Opera Latest "Victim" in Microsoft Anti-Trust Claim

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:

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:
"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

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft acknowledges Vista kernel elevation vulnerability

Next Story

KMPlayer(KMP) 2.9.3.1428

136 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

"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. "

Seriously, how is this so freaking hard for people to grasp? Does Opera work with people who can't comprehend English?

C_Guy said,
"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. "

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.

I agree with Opera's claim that Microsoft's not following web standards is hurting the entire market due to the vicious circle it creates.

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).

.fahim said,
I think it is incredibly dumb for Opera to ask for Internet Explorer to be unbundled.

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.'

A web browser is a basic and integral part of an Operating System and just looks like some dummy spitting on Opera's part.

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 Any standards compliant browser will benefit both Opera and the market itself.'

I don't know how you would force a vendor to be standards compliant when there is no official standards test to measure against

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.

Did you read anything I wrote? Or do you enjoy copying and pasting a bunch of excuses provided by the party making the complaint?

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.


.fahim said,
Asking for unbundling is a very dumb move on Opera's part because:-
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.

so they ask for the current leaders to be stifled so they can play catch-up

leaders? only one, namely the convicted monopolist.

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.

except opera does not want windows to come without a browser, so that is unlikely to happen.

Furthermore, asking a vendor to remove their own software and install someone elses is just ludicrous.

no, this is in fact how it works in antitrust cases.

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.

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.

d_ralphie said,
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.

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.

d_ralphie said,
leaders? only one, namely the convicted monopolist.

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.

d_ralphie said,
except opera does not want windows to come without a browser, so that is unlikely to happen.

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.

d_ralphie said,
no, this is in fact how it works in antitrust cases.

Please cite me one example of it working this way.

d_ralphie said,
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.

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.

.fahim said,
It's far from irrelevant.

your personal opinion of opera is indeed irrelevant.

If the only thing that was important to Opera was standards compliance they could get that enforced without asking for unbundling

unbundling removes ie as the dominant browser, leaving microsoft without the market power to repeat its deeds.

it is obvious that standards compliance isn't the only thing they want

this is nonsense based on your own hatred and ignorance.

Asking for the competition to be stifled such that they can play catch up with market share.

no 'the competition'. 'the competition' includes the likes of firefox and safari. please pay attention. microsoft isn't competing. it doesn't have to.

Unfortunately the EU or no other authority has any right to force Microsoft to bundle anything

actually, they do. unless microsoft wants to lose money by no longer selling anything in all of eu.

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.

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.

I disagree fundamentally with this comment. There is no objective mechanism to measure standard compliant.

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

d_ralphie said,
this is nonsense based on your own hatred and ignorance.

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.

how about the creators of Opera make their own damn OS and then "give a choice" of browsers. Seriously, these claims are stupid as hell. Microsoft can choose wtf ever they want on their own os. hell, i dont see why if they wanted to, why they couldnt lock I.E. as the only browser to work on windows. Who are we to complain, we didnt make windows. If we dont like it, we could go to linux, or make our own.
i really hate claims by companies about this crap.

shakey said,
how about the creators of Opera make their own damn OS and then "give a choice" of browsers.

that is not the issue here. you shouldn't have to create your own os to compete with a browser.

Microsoft can choose wtf ever they want on their own os.

not if they are abusing their dominance in one market to prevent competition in another one. antitrust laws, ever heard about them?

hell, i dont see why if they wanted to, why they couldnt lock I.E. as the only browser to work on windows.

because that would be anti-competitive.

I just don't understand what Opera could possibly gain from this anyway. By saying the average joe isn't computer literate enough to download and configure a different browser on their own, they're also admitting that the average joe user probably isn't paying any attention to their browser's identity in the first place. Therefore, Opera isn't losing out on reputation, either.

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.

Wow. Please tell me you're joking about that last bit on innovation. I didn't even believe there were people out there who would be ignorant enough to post something that they haven't even attempted to look up. I see people write posts after reading certain information, then I see posts about people who read bias information, but this is probably the first time I've seen somebody not read anything at all and then try to educate the rest of us.

Right on man, I'm glad the world is growing more and more people like you.

Joshie said,
I just don't understand what Opera could possibly gain from this anyway.

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).

They make a really good browser, but why don't they just focus on the handheld market?

because it's THE cross-platform browser, and they are making good money from the desktop version as well.

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.

actually, this is where opera makes most of its money.

After all, they just write around standards. It's all they've ever been able to do.

