Opera Wants More From Microsoft

[Subject Delta]

Checking for updates only takes a few kilobytes of traffic, downloading them is somewhat different.

For me, I would like to see Windows Update maybe opened up in a similar way to Package managers in Linux. By default with Microsoft providing updates to Windows, and people being able to add 'repositories' in a similar way to in Linux (digitally signed of course to prevent the spread of dodgy software), so that other companies can use the framework to deliver software and updates. For me the package managers in Linux are one of their best features, and would certainly be useful in Windows, and would also eliminate the need for so many applications to constantly have auto update programs running in the background

[Chasethebase Veteran]

That being said, it is not Microsoft's job to provide an update manager for every other 3rd party application out there, if they provided a platform to do so, fair enough, but that mean that Microsoft may end up having to Support updates for 3rd party applications, which is ridiculous.

QFT (Quoted for Truth)

Also, if an update for say, Opera goes wrong, Microsoft get the blame.

[fix-this!]

jesus, does opera ever give up? their web browser is total crap IMO, Firefox blows it away! the only opera browser i use is the mobile beta but if they keep this crap up ill uninstall that too. seems to me everybody is picking on microsoft lately!

[dead.cell]

The thread starter has failed to produce evidence that Opera wants to be part of Windows Update.

You mean like the way everything in Windows is being updated even if you don't use it?

Firstly, I don't give a **** about Opera. We're talking about the idea here, which if you read my post, you'd know that I don't give a damn if it was Google, Mozilla, or whoever that came up with it; I think it's a dumb idea. You say things in Windows may update things I don't use? Okay, fine. But you failed to comment on the fact that I have a crap load of software. Do I dare want that, and I'm speaking as a general consumer here, do I want to have everything on my system updated whenever a new release is out? Do I want to have to read up on every damn update for each piece of software I'm using? NO! It's ridiculous! Microsoft updates through their updater so I'm kind of without a choice in seeing update options for their software. Fine, okay, I can put up with it. I cannot however put up with every last piece of software updating through that! Some programs I have setup to update automatically, some to notify me only, and some set to not update at all.

As I previously stated, the idea for me as a general computer user is stupid. It's not even something I would shrug at, it's something I don't want.

By the way, if you need to size your font that big to "make your point", you're obviously doing something wrong. It's like shooting a gun to kill a fly: loud, annoying... and missing the target completely.

[shakey]

i gotta say i agree with them.

not in the sense that microsoft should be held back until they do so, but now that microsoft is offering other browsers on installation, if they want to keep security up, there going to have to included alerts for the other browsers when there are updates.

Microsoft isn't offering other browsers, they have been forced to put them on there. They have no responsibility over the security of other browsers.

This is what I was afraid of. MS being forced to now support and keep up to date other peoples software..... I hope ms is getting paid by said companies for all this.

I know I would be ****ed if i was forced to sell some other competitors product, then forced to do maintenance on it as well.

[petrossa]

jesus, does opera ever give up? their web browser is total crap IMO, Firefox blows it away! the only opera browser i use is the mobile beta but if they keep this crap up ill uninstall that too. seems to me everybody is picking on microsoft lately!

:D ?The poor guys, whatever for i wonder? They just walk all over European laws, get convicted and then just do the same thing over and over again. Any sane company would have thought after swallowing .5 bil fine for illegal bundling, to stop bundling.

[hjf288]

Id rather not have a barebones operating system and be forced to download an internet browser, media player, text editor, speech recognition, etc.

If you want that go use Linux or a BSD variant...

Oh and don't forget to have a bash at Apple as well I mean its ok for them to bundle until they gain a ridiculous market share, are found anti competitive for bundling and then hassled into oblivion by some whiners who have been around for ever yet have no real significance in the PC/MAC software market.

[DDStriker]

It's like shooting a gun to kill a fly: loud, annoying... and missing the target completely.

