Opera Software files EU antitrust complaint against Microsoft

[PricklyPoo]

On the otherhand, I rather suspect that the majority of the posts in this thread would be positive and supporting it if rather it was Mozilla who had filed it...

Haha, I totaly agree.

I will still use Opera but the lawsuit is rather stupid. IE has always been on windows and always will....But I will still use Opera because it is much faster than IE.

[revvo]

The whole thing would be fine if Internet Explorer could be uninstallable, but we all know IE is part of the system (which it shoudln't be) so it can't really be done unless you cripple the system? Or am I wrong?

[Guest ID2]

I'd like to congratulate d_ralphie for being an indefatigable upholder of reason, fairness, and common sense in this thread which has seen more than it's fair share of arrogance, ignorance, na?vet?, and partiality.

I'd also like to congratulate and encourage Opera for having the courage to speak out against the tyrant, (like David and Goliath), for the benefit of all of us, whether or not we are grateful, or even have enough brains to realise it.

[libertas83]

Come on, with MS playing the "undocumented moving target" there's no way to be fully compatible unless you keep playing catch up forever. That's the kind of thing that qualifies as abuse.

True, but then the lawsuit should pursue that goal because believe or not, the monopoly makes the standards. Just like the country who wins the wars writes the history. So why not sue Microsoft to open up so browsers can be made compatible?

from the faq:

'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.'

opera and mozilla have spent billions on trying to be compatible with broken websites. msie is still required for many sites. it is microsoft's fault for trying to prevent other browsers from being used.

yes it did, by actively trying to replace open standards with proprietary technologies and lock-in.

There were a host of companies that created the web and Microsoft was just one of them. Netscape at the height of its popularity did not adhere to standards just like Microsoft. You are forgetting that they used to own the web before IE 3.0 and 4.0 started taking market share. In fact, Netscape Navigator 3.0 Gold was the king of the browsers back in the day and 4.0 was doing pretty good for awhile there. What happened after 4.0..............abandoned and bought by AOL with the developers spun off into Mozilla which didn't have any success until FireFox.

this doesn't have to happen overnight. microsoft just has to stop destroying open standards and forcing its own crap on the web.

you forget that destroying the web has been a key strategy for microsoft. just look at the ecmascript4 mess:

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

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

Ok first, IE7 is a step into moving to standards but like we both agreed, it can't happen overnight, but its a start. Microsoft has been much more open with standards today if you actually were a developer with their technologies.

Second, why can't companies disagree on technology and try things out before it is agreed to a standard. The Blu-Ray and HD-DVD format war is actually helping consumers much more then if it never existed. Now I would agree that eventually a standard has to emerge, but just like all technologies of the past, first has to come the fight. ASCII vs. EBCDIC, Token-Ring vs Ethernet, DSL vs Cable, ECMA 4 vs whatever. Sorry for not blindly wanting to accept whatever someone forces down my throat from either Microsoft or some standards body.

nonsense. standards are the BASIS of innovation. without standards (http, tcp/ip, etc.) there would be no internet.

Standards are the result of innovation, not the basis for it. Like I said above, several companies have to develop a solution to a problem and then we can look at them to come up with a standard. The lawsuit by Opera is much more dangerous than you realize, because honestly, do you trust governments to understand technology enough to make an effective ruliing. I don't and the copyright battle is a good example of that.

[d_ralphie]

True, but then the lawsuit should pursue that goal because believe or not, the monopoly makes the standards.

this is not a lawsuit. opera is not suing microsoft. opera has logged an antitrust complaint with the ec.

and the monopoly did not make any standards. the monopoly made proprietary technologies to lock other browsers out.

Netscape at the height of its popularity did not adhere to standards just like Microsoft.

which is hardly relevant now. that netscape did something wrong does not justify microsoft doing the same wrong thing many years later (and after several warnings about its behavior).

Ok first, IE7 is a step into moving to standards but like we both agreed, it can't happen overnight, but its a start. Microsoft has been much more open with standards today if you actually were a developer with their technologies.

the ecmascript 4 mess shows that microsoft still wants its own proprietary technology out there rather than standards.

Second, why can't companies disagree on technology and try things out before it is agreed to a standard.

they can, but they should do so honestly instead of spreading fud and lies.