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.

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.

what on earth does that mean? sounds like you are a microsoft marketing drone.

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...

struggle? opera is profitable, has lots of cash, and increased its revenue by more than 50% in the last quarter.

File viewer. And nothing more.

have you ever used opera?

me personally... i think Opera is sorta already screwed in a way cause...

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.


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!!!

Q: But Apple bundles Safari/Ubuntu bundles Firefox, etc.?
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

Shiranui said,
Once Firefox 3 comes out - with its zooming of webpages - Opera will lose one of its best unique features.

so what?

Microsoft has never told developers about developing for other browsers though 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?

shoust said,
Microsoft has never told developers about developing for other browsers though 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.

@dp004i You are missing the point.

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.

shoust said,
@dp004i You are missing the point.

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.

What if Coca Cola said to shops only to stock coke and not any competition

Uh, soda companies do that. They have for decades, where have you been?

GreyWolfSC said,
Microsoft has never told me that I couldn't use other browsers.

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).

d_ralphie said,

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.)

waaah, waaah, mr judge, people don't get a chance to drink pepsi when they buy a case of coke, monopoly, monopoly, make coca-cola include a can of pepsi in every case of coke! waaah, waaah!

dp004i said,
waaah, waaah, mr judge, people don't get a chance to drink pepsi when they buy a case of coke, monopoly, monopoly, make coca-cola include a can of pepsi in every case of coke! waaah, waaah!

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.

When people purchase Windows software, they are also purchasing the web browser (along with other components). If Opera Software wants to compete with Internet Explorer, they should develop an operating system that receives the level of demand that Windows achieves.

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.

DClark said,
When people purchase Windows software, they are also purchasing the web browser (along with other components). If Opera Software wants to compete with Internet Explorer, they should develop an operating system that receives the level of demand that Windows achieves.

that is not the issue here. you shouldn't have to create your own os to compete with a browser.

In the free market, we the people have the right to make a choice.

except we don't have a choice because micrososft abuses its dominant position in the desktop market to prevent competition in the browser market.

Opera Software has the option of marketing their product to capture the people's attention to achieve a greater market share.

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.

DJROrion said,
Opera would rather just start a lawsuit to make a name for themselves instead of normal marketing.

this is not a lawsuit, but an antitrust complaint.

are you saying that all antitrust cases are merely marketing?

d_ralphie said,

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!

except we don't have a choice because micrososft abuses its dominant position in the desktop market to prevent competition in the browser market.

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.

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.

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.

Fanon said,
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. :rolleyes:

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.

So to say they spent billions in a decade to market their software is a lie.

nope. google, ibm and lots of other companies have pumped ****loads of cash into mozilla.

Microsoft isn't to blame for sites that require MSIE.

yes they are, because web developers have no choice but to code specifically for msie since it has poor standards support.

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.

never the less, they show that ie's position is far too dominant.

d_ralphie said,
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.

That's Opera's definition of choice.

d_ralphie said,
nope. google, ibm and lots of other companies have pumped ****loads of cash into mozilla.

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.

d_ralphie said,
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.

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.

Fanon said,
That's Opera's definition of choice.

it's an explanation for why the choice is not a free one.

You make it sound like it is impossible to build a cross-browser website.

no, but it is very expensive because you have to write for different browser.

Web developers are responsible for the work they put out on the web, not the browser vendors.

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.

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.

in other words, governments dealing with illegal cartels is evil. good to know where you are coming from.

Instead of spending your money on crap like fancy cars and nice house and all the other stuff these corporate type cant live without maybe they should push it a bit harder.I mean really firefox seems to be doing pretty good with the big fat evil MS machine in place.
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?

120 said,
Instead of spending your money on crap like fancy cars and nice house and all the other stuff these corporate type cant live without maybe they should push it a bit harder.

opera's ceo drives a worn-down car and always travels economy class.

I mean really firefox seems to be doing pretty good with the big fat evil MS machine in place.

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.

I just don't buy the freedom of choice argument coming from a company with something for sale.

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.

d_ralphie said,

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

GreyWolfSC said,
That's totally untrue.

he is not driving a worn-out car? huh?

He's quite highly paid. More than the industry average, in fact.

and what is the industry average? note that the page you linked to says 892k NOK. norwegian kroner. that's about $160-170k.