Brilliant analogy (Y)

*adds to arsenal*

[Boz]

Here's my final thought on this.

I think that Microsoft SHOULD allow alternative browsers at install just like they do with search engines in IE and others do in their browsers.

So having a ballot screen at install is MORE then fair and Microsoft should do it. Anything else should be done by the software company including updates and any requests beyond this is absurd and should not be supported and Microsoft should not budge to the final point of not selling WIndows with a browser AT ALL.

[fix-this!]

Here's my final thought on this.

I think that Microsoft SHOULD allow alternative browsers at install just like they do with search engines in IE and others do in their browsers.

So having a ballot screen at install is MORE then fair and Microsoft should do it. Anything else should be done by the software company including updates and any requests beyond this is absurd and should not be supported and Microsoft should not budge to the final point of not selling WIndows with a browser AT ALL.

the majority of users would pick firefox anyways.

[Boz]

the majority of users would pick firefox anyways.

Exactly.. some would try alternative browsers but because of industry support plugins and similar most likely that prefered browser would be Firefox.. some would still pick IE and I'm guess some would like Google or Safari but not as much.

But this is a reasonable thing to do. Anything beyond that is nonsense and desperate grasps from a failing company to survive by going through legal channels and whining.

[Growled Member]

Microsoft has been judged in violation of EU LAWS against anti-competitive behavior.

That is true. Now let me ask you a question...should the EU have the right to tell a company how to proceed to remedy an anti-competitive situation or should the company have the right to submit to the EU possible remedies they might use. I say the latter. We see this latter in open source all the time as they find a creative work around for a problem. The first way leads only to stagnation.

[lamminium]

That is true. Now let me ask you a question...should the EU have the right to tell a company how to proceed to remedy an anti-competitive situation or should the company have the right to submit to the EU possible remedies they might use. I say the latter. We see this latter in open source all the time as they find a creative work around for a problem. The first way leads only to stagnation.

Well said.

[iamwhoiam]

Microsoft does have the obligation to open its platform to other competitors and assure that its competitors have access to the same resources that Microsoft's own applications have.

The only obligation Microsoft has is to its shareholders. If those other companies want the same type of resources that Microsoft has then let those companies foot the bill to develop them.

Here's what I wrote again: "In my opinion, Microsoft is guilty. That is what I've been talking about all along.

See, it's your opinion and that is not fact. You keep trying to push your opinion as fact and people don't go for that. Until[/b] a final judgment is handed down, all you have to argue with is your opinion. /fail

[Eice]

You've got it in one. I knew you'd see reason finally. Microsoft has been judged in violation of EU LAWS against anti-competitive behavior.

If the WMP case judgment is supposed to mean that Microsoft can't bundle ANY software, I guess that EC must be idiots for allowing Microsoft to continue including so many programs with Windows and still not fine the **** out of Microsoft even though it was decided that that was illegal. Well, granted, the EC are idiots, but not when it comes to making Microsoft their personal piggy bank.

Why was Microsoft allowed to continue bundling programs? Because the judgment applied only to WMP. IE is another case entirely, and nobody has ruled that bundling IE is illegal.

If someone can make a valid case that he has tried to put Solitaire on the market for years and can link his failure to MS bundling Solitaire with it's OS it is illegal and will not be allowed.

Yes, IF. The problem is that, in their desperation to defend Opera's indefensible shamelessness, the Opera shills have taken it upon themselves to play prosecutor, judge, and jury, and are constantly spewing the blatant lie that Microsoft is guilty, even before any valid court has decided that.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Eice

[Solid Knight]

I would support an API that did an infrequent check of program updates independently of Windows Update. Rather than having a dozen background updaters run all the time just have one that checks for a list of updates. Third party software maintains their own servers though.

But just like the OS reeling in installer/uninstallers to play nice and do their job I doubt this will happen any time soon.