The Blu-Ray and HD-DVD format war is actually helping consumers much more then if it never existed.

i disagree. it is a confusing mess, and extremely expensive because you need to be able to play both formats.

Sorry for not blindly wanting to accept whatever someone forces down my throat from either Microsoft or some standards body.

no one is blindly accepting anything when it comes to open standards. that's why open standard processes are open and call for comments on specs before they are finalized. unlike proprietary technology, where everyone else is ignored and it actually IS forced down your throat.

Standards are the result of innovation, not the basis for it.

as i said, this is wrong. no tcp/ip, no internet. no http, no web.

The lawsuit by Opera is much more dangerous than you realize, because honestly, do you trust governments to understand technology enough to make an effective ruliing. I don't and the copyright battle is a good example of that.

again, this is not a lawsuit.

and i trust the government more than i do microsoft. you think microsoft understands technology? then how do you explain activex?

I don't and the copyright battle is a good example of that.

this is NOT a case of 'common sense vs. gvt'. this is a case of the common good vs. a single dominant commercial company. microsoft is one of the enemies of the people in the copyright battle. it is actively trying to convince the government to trample all over our rights.

but in this case you are willing to let microsoft do it?!

[megamanXplosion]

I find it amusing that people say browser makers should try to get Internet Explorer opened up so others can follow along. I disagree entirely. Internet Explorer should remain as it is except that it should actually follow the standards that Microsoft helped create. People are far too willing to grant Microsoft the power to tinker with the web standards with the knowledge that other browser makers will attempt to follow them and then switch course by rendering differently, thus forcing web designers to conform and thus screwing the other browser makers. Those browser makers have been screwed enough, I think.

I also disagree about browsers trying different things out before they become a standard. It is fine and dandy if they do this for new technologies but they certainly should not use this approach in extended existing standards. Existing standards should be extended through the considerations of a representative republic. In other words, web standard extensions are agreed upon by browser makers based on the "votes" of the web designers and developers who inform them as to what they believe to be the best solution as far as coding and user appeasement is concerned, and the users pick what appeases them most by using some sites over others. In this case, web designers and developers represent the users, browser makers represent the web designers and developers, and the standards represent an agreement among those top representatives.

This is essentially how the process runs right now, though some like to argue for some kind of Internet Monarchy (monopolies create the standard), Internet Anarchy (different browsers should take different approaches), and so on. Monarchies and anarchies will not work. In a monarchial conception one would result in a monopoly that screws everyone over and users don't get their say, and thus the Internet is not really under user control. In an anarchical conception one would result in millions or billions of dollars being wasted to develop silly rendering widgets that are eventually deleted by the smaller browser makers when the monopoly screws them. The monopoly will be catering to the interests of the users but the web designers and developers--i.e., the informed users--are not given greater weight and thus form a very small minority with a very small minority voice. Under an anarchical conception, the users who don't catch-on that you need to replace the batteries in their cordless mice once in a while will be buying browsers by buying operating systems by buying computers with gimmicky widgets and nonsenses based on Christmas-gift whims. Do you really want Internet standards to be guided by the Christmas shopping whims of the technologically clueless? Web designers and developers are required in the process to satisfy the aesthetic whims of the populace without making the web standards giant follies so they should be given greater weight and their job entails representing the users for whom they create websites. Using a monarchial or anarchical conception of web standard extension will send the Internet to Hell in a handbasket. Only a representative republic approach makes sense.

I also disagree entirely on saying that innovation should be the basis for standards rather than standards being the basis for innovation. I also disagree entirely on the opposite argument. The problem with both arguments is the single-level conception of innovation, which is too simplistic. A more realistic conception is two-tier innovation. Innovation that is effective and agreeable that could be put into the standards should be included in the standards (first-tier innovation) and the standards should provide enough flexibility for innovation based on those standards (second-tier innovation). As I argued before, the anarchical conception of standards extension makes no sense so the innovations that enter the standards should be ones that are well-thought-out but not implemented in any browser at the time because otherwise the browsers could create the most gimmicky nonsense additions that appeal to the Christmas-shopping whims of the clueless at the expense of good web standards and it would allow them to bend over the small browser makers. The first-tier innovation should be based on thought experiments, not browser experiments, and included in standards based upon mutual agreement. The second-tier innovation can be based on thought experiments and coding experiments at the discretion of the web designers and developers. Should the web designers and developers think of an innovative approach to something but happen to be missing a small component in the standards to enable the innovation to be coded, they can submit their suggestions to the browser makers and they will talk amongst themselves on whether it would be a good inclusion to the standards. In this way, second-tier innovation leads to first-tier innovation, which leads to second-tier innovation, and so on in a perpetual cycle.