OEMs are pre-loading different browsers on their systems. For example, several new Packard Bell lines have Firefox installed and set as the default browser from first boot. There's still lots of bloat, but it's a start at least

Hmm, if all these claims turn out successful, we might be able to buy just the windows kernel and highly necessary libraries soon.
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]

Opera is not a good browser anymore..it does not have extensions like firefox,and it does not get software support or plugins like Internet Explorer.....Google for example make firefox extensions...but nothng has been made for Opera.

Opera doesn't have a scriptable UI API like the other browsers do, there are good things with this:

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.

Opera is not a good browser? Based on what? "it does not have extensions like firefox"?
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.

That's funny. Even if they put in some mechanism of choice, whatever % of the market that uses IE currently would still pick IE because it has the most common brand name and most people don't know of any others or care to try any others. I personally think IE7 is great, and I converted back from FF to IE when it came out.

-Spenser

Opera is asking for a chance for competition and also trying to get the normal internet user to be more safe. Oh God, they're trying to have their own agenda while actually benefiting the community? Unheard of!

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.

Totally agree with you.

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 . Firefox is a much more "commercial" name, so it has a better marketing department. Does that makes it a "better" browser?

oh, do you remember that case in 2003 where microsoft was sending a broken page only to opera? What's that called?

nuo said,
Totally agree with you.

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 . Firefox is a much more "commercial" name, so it has a better marketing department. Does that makes it a "better" browser?

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.

DJROrion said,
Not to even mention that the Firefox market share went up significantly when Microsoft stopped supporting IE for Mac.

I'm glad they did. That POS should never have been released in the first place.

generalt said,
everyone likes to pick on Microsoft for being huge and rich, but where would we be today without them?

in a market with actual competition?

Not likely. If not for Microsoft some other company would have the dominant OS and everyone would be bashing them right now instead. Probably Apple, in which case we'd all also be locked into a hardware monopoly as well as software.

TRC said,
If not for Microsoft some other company would have the dominant OS and everyone would be bashing them right now instead.

not necessarily, but this is irrelevant to today's situation.

I love Opera but I'm sick of these companies running to their mommies(governments). I hope opera gets batted down like the wimpy little p1ssants they've become. Ill still use Opera as it is the best browser out there. First of all this will probably break windows...I'm pretty sure this would not be an easy thing to do. Second, 99 % of people would download IE anyway. This isn't about IE, its about companies from nanny state governments that have never had to go the extra mile as they can go running to the government because the big bad American companies wont share our toys...waaahhh waaaaahhhh! f'n WAAAH! Flame on...YEHAAAW!!

solardog said,
I love Opera but I'm sick of these companies running to their mommies(governments).

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?

This isn't about IE, its about companies from nanny state governments that have never had to go the extra mile as they can go running to the government because the big bad American companies wont share our toys...waaahhh waaaaahhhh! f'n WAAAH! Flame on...YEHAAAW!!

actually, the u.s. has antitrust laws as well. and GUESS WHAT, microsoft was convicted there as well!

d_ralphie said,

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.

d_ralphie said,

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.

z0phi3l said,


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.

shoust said,

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.

z0phi3l said,
Where in the anti-trust laws does it state the MS can't bundle IE with Windows?

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.

most tech savy people, first thing they do is fire up IE to go dopwnload the saftware they actually want to use

and yet they need to fire up msie for many sites, since many still REQUIRE msie to work.

as for the non tech savy, IE works just fine for them and for the most part aren't interested in switching anything

irrelevant to the question about whether microsoft is abusing its market position o rnot.

Well I'm not sure what would be done with fresh installs of Windows, but if you buy a pre-installed Windows they could always throw in an extra CD with all the needed install files for IE, FF, Opera, and Safari. I suppose for fresh installs they could include a "webbrowser" folder with a few choices. Then again people might get mad that their browser isn't in the list.

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.

sonicspike41 said,
Well I'm not sure what would be done with fresh installs of Windows

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.

d_ralphie said,

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!

d_ralphie said,

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.
Are you not LISTENING???? He's not talking about OEM machines. He's talking about if he goes to Best Buy or another other computer software store and purchases XP or Vista, how will he get a browser on there? I wish you would stop posting that canned message over and over. It's getting highly annoying.

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

(V)eGa said,
He's not talking about OEM machines.

that was an example.

He's talking about if he goes to Best Buy or another other computer software store and purchases XP or Vista, how will he get a browser on there?

windows magically installs itself on all best buy computers?

I don't think M$ is the best company in the world but this is getting outta hand.

how is it getting out of hand when a company well known for its anti-competitive practices is taken to task for its actions?