[petrossa]

That is true. Now let me ask you a question...should the EU have the right to tell a company how to proceed to remedy an anti-competitive situation or should the company have the right to submit to the EU possible remedies they might use. I say the latter. We see this latter in open source all the time as they find a creative work around for a problem. The first way leads only to stagnation.

Well that's exactly what happens. MS first suggested 7E, having been there with Vista N the EU politely declined. Now they suggested the ballotbox and the EU looks favorable on it.

They just asked interested parties to shed their light on it. But in the end it's MS who made the offer of a ballotbox (granted with a gun to their head, but still)

[DDStriker]

Microsoft does have the obligation to open its platform to other competitors and assure that its competitors have access to the same resources that Microsoft's own applications have.

Oh right..well when you put it that way i guess opera can also use microsoft resources to develop their application thanks i didn't know we could do that i can pass all my projects over to microsoft and use their resources to develop my application because they are my competition and its only fair they do all the work for me thanks Leicho thats going to save me doing lots of work :D

/sarcasm

heh and microsoft is the evil corporate :laugh:

[d_ralphie]

Because that bares no relevance on why Microsoft apparently need to build an update service for 3rd party vendors.

Who said that they do?

The thread starter has failed to explain where anyone wanted them to.

Thank you for agreeing that Opera's shameless whining is not justified by Microsoft's non-existent crime.

Wait, so you ARE really denying any wrongdoing on the part of Microsoft?

Are you denying that IE's inclusion in Windows gives it a huge advantage over other browsers, and that its dominance is a result of said bundling? Are you also denying that Microsoft has been willfully violating standards, even going so far as to sabotage standards?

Considering the number of times you've repeated that lie, though, you might want to post a more detailed explanation for everyone else's benefit of why you were wrong.

You are the one lying here. I have explained to you several times by now that I never claimed that the ruling had taken place in this case. I clearly explained to you that when I refer to Microsoft as "guilty" it is because that is what I see as the only likely outcome. I have explained why I think this, which includes Microsoft's previous convictions for the same crime, as well as statements from the EC, the process, etc.

Edited August 17, 2009 by d_ralphie

[d_ralphie]

Opera is pushing more crap onto windows not talking about existing complaints they are making up more as they go along

What "more crap" are the "pushing onto Windows"? The thread starter has failed to produce any evidence what so ever that Opera asked to be part of Windows Update.

Also, you have failed to produce evidence that Opera (or Mozilla or Google) has the authority to push ANYTHING onto Windows. Come on, produce your evidence or apologize for spreading misinformation.

Its Opera who filed the case and its them who have to agree with the terms

WRONG.

Opera has no authority to demand anything what so ever. No more than other involved parties like Mozilla and Google anyway.

and its their window to raise issues this has nothing to do with free speech this is a lawsuit that they are imposing on microsoft and they are adding pointless "requests" to this suit

No, this is not a lawsuit.

Please pay attention. Opera reported a crime, that's it. They did not sue anyone.

its not an opinion when you're using a lawsuit against someone to enforce it

But yes you're right opera has no authority in this matter yet they seem to be able to dictate what punishment can be dished out for microsoft

Opera can't enforce anything. They have no authority what so ever. Please stop contradicting yourself :lol:

I don't know about the credibility of this site as i don't really care about how many people use a certain browser but for arguments sake

Hitslink's credibility is non-existant. When Google reported 10 million users for Chrome, Opera reported 30 million users. Hitslink STILL managed to claim that Chrome had a higher market share than Opera! And just a few days ago they changed their statistics completely, basically admitting that they had been lying all along.

StatCounter confirms what the actual numbers say: Opera's 40 million users were about 3% of the 1.4 billion desktop computers online earlier this year.