This is exactly how the web standards are created today. The World Wide Web Consortium serves as the "senate floor" whereby the top representatives, the browser makers, agree on what should constitute the next standard, and the browser makers are informed by web designers and developers, and they are informed by users. The only problem with the current scenario is the massive imbalance in power. It's a democratic system being trampled by the feet of a dictatorship. Microsoft's power in molding the Internet has essentially tramped the democratic system of standards creation under its feet and effectively made the situation a monarchial conception of standards creation. Microsoft needs to include other browsers in its operating system to redress this massive imbalance in power and restore functions to the democratic process of standards creation, which is the basis for Opera's lawsuit, which would also benefit Mozilla Firefox.

I think Opera is doing right in filing this lawsuit. I think Opera and Firefox should also be included with Microsoft Windows. This would allow more users to make an actual choice on the matter (how many people are actually aware of alternatives?) and would present Microsoft from using its position as an operating system developer as a means of exploiting the cluelessness of users for their browser market aspirations. If Opera and Firefox were included with Microsoft Windows, many of the more clueless users will have more choice as to how they browse the World Wide Web, thus making browser interoperability a much more important consideration in rendering websites, and hence a restoration of the democratic process of standards extension.

[Nashy]

Just remove it from N. Case closed.

[megamanXplosion]

Nashy, that wouldn't even come close to addressing the actual problem that spawned the creation of this lawsuit, the negligence of web standards.

[ichi]

True, but then the lawsuit should pursue that goal because believe or not, the monopoly makes the standards. Just like the country who wins the wars writes the history. So why not sue Microsoft to open up so browsers can be made compatible?

Heh sure, and be required to license MS' IP to be able to properly render a web page?

MS would drag their feet the same as they have been doing for years in the EU, and Mozilla, Opera and the likes would have to keep playing catch up only that now tied to Microsoft's IP.

Countries might write history but companies caught breaking the law get punished, not rewarded.

[Nashy]

Nashy, that wouldn't even come close to addressing the actual problem that spawned the creation of this lawsuit, the negligence of web standards.

Last I checked, not following standards isn't against the law.

[ichi]

Last I checked, not following standards isn't against the law.

Per se it obviously isn't but you have to see the issue as a whole. Disregarding the standards has always been part of Microsoft's strategy, not an isolated issue, and as such it's tied to illegal practices.

[Nashy]

People can assume its part of their strategy, but assumptions are generally hard to prove.

I fail to see how IE is to blame. MS obviously doesn't give a hoot, hence why Fx and Opera are getting more popular. Instead of jumping on the bandwagon and crying about this, they could have put that money forward and advertised, or even paid some big sites to spread the word.

The issue of standards is seen as important because if all Web browsers do not use the same standards, Web site developers are likely to design their Web sites to work with the most widely-used browser, which is Internet Explorer. That gives people a disincentive to use other browsers.

The people that don't know how to get another browser don't know the difference between a good looking site and a really good looking site.

Opera don't care about ease of use. They are trying to protect people, and fooling people to think that's what they are doing. The people that use IE are people who don't know any better, and wouldn't know where to start without IE. What if MS took it out? SOL arn't they.

The only thing Opera cares about is themselves, their browser isn't used enough, so a little media coverage here, out of court settlement there and bam, the CEO can buy his kid that Mickey Mouse play car, and his wife that diamond watch for christmas.

They can't force Microsoft to conform to W3 standards, and I'm sure Microsoft's lawyers will argue that IE is an essential part of Windows, without it Windows won't run, in turn their profit drop etc. and IE stays.

This is nothing more than a last pitch attempt to make a little extra cash and get some more media attention. Its truely and utterly pathetic that out of pure spite all of these companies seem to think they can 1. sue Microsoft, or 2. Complain to the EU about anti-trust matters which are completely and utterly useless.