I wish I could sue the American government for stealing over 30% of my yearly income...lol

the comparison is invalid. this isn't even a lawsuit, but an antitrust complaint.

d_ralphie said,

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.

Of course Windows doesn't magically installs itself and that's the point. If you buy JUST THE SOFTWARE, HOW CAN A OEM INSTALL A DIFFERENT BROWSER? That is why I suggested the second idea of the vendor having CD's with a mix of browsers on it and M$ is only known because of stuff like this because they have all the money. Say if we split M$ up, would it really make a difference? The purpose of business is to crush the competition. It's ok for a big company to crush a small mom and pop store but don't let a big corporation crush other big corporations and it's all of a sudden an issue? And the comment about suing the american government is valid because they are raping everyone by taking a person's hard earned cash. But seriously, if I'm in business, am I in business to "share" the market with everyone else? When a company that is in the same category as my business lower their prices, do I keep my prices the same? No, I lower my prices to match theirs so they will not seem more attractive to customers. If I lower my prices so low that the competition can't match it and eventually they go out of business I guess that's wrong as well. Look at Wal-Mart. Shouldn't they be under the same scope as M$ for mistreating their employees and having some super lower prices?

(V)eGa said,
The purpose of business is to crush the competition.

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.

It's ok for a big company to crush a small mom and pop store but don't let a big corporation crush other big corporations and it's all of a sudden an issue?

depends on whether antitrust laws apply or not.

If I lower my prices so low that the competition can't match it and eventually they go out of business I guess that's wrong as well.

that could possibly be the case. again, this is subject to antitrust laws.

(V)eGa said,
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

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.

sonicspike41 said,

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.

Yeah I understand that. I also have having to develop a website for IE/FF sometimes. It's a pain in the butt to have to take into account all of the browsers out there.

Oxuyoska said,
Microsoft should sue Opera for holding a monopoly on browsers for the Nintendo DS and Wii.

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).

d_ralphie said,

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!

d_ralphie said,

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> ?????

lets hope opera win this case, its time to stop microsoft bad practice, and making microsoft comply we get many positive things like a standard compliant ie and why not a custom install and remove ie completely from windows.

I agree that Microsoft needs to make IE standards compliant, but I do not hope Opera wins this case. This is the wrong way to get IE up to par.

The unremovable IE IMO is great for the idiots who always find ways to mess up their computer. And trust me, there are quite a lot of them.

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).

Dakkaroth said,
Besides, it's not like Opera can perfectly replace IE. There are still those websites written for IE only.

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

Everyone likes to pick on the "remove IE from Windows" but say nothing about web standards part, which is (IMO) much more interesting

ichi said,
Everyone likes to pick on the "remove IE from Windows" but say nothing about web standards part, which is (IMO) much more interesting :huh:

Opera doesn't care about the standards portion. They're only using that to disguise the antitrust whine.

GreyWolfSC said,

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.

GreyWolfSC said,
Opera doesn't care about the standards portion.

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."

d_ralphie said,

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.

GreyWolfSC said,
Yes, we all know the plaintiff in a situation is the best place to get unbiased information. :rolleyes:

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.

People need to figure this out. Windows ISN'T linux. Linux takes a modular approach. Microsoft it going for a heavily integrated approach... which i like better. Screw Opera.

And MS needs to figure out that this will keep happening as along as they keep trying to extend their grip to different markets through the Windows platform.

and also with the "integrated" approach means problems in many cases if one of those component do not work it mess up the whole system, the modular approach windows its a way to go, i want real choice and microsoft its not giving it, sure i can install opera or firefox, but i cant unistall ie that its a gateway for virus and spyware....

eilegz: you do have choice. alot of it in fact. you can use one of several versions of linux. you can use macintosh, which is gaining in popularity.. or you could... i don't know. DOWNLOAD OPERA!!! Operating systems aren't supposed to be all about choice? Since when did you get a choice of what Firmware/OS you got to run on your Playstation? I just can't understand why these people think microsoft owes them anything. Especially since nothing is being lost since, of course, web browsers don't bring in money to their maker unless they load it down with ads. I happen to really appreciate Microsoft's integrated approach. and considering how complicated the system becomes with integration i'm really impressed on how stable it is too. All you people need to get lives. Web browsers and media players have become two technologies which are required for a successful desktop OS... and in order to provide customer's with a consistant experience microsoft makes their own.