I'm sorry did this have a point? chrome hasn't even been out for a year (i think 11 months but majority of it was beta)

Yes, the point is that Opera has grown its global market share to around 3% in 3 years or so. In Europe it's quickly approaching a market share of 10%. It's bigger than Chrome and Safari combined over there, and that is despite the fact that Safari is bundled with a popular platform, and Google is pushing Chrome like crazy through all their advertising channels.

ok i take it you don't know what you're talking about then the afl and nrl website (which were javascript heavy) loaded significantly faster with chrome then safari or firefox when it first came out

That is irrelevant. I do web development for a living. My main area of responsibility is to optimize my clients' sites to load faster in various browsers.

they work hand in hand yes you may not notice much on a simple website but if you're really taking advantage of javascript then you will appreciate the extra speed

No, you will NOT notice it on any sites today.

I'm not sure what you are basing you're information on for this "pure marketing" and "testing for a tiny and specific part of JS, and if the JS engine is using those specific optimizations." but thats pretty far from the truth

No, that is EXACTLY what SunSpider and the V8 benchmarks are for. They only test a TINY part of JS, and specifically run tests that benefit from JIT and other optimizations that are basically irrelevant on today's sites.

Edited August 17, 2009 by d_ralphie

[d_ralphie]

I know I would be ****ed if i was forced to sell some other competitors product, then forced to do maintenance on it as well.

You shouldn't have violated antitrust law in the first place then.

But this is a reasonable thing to do. Anything beyond that is nonsense and desperate grasps from a failing company to survive by going through legal channels and whining.

What is this "failing company" you are referring to? Surely it isn't the small Norwegian browser vendor which doubled its profits last quarter, has increased its desktop revenue by more than 100% several quarters in a row, dominates the mobile browser market, and has a large pile of cash available?

The hypocrisy here is rather amazing. Apparently it's OK for Google and Mozilla to "whine", but Opera shouldn't even answer questions from journalists on the antitrust case! Is that the smell of racism and bigotry?

Heck, where were you staunch Microsoft defenders back when Microsoft filed antitrust complaints against Google? I guess it was OK to do that back then since it was Microsoft, and Microsoft can do no wrong?

should the EU have the right to tell a company how to proceed to remedy an anti-competitive situation or should the company have the right to submit to the EU possible remedies they might use. I say the latter.

That is exactly what happened. Microsoft first said they would remove IE. Now they returned with a browser ballot proposal.

Do you Microsoft defenders even pay attention to what's going on, or are facts unimportant?

[Antaris Veteran]

Who said that they do?

The thread starter has failed to explain where anyone wanted them to.

Will you calm down, this isn't a shouting match!

This conversation is far from the original topic. The original topic had stated that Opera wants access to the Windows Update site, not the Windows Update service. The topic deviated when a few (I was one of them) assumed that Opera wants to be updated via the WU platform. Others have defended that, and have since started that it is Microsoft's duty to provide access to said platform.

Wait, so you ARE really denying any wrongdoing on the part of Microsoft?

Are you denying that IE's inclusion in Windows gives it a huge advantage over other browsers, and that its dominance is a result of said bundling? Are you also denying that Microsoft has been willfully violating standards, even going so far as to sabotage standards?

Standards are not upheld by law, there is no such thing as violating standards. You can deviate, you can choose not to implement, but you don't violate.

[Eice]

Wait, so you ARE really denying any wrongdoing on the part of Microsoft?

Are you denying that IE's inclusion in Windows gives it a huge advantage over other browsers, and that its dominance is a result of said bundling? Are you also denying that Microsoft has been willfully violating standards, even going so far as to sabotage standards?

I'm just holding to the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Which court has decided that violating/sabotaging standards is a crime, and that Microsoft is guilty of it?

Sadly, this simple bit of common sense seems to be beyond the grasp of the Opera shills in their desperate quest to lie and demonize Microsoft so as to excuse Opera's whining.

You are the one lying here. I have explained to you several times by now that I never claimed that the ruling had taken place in this case. I clearly explained to you that when I refer to Microsoft as "guilty" it is because that is what I see as the only likely outcome.

In other words, you're playing prosecutor, judge and jury?