The sooner companies get of Microsoft's back about how THEY create THEIR software, the better.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Nashy

[BajiRav]

A big difference is that you can't remove IE from Windows, yet you can very easily remove Safari from OS X.

How very wrong. Remove webkit and let's see if things like Dashboard, Media Guide and Itunes (among others) still work.

opera is not asking for windows to come without any browsers. it is asking for real choice.

No they are complaining because nobody cares about their browser. The user share after such a long time is miniscule. Firefox came out from nowhere (not exactly but still) and beat them to the punch. None of their complaints seem to have affected Firefox. They are not asking for choice for "consumers" but for their own benefit.

'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.'

Last I checked, broken websites never "broke" any browser. Web users can choose other browsers if they want. Although I don't know why I would prefer Opera over "clean" Firefox or Safari.

opera and mozilla have spent billions on trying to be compatible with broken websites. msie is still required for many sites. it is microsoft's fault for trying to prevent other browsers from being used.

No they haven't. (besides do they even have "billions" :p)

yes it did, by actively trying to replace open standards with proprietary technologies and lock-in.

All they did was ignored standards and never bothered to update IE after they had enough market share. What "proprietary technologies and lock-ins" we are talking here? Before you throw it out, ActiveX is a plugins mechanism.

this doesn't have to happen overnight. microsoft just has to stop destroying open standards and forcing its own crap on the web.

you forget that destroying the web has been a key strategy for microsoft. just look at the ecmascript4 mess:

They have a different viewpoint that Mozilla. So ? It is still going to be a standard.

nonsense. standards are the BASIS of innovation. without standards (http, tcp/ip, etc.) there would be no internet.

remember, if other browsers didn't have to spend a shitload of time figuring out how to work around microsoft's crap, standards could be implemented faster and better, and there would be even more room for innovations that worked everywhere.

standards are not basis of innovation. If Microsoft kept doing everything the "standard" way, you won't be using AJAX and Apple wouldn't have made iPhone. Innovation, IMO, is breaking standards (that may lead to new standards). Don't mix up both.

And other browsers don't care how IE works. They never have to. They can continue doing things the standard way. The burden and pain is on the developers (I agree on the IE should improve part).

Edit: Do you even know what Silverlight is ?

[revvo]

I find it absurd that many people here follow Microsoft's way of doing things as far as web standards go.

While I agree that it would break many websites if Microsoft made a quick switch to a (almost) fully compliant browser, there are many ways around this to make the transition smooth. If we as developers can find hacks to make websites work on IE and FF/Opera/Safari/etc., surely Microsoft can find a way to implement standards while not breaking their crazy standards.

Do you people actually make and work on websites before talking about what standards are good for? And I'm not talking about simple websites, but full web applications. It is a waste of time to make websites work on both worlds, IE and the rest. Normally I wouldn't say this because if I make websites, I make them from scratch and they work on all browsers from scratch, but at work our applications are ASP.NET applications, but we're stuck with the 1.1 framework, not 2.0 or 3.0. Most ASP server controls that are converted to HTML are converted into broken html that works fine on IE but I gotta always put this extra time to make our websites work on other browsers.

[.Neo]

How very wrong. Remove webkit and let's see if things like Dashboard, Media Guide and Itunes (among others) still work.

Everyone can trash Safari(.app) without a single problem. I can't really do the same with Internet Explorer (the application, not the entire set of frameworks underneath it) without Windows trying to recover it or saying the file is in use. Without the Safari or Internet Explorer frontend the end-user can't surf the web, potentially giving other browsers a chance. In theory that is...

I'm not the biggest Microsoft fan out there, but I can't say I agree with Opera. The last couple of years I've seen support for non-Internet Explorer browsers rise tremendously. I can visit all my popular sites using Safari without a single problem. My bank, college, internet provider etc. support it just fine. I have no real doubt that this will only improve the coming years.

[BajiRav]

Everyone can trash Safari(.app) without a single problem. I can't really do the same with Internet Explorer (the application, not the entire set of frameworks underneath it) without Windows trying to recover it or saying the file is in use. Without the Safari or Internet Explorer frontend the end-user can't surf the web, potentially giving other browsers a chance. In theory that is...

