Blogger and Gmail are prime examples of how Opera can't get its act together.

kaiwai said,

That isn't the issue. The issue is by virtue of Internet Explorer not following web specifications they hold an unfair monopoly on the desktop - personally, however, I think its a bit of a stretch. The problems I experience with Opera in terms of website compatibility have to do more with the lack of actually address site compatibility issues than any sort of grand unified conspiracy theory.

I'd use Opera but I find that it is broken with so many sites; Google services like Youtube, Blogger and Gmail are prime examples of how Opera can't get its act together.


Or prime examples of how companies don't care about developing to the standards and thus Opera ... if Google played by the stnadards with those sites then they'd work in Opera.

SimpleRules said,
Or prime examples of how companies don't care about developing to the standards and thus Opera ... if Google played by the stnadards with those sites then they'd work in Opera.

the comparison is invalid. what microsoft does is different since it actually consciously undermines standards.

kaiwai said,
I'd use Opera but I find that it is broken with so many sites; Google services like Youtube, Blogger and Gmail are prime examples of how Opera can't get its act together.

Ok you're kidding right?
I've been using Opera for years now and access my Gmail with it everyday without a single problem.
Youtube, Orkut and blogger also run 100% fine on Opera.

kaiwai said,
I'd use Opera but I find that it is broken with so many sites; Google services like Youtube, Blogger and Gmail are prime examples of how Opera can't get its act together.

All those sites work for me.

Eis said,

All those sites work for me.

Uploading video's fails, recording videos fail, posting fails on blogger, features missing from gmail.

To others, I don't give a **** whether or not its Google or Opera's fault - I want my damn website to work; and when Camino and Firefox can do it, I expect Opera to do the same.

kaiwai said,
To others, I don't give a **** whether or not its Google or Opera's fault - I want my damn website to work; and when Camino and Firefox can do it, I expect Opera to do the same.

if ie hadn't destroyed the market and all browsers had been standards compliant, google wouldn't have had to code for specific browsers, but could instead have coded according to the standards and it would have worked everywhere. with today's situation they are forced to basically code separately for each browser.

I don't agree with what Microsoft have done but then I don't think sueing them will solve the problem.

I don't think Opera shout about their product enough to get them noticed personally.

Chicane-UK said,
I don't agree with what Microsoft have done but then I don't think sueing them will solve the problem.

it will, if the eu forces them to stop their anti-competitive practices.

d_ralphie said,

it will, if the eu forces them to stop their anti-competitive practices.

No it won't. They'll just make another EU Specific SKU that has nothing in it that nobody will use. Just like the "N" Editions.

Chris123NT said,
No it won't. They'll just make another EU Specific SKU that has nothing in it that nobody will use. Just like the "N" Editions.

you are ignoring the second part where opera wants to force microsoft to follow the standards.

please pay attention to the full story, eh?

Relativity_17 said,
Depressed? Dissatisfied with life? Sue Microsoft, because that will solve all your problems.

says who?

this is about microsoft continuing to undermine open standards in order to stifle competition.

meh, always liked opera, but now they dissapoint me.

At least be consequent and sue both microsoft and apple for bundling their own browsers

XerXis said,
meh, always liked opera, but now they dissapoint me.

At least be consequent and sue both microsoft and apple for bundling their own browsers


Apple is:

1. Not in a dominant position of the web browser market to affect the market negatively if locking in users through poor standards support, and

2. Follow web standards far better than IE 7.

Jugalator said,
Apple is:

1. Not in a dominant position of the web browser market to affect the market negatively if locking in users through poor standards support, and

2. Follow web standards far better than IE 7.

Stop repeating that! Poor standards support is not illegal! Sheesh.

Thrawn said,
Stop repeating that! Poor standards support is not illegal! Sheesh.

it is not just poor standard support. it is an effort to undermine standards, and to prevent competition by using proprietary technologies.

d_ralphie said,

it is not just poor standard support. it is an effort to undermine standards, and to prevent competition by using proprietary technologies.

Not it is not. The World Wide Web was never built on true open standards. What we have today is the result of history not some mastermind to lock out competition.

libertas83 said,
Not it is not. The World Wide Web was never built on true open standards. What we have today is the result of history not some mastermind to lock out competition.

what you are writing here is irrelevant to the point i am making.

microsoft has always worked to actively undermine open standards, while at the same time claiming to support them. even today, microsoft is trying to cripple ecmascript 4:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/arc...ris_wilson.html

also, the web was not built on open standards? what on earth do you think html and css are?

and indeed, what about tcp/ip? http? and so on.

get a clue!