I use Opera, and I like it a lot, but without a browser of some kind with the system, how are people going to able to download anything? Short of having FF, IE, and Opera bundled together, but then why not include Maxathon, and Thunderbird as an alt. to OE and Windows Mail?

Why not go after Apple, because of them bundling Safari? Howver, with Safari you can get rid of it.

1759 said,
I use Opera, and I like it a lot, but without a browser of some kind with the system, how are people going to able to download anything?

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.

Why not go after Apple, because of them bundling Safari? Howver, with Safari you can get rid of it.

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).

*cough* Safari *cough*

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.

excalpius said,
*cough* Safari *cough*

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.

At this point, ANY OS needs to come with a browser.

but windows should perhaps not come with msie (especially when it isn't standards compliant) since it prevents competition, which is illegal.

I've never used Opera, and their "litigate because I can't make money on my own" attitude has made sure I won't ever try it. Bye bye, Opera.

GreyWolfSC said,
I've never used Opera, and their "litigate because I can't make money on my own" attitude has made sure I won't ever try it. Bye bye, Opera.

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.

d_ralphie said,

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?

GreyWolfSC said,
Their profits have only increased because of licensing for embedded browsers like the Wii.

wrong.

opera's DESKTOP revenue increased by more than 100% in the last quarter.

GreyWolfSC said,
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?

Maybe MS should sue them because I don't have the choice to install IE on my Wii! !!!Rabble Rabble Anti-Trust Rabble Rabble!!!

Telerebro said,
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.

This is so stupid. I had the same thought as Ledward "Ok fresh install of windows, now lets fire up ie to download opera. Oh, no ie. Guess no web for me"

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.

Well said, I said the same thing when Netscape did the same thing back in the late nineties, eventually it went the way of the dinosaur too, not through Antitrust issues but because it is a bad browser lol. Thats why we have Mozilla, because their own team believed it was going bad as well.

mosi said,
This is so stupid. I had the same thought as Ledward "Ok fresh install of windows, now lets fire up ie to download opera. Oh, no ie. Guess no web for me"

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.

IMHO it's Microsoft's Operating System they should be able to bundle what the hell they want with it.

not when they abuse their market position to stifle competition. ever heard about antitrust laws?

I have to disagree about Netscape being bad, up until version 4 it was the browser. Around 4.07 or so they really went downhill though when they started pushing Communicator. There is no doubt that including IE with Windows certainly hurt them. People are lazy by nature; include a browser in the OS and most will simply use it. That being said Netscape really fell behind with version 4, then decided to skip over 5 and what they released as Netscape 6 was nothing short of complete garbage. I don't remember if this was before or after the original company went belly up but I think AOL was behind it by then.

Netscape 9 is the first good version they've released in ages, but then it's basically just Firefox so...

d_ralphie said,

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?

What should be done is to create a super-light IE... perhaps comparable to the browsers available in 1995, and pack that in.

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.

Hak Foo said,
What should be done is to create a super-light IE... perhaps comparable to the browsers available in 1995, and pack that in.

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?

Ji@nBing said,
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.

Yet people figure out "WordPad is not sufficient to work with, I should get Office or OpenOffice or ..."

Hak Foo said,

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.

TRC said,
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.

GreyWolfSC said,
You really are a parrot, aren't you? You've said the same exact thing in two comments on THIS article.

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?

I bought my copy of Windows from the store. What OEM will install my browser?

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.

Uh, okay. How would one download Opera if MS unbundled IE from Windows?

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 box). Unbundling IE would make Windows a complete joke out of the box, and seriously no one with at least half a brain would want that to happen.

Exactly what I was going to say. You've got to have something to start out with. And it's not really an option to include "all the web-browsers in the world" and let you choose from one you like - that would just get way too damn big.

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.

Ledward said,
Uh, okay. How would one download Opera if MS unbundled IE from Windows?

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.

Windows doesn't have aptget, and even if they did people wouldn't know how to use it.

can't it be something more user friendly?

Unbundling IE would make Windows a complete joke out of the box

opera is not asking for windows to come without a browser, but for there to be a real choice.

Q: How are people going to be able to download a browser without a browser pre-installed?
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.

d_ralphie said,
opera is not asking for windows to come without a browser, but for there to be a real choice.
Exactly, Microsoft does not adhere to standards adequately enough. If a website does not function correctly because it is coded for Windows Internet Explorer, then the user will have no choice but to use only Windows Internet Explorer.

This is bad for competition and for all other browsers!