I'm not the biggest Microsoft fan out there, but I can't say I agree with Opera. The last couple of years I've seen support for non-Internet Explorer browsers rise tremendously. I can visit all my popular sites using Safari without a single problem. My bank, college, internet provider etc. support it just fine. I have no real doubt that this will only improve the coming years.

Yes, you are right. Unfortunately there is no clear separation of app & framework w/ IE (or so I think).

[morphen]

who gives a rats ass?

I normally use IE, or a browser built on ie.

If by all means, a website don't work properly with ie, i use firefox.

I use opera on my cellphone and pocket pc, because ie sucks on ppc's :p

I'm from norway, and the software industry in Norway is proud of opera, and it's achivments,

but now i'm just losing all respect, they should not promote their browser this way, insted

they should advertise opera as a great alternative to IE, and the fact that it's multi platformed:)

All though, if this pushes MS to make IE follow all web standards,

it would be nice, then i would only have one browser to stick to, namley IE7, because I don't need

to download anything. It's right there when i install windows, and all i have to do is doubleclick the

shortcut.

I used to work at a electronics retailer, and i can confirm that hp/compaq bundles Firefox with their

Pre-installed Windows Vista.

That is a nice way to promote a nice web browser, wich contains all functions you need, and

i never heard ONE costumer complain.

I guess i am just lacy, i use whatever browser thats closest, and in most cases, thats IE.

I think thats what most of us do? Please correct me if i'm wrong :)

Sincerely,

From northern Norway.

[morphen]

Just remove it from N. Case closed.

lol, nice one ;)

The N-versions is like; "oh, you don't like us having that feature in a OS WE made? Here you go, a amputated version for you my friend, EU"

I'm so glad we're not a member:p

[megamanXplosion]

I fail to see how IE is to blame. MS obviously doesn't give a hoot, hence why Fx and Opera are getting more popular. Instead of jumping on the bandwagon and crying about this, they could have put that money forward and advertised, or even paid some big sites to spread the word.

The only reason Firefox is getting more popular is that they reached their gold release during a time when Microsoft disassembled the Internet Explorer team to have more people working on Windows Vista amidst a time when the government was planning to forego their use of the browser for security concerns. Those two problems for Microsoft gave Mozilla enough time to secure a decent percentage of users which served as Mozilla's viral marketing base. Firefox didn't become more popular because the Internet Explorer team didn't give a hoot, it was because there wasn't an Internet Explorer team at all when Firefox launched.

Opera don't care about ease of use. They are trying to protect people, and fooling people to think that's what they are doing. The people that use IE are people who don't know any better, and wouldn't know where to start without IE. What if MS took it out? SOL arn't they.

The only thing Opera cares about is themselves, their browser isn't used enough, so a little media coverage here, out of court settlement there and bam, the CEO can buy his kid that Mickey Mouse play car, and his wife that diamond watch for christmas.

You're focusing on the "politically correct" talk, which is indeed rather stupid (Opera truly doesn't want Internet Explorer removed from Windows), and you are ignoring the gist of their argument. They've been arguing for years that Microsoft has been holding web standards back and abusing their power in the market. Opera wants other browsers included in the operating system so the standards-compliant web browsers have a better chance of gaining popularity so people will take web standards and interoperability more seriously. The gist of the argument for this lawsuit is the exact same argument that lied behind the creation of the Acid2 campaign. Acid2 sought to fight the same problem by forcing Microsoft to adhere to standards more closely and it gave standards compliant web browsers more coverage on news websites, and because it was open to all browser makers there was a general fight towards standards compliance in the KHTML, Webkit, Gecko, and Presto rendering engines and they all got extra advertising for it. It's the same argument except that Opera's the only browser maker involved.

Further, Opera doesn't specifically want an out of court settlement. They tried tackling the problem through the use of the Acid2 campaign but it wasn't successful enough so they're now taking the fight to the courts. Either Microsoft begins adhering to web standards and thus allowing interoperability or they lose money to Opera. If they lose money to Opera in an out of court settlement, other browser makers can step forward and take some money from them. Either way, Microsoft is being pushed toward web standards, which is Opera's main goal in this lawsuit. What Opera wants is for Microsoft to adhere to the web standards that Opera and Microsoft worked together (with Mozilla, Adobe, etc.) to create. The CTO of Opera created CSS and is watching his standard get butchered by Microsoft and he wants Microsoft to stop butchering it. An out of court settlement would be considered good for Opera, sure, but only because it would enable them to advertise a standards compliant web browser with the money and it gives Microsoft further incentive to quit butchering web standards.