In other words, your opinion that Microsoft is guilty is simply something you pulled out of your arse, instead of being verified by any legal verdict?

While you're most definitely welcome to your own cheap opinions, is there any reason why I or anyone else should take it as more than the utter joke it is? Are you someone of any position of legal knowledge and/or authority to pass judgment on this case? Will the true outcome of the case be dependent on your opinion?

No need to reply; we already know the answers.

[shakey]

You shouldn't have violated antitrust law in the first place then.

What is this "failing company" you are referring to? Surely it isn't the small Norwegian browser vendor which doubled its profits last quarter, has increased its desktop revenue by more than 100% several quarters in a row, dominates the mobile browser market, and has a large pile of cash available?

The hypocrisy here is rather amazing. Apparently it's OK for Google and Mozilla to "whine", but Opera shouldn't even answer questions from journalists on the antitrust case! Is that the smell of racism and bigotry?

Heck, where were you staunch Microsoft defenders back when Microsoft filed antitrust complaints against Google? I guess it was OK to do that back then since it was Microsoft, and Microsoft can do no wrong?

That is exactly what happened. Microsoft first said they would remove IE. Now they returned with a browser ballot proposal.

Do you Microsoft defenders even pay attention to what's going on, or are facts unimportant?

First off, who the hell would have ever guessed bundling your own software with your own OS was breaking anti trust laws.........? and calm down really. If I was as angry as you were, I would get myself checked out, this is about a company and their browser.

2nd, lets talk about hypocracy. What do you think about apple bundling safari? Just because they don't have the market share doesn't make a difference. It is the exact same thing. If microsoft has to have a ballot and can not bundle their own, neither should apple or anyone else.

3rd, No one is defending MS persay, but more of the stupid ruling of " you can't put your own stuff on your own stuff, but you do have to put others stuff on it." This would not fly in any other industry. Should McD's sell burger king frys and wendys shakes? Should toyota sell GM cars or put GM parts in their cars because GM isn't selling as much? Should sprint start selling verizon phone plans to help them gain a market? NO..... its ludicris to think such a thing. If anything, that is communism at its worst, making others work for someone elses product, in which the person doing all the work wont receive a single benefit from it.

Ralphie, I would have to take it your not much of a business man. Rules are not always right. Courts are sure as hell not always right. The last 2 statements are facts, not opinions, while the first one was an assumption.

[petrossa]

First off, who the hell would have ever guessed bundling your own software with your own OS was breaking anti trust laws.........??

2nd, lets talk about hypocracy. What do you think about apple bundling safari? Just because they don't have the market share doesn't make a difference. It is the exact same thing. If microsoft has to have a ballot and can not bundle their own, neither should apple or anyone else.

3rd, No one is defending MS persay, but more of the stupid ruling of " you can't put your own stuff on your own stuff, but you do have to put others stuff on it." This would not fly in any other industry. Should McD's sell burger king frys and wendys shakes? Should toyota sell GM cars or put GM parts in their cars because GM isn't selling as much? Should sprint start selling verizon phone plans to help them gain a market? NO..... its ludicris to think such a thing. If anything, that is communism at its worst, making others work for someone elses product, in which the person doing all the work wont receive a single benefit from it.

To your first point:

Try that with a cop when you get a speeding ticket. If you do business you have to know the laws that apply to the market you enter.

your second point:

Yes it does make a difference because that's what the law says. If you have a 30% plus marketshare you are automatically by law a market dominator and all anti-competition laws apply to you.

As soon as Apple reaches 30%plus Microsoft can lodge a complaint with the EU against Apple for anti-competitive behavior.

your 3rd point:

The EU ruled that MS is in contravention of the anti-competition laws by bundling IE. It told MS to find a solution. MS came up with 7E as solution. The EU said that's not a solution we accept, come with another. MS proposes the ballotbox, the EU looks favorable on it and therefore asks the parties concerned to review the solution and give their opinion.

And about EU and communism: EU is rightwing