This is nothing more than a last pitch attempt to make a little extra cash and get some more media attention. Its truely and utterly pathetic that out of pure spite all of these companies seem to think they can 1. sue Microsoft, or 2. Complain to the EU about anti-trust matters which are completely and utterly useless.

The sooner companies get of Microsoft's back about how THEY create THEIR software, the better.

It's truly and utterly pathetic that out of pure spite the kid who got beat up in the playground complained to the teachers to get them to stop the bully.

No they are complaining because nobody cares about their browser. The user share after such a long time is miniscule. Firefox came out from nowhere (not exactly but still) and beat them to the punch. None of their complaints seem to have affected Firefox. They are not asking for choice for "consumers" but for their own benefit.

They have effected Firefox, hence the reason Mozilla took the Acid2 campaign so seriously. Firefox would be much more popular if their growth wasn't held back by trying to render broken websites that happen to have been broken by coding for a proprietary renderer that didn't adhere to web standards.

Last I checked, broken websites never "broke" any browser. Web users can choose other browsers if they want. Although I don't know why I would prefer Opera over "clean" Firefox or Safari.

Do some research on the rendering engines of the web browsers. None of them follow web standards completely because they're all scrambling to try figuring out how to get broken websites to render for their users like it would for Internet Explorer users. The websites that work with all browsers tend to create much more time for web designers and developers to create.

Most people would be surprised at just how powerful CSS can be when it's truly utilized. The problem is that because Microsoft's rendering engine is a piece of crap and other browsers have to make themselves smell like that piece of crap to appease users no web designer could truly utilize CSS. Websites have the standards available that would enable drastic improvements but they're forced into stagnation because of Microsoft's piece of crap holding everything back. Why don't we have CSS3 yet in any substantial form? CSS2 is its foundation and CSS2 isn't handled properly by Internet Explorer. Why don't we have XHTML 2 in any substantial form? Same reason. Practically all of the good stuff about the World Wide Web will not be found on the World Wide Web because the World Wide Web must remain a stagnant piece of crap to work with the stagnant piece of crap web browsers that render it.

All they did was ignored standards and never bothered to update IE after they had enough market share. What "proprietary technologies and lock-ins" we are talking here? Before you throw it out, ActiveX is a plugins mechanism.

Look at the significant rendering problems in Internet Explorer 7. Those are the lock-ins.

They have a different viewpoint that Mozilla. So ? It is still going to be a standard.

How many times have I heard this "many approaches but still a standard" argument? If there are several approaches then there isn't a standard at all. The reason for a standard is to agree upon the best approach so there is only one approach to take according to the standard. If you introduce different approaches, you destroy any attempt at standardization. Don't confuse mish-mashes of pure crap with web standards.

And other browsers don't care how IE works. They never have to. They can continue doing things the standard way. The burden and pain is on the developers (I agree on the IE should improve part).

The burden and pain isn't on the developers, it's on the users. Remember when Opera removed the advertisements and had a great opportunity to become popular like Firefox? Do you know why it didn't happen? It didn't happen because Opera's correct handling of websites caused many websites to appear broken, and hence Opera appeared broken to the users of its browser even though it was functioning fine. The smaller browser makers cannot ignore the way Internet Explorer works because the potential users of those smaller browsers will not ignore the way Internet Explorer works.

You agree that Internet Explorer should improve? Sure, why not, but you will not do anything to help that change along. Microsoft keeps its browser dominance because of its operating system and because Microsoft has control, they don't need to improve because there's absolutely no reason for them to do so. Why should they pour money into improving Internet Explorer if they have a stranglehold on the market and can continue making money with Internet Explorer without improving it? They will not improve it in any substantial way until there is an economic incentive for them to do so, hence Opera's lawsuit.

who gives a rats ass?

I do.

[revvo]

I normally use IE, or a browser built on ie.

If by all means, a website don't work properly with ie, i use firefox.

And that's the problem. A website should work on any browser, and that's what standards are for. While there are differences as far as CSS goes between FF, Opera, Safari and Konqueror, they aren't near as serious as the differences between them and IE.

The N-versions is like; "oh, you don't like us having that feature in a OS WE made? Here you go, a amputated version for you my friend, EU"

Nah it's not like that. You're just looking at the surface of things.

Two problems with Microsoft's position

1) Features that cannot be uninstalled.

2) Because Microsoft controls most of the market of end-users, they act like a monopoly although they aren't an actual monopoly. Microsoft shapes the industry whether we like it or not, whether they have competitors or not.

[Buu]

If you create a program in C++ or JAVA or any other programming language you have to stick to a unified model in which your code complies or it simply will not compile. I don't see why web design is any different, all code created SHOULD be compliant. With out a compliancy model you would have to make your website work in potentially unlimited browsers and have to make sure it worked correctly on each one! Would'nt it be great.. if all browsers supported a compliant model as standard and then add all their other stuff later.

That is my personal opinion. Non compliant code is just sloppyness as far as i am concerned.

So yes, Microsoft should make their browser compliant and web designers should make their code compliant - heven.

[libertas83]

Do you people actually make and work on websites before talking about what standards are good for? And I'm not talking about simple websites, but full web applications. It is a waste of time to make websites work on both worlds, IE and the rest. Normally I wouldn't say this because if I make websites, I make them from scratch and they work on all browsers from scratch, but at work our applications are ASP.NET applications, but we're stuck with the 1.1 framework, not 2.0 or 3.0. Most ASP server controls that are converted to HTML are converted into broken html that works fine on IE but I gotta always put this extra time to make our websites work on other browsers.

Yes I do make web applications and I support web standards as much as everyone here. The problem I have is that several posters have clearly not understood MS technologies or used them properly. You are stuck on the legacy frameworks when Microsoft did not have to consider other browsers but would you agree that MS has made more of an effort to support other browsers in ASP.NET 2.0 and 3.0? I know it doesn't help you now.

WPF and Silverlight are being made to be cross platform and Microsoft is assisting in development on the Linux platform. IE7 added more support for web standards and they have shown that they will continue to move in that direction. Now if IE8 comes out and there is not much more in web standards then I will be highly upset just as everyone else, but I am going to wait until I see the new version before passing judgement on them.

Disagreements with ECMA 4 doesn't mean MS will not support it. They will have their own solution and support ECMA at the same time. Right now the web is more interested in Flash and Flex technologies which are de facto standards but Microsoft is coming out with Silverlight to compete. They both co-exist nicely and the browser supports both with the proper plugin installed.

[morphen]

Quote -

who gives a rats ass?

I do.

Why?

If you like firefox, then you just download it, install it, and use it?

Same goes for opera, safari and so on.

Let the companies argue, and just use whatever pleases you the most?

Unless you're a professional website artist, i don't see how this is somthing to write a novell about :p

These "anti-trust/monopoly/ruleroftheearth"- fights has been going on for years, and the target is always the same, microsoft.

Afcourse they could be a little more open to web standards, but for a big company like microsoft,

this means time, and time is money.

When a thing like this goes to court, in the end, theres only one big looser, and that is the part that sued microsoft.

Court time costs money, and for a small company (in world scale) like opera software asa, that will in the end mean layoffs and/or cutdowns in budgets.

I'm not saying they WILL lose, only that there is a big possibility, and that would be very uncool.

[shoust]

People seem to be forgetting, this is NOT a lawsuit, but an anti-trust complaint. Opera is getting no money out of what they are suggesting microsoft to do.

The complaint is all about giving a fair choice between browsers, and not to force vendor lock-in.

If every site was written for one browser. Where would the choice lie, IE shells?

The point is, that if a browser is to be successfull, the main thing is that it should view all pages 100% correctly(thus following standards). However, many browsers don't have a luxury of emulating every single and undocumented IE rendering behaviours, plus be able to follow the specifications at the same time.

It costs money to work out undocumented behaviours.

It costs money to write a standard, but if people stick to it, it saves money overall, seeing as it'll save the time working everything out.

However, microsoft's "de-facto" standards lack in documentation or support for web browser developers. This costs money to support.

[msuh]

nobody gives a **** about standards