Opera Wants More From Microsoft

[seta-san]

it's Microsofts obligation to follow EU directives or suffer the consequences. If that's what makes the EU happy, they can either comply or stop selling in the single greatest PAYING market potential they have.

or to do what i've been advocating all the time. don't keep any sort of office in europe. have no european bank accounts and put the isos up for free and then sell europe the key's for the licence fee.

[petrossa]

or to do what i've been advocating all the time. don't keep any sort of office in europe. have no european bank accounts and put the isos up for free and then sell europe the key's for the licence fee.

:laugh: ?'selling keys' is selling, licence fees is selling services. If you market either goods or services in the EU's market you are still bound by the EU laws if you keep office there or not. If the EU fines you they can enforce payment in any WTO country.

[Mathiasdm]

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.

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.

10% in Europe? bull****. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_o...7_to_Present.29

Opera might be doing good in revenue, but that doesn't mean you need to lie about their market share. Oh, and since they do seem to be doing quite well in revenue, who cares about the market share part? :-)

---

It would be nice to have an update system for all applications on Windows, similar to the systems available on Linux. However, forcing it on Microsoft because it would make the browser market more fair? Seems like sonsense. All of the major browsers have autoupdate anyway.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Mathiasdm

[lamminium]

Secondly: If this is true someone needs to tell Opera to stop smoking funny herbs. They're being ridiculous.

That gave me a chuckle. lol

[Subject Delta]

Who said that they do?

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

I am an Opera user, in fact I love the browser, but please stop going so heavily on the offensive, you are tarring ordinary Opera users with a brush that makes us all look like a bunch of Anti-Microsoft zealots.

[aniv]

Somebody would need to pay me a lot of money to use Opera!!!! I can't stand it on my PC nor could I stand its buggy interface on my old Winmobile Phones. However what Opera is doing is part of their brand name;

Opera is an art form in which singers and musicians perform a dramatic work combining text (called a libretto) and musical score

I only use Firefox and IE 8 ( sometimes Chrome too).

Thanks.

[deuz]

god ****ing dammit, everytime i see this topic on homepage i keep reading 'oprah wants more from microsoft'...

like wtf...

[BajiRav]

So no one from the likes of petrossa, d_ralphie has commented on my post yet? If you want Microsoft to provide update service to their platform, you are in fact asking them bundle SCCM. Now what if EU investigate again in future for bundling SCCM and killing the market for products like OpenView?

So is your support for Opera this blind that you can't see what Opera asking is in fact illegal and criminal in your own words? :rolleyes:

Edited August 17, 2009 by dhan

[DDStriker]

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.

This started with a Lawsuit they seem to have won so are not putting in more request and technically yes they are "pushing more crap onto windows" that is microsoft product after all :laugh:

as for the Thread starter failing to produce any evidence various reference articles have been posted since that time and as far as sources go thats all we've ever really had to depend on in pretty much all news on the interwebs

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.

I will not apologize for you're poor comprehension skills (will also answer this further down)

WRONG.

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

no need for oversizing you're text use you're indoor voice

I can't see anywhere in my posts stating i said "Opera has authority" i did say they have an influence over the EU and are able to push their agenda they shouldn't be confused as being the same thing

No, this is not a lawsuit.

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

Alot of sources say antitrust lawsuit others say antitrust suit opera says complaint either way my point is still valid - they got the EU on their side and are trying to take advantage of it simple

http://www.pcworld.com/article/140528/oper..._microsoft.html

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Microsoft_R...suit_11788.html

http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2007/12/13/

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

yes enforcement was a poor choice of words, i'm not contradicting myself at all (btw its : laugh : )

Opera have made a complaint EU has listened to them Microsoft has suffered and offered a ballot

Opera sees opportunity and tries to request more

EU will probably listen or tell them to stfu

either microsoft gets screwed over because opera had a cry

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.

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.

fair enough, so according to statcounter in the past year chrome has risen to 1.97% opera is at 2.91% i'd say by the looks of things chrome is going to come out on top fairly quickly opera may be bigger but still its been out alot longer had much more time to exist anyway a null point

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.

No its very relevant, I also do web development for a living, its great to have optimizied code for various browsers but to know browsers are getting better (with some help from google compiling the js) it means we can eventually take advantage of that extra speed to get more done and be more creative i find it funny you of all people wouldn't see the benefit of this? being compatible doesn't mean you can't enjoy the advancements even if you can't fully utilize them without sacrificing older browsers

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

Yes,i will notice it on sites today. speak for yourself

if you think their is no advantage on javascript heavy sites then i really don't want to discuss this anymore with you as thats just pure insanity

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.

I'll rephrase

All of js has been improved i'm not basing my responses on SunSpider/V8 as i've never looked into them

i know sites will only benefit from the compiled code if theres a lot to be done on the clients side thats well rather computational yes a simple site won't have it but i'm talking complexed site where the entire thing is rendered with javascript (becoming less frequent but they do exist)

[petrossa]

?

Opera have made a complaint EU has listened to them Microsoft has suffered and offered a ballot

Opera sees opportunity and tries to request more

EU will probably listen or tell them to stfu

The Commission welcomes this proposal, and will now investigate its practical effectiveness in terms of ensuring genuine consumer choice.

Regulators have been investigating Microsoft since 2007, following two complaints - one by the makers of the Norwegian web browser Opera, and another from the industry group European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS), accusing Microsoft of unfairly obstructing the ability of rival applications to work on its operating systems.

The pack follows the leader

US browser maker Mozilla reacted to Microsoft's ballot screen proposal in somewhat the same way as Opera. "We're interested in seeing the specifics of the proposal that Microsoft is making and until that point it's hard to have a definitive reaction," said Mozilla CEO John Lilly in an email on Saturday. "It is, of course, a good development that Microsoft will make changes to allow users to choose their own default Web browser."

Lilly listed several questions, including some that remained unanswered in Microsoft's detailed proposal. "Who determines which browsers participate in the ballot," Lilly asked. According to Microsoft's proposal, either the top 5 or top 10 browsers, including IE -- it's unclear which number -- in the EU by usage share will be featured in the ballot screen, with the share determined by "a source commonly agreed between Microsoft and the European Commission."

Like Lie, Lilly had his wish list. "In addition to the ballot screen, we hope to see Microsoft adopt practices in the operating system so that once a user makes their browser choice, Windows doesn't subvert it in any way," he said. Earlier this year, the European Commission granted Mozilla's request to participate in the antitrust case as an "interested third party." It granted a similar request to Google, the maker of Chrome.

While the Commissionsolicits public comment> and considers this proposal, we are committed to ensuring that we are in full compliance with European law and our obligations under the 2007 Court of First Instance ruling.

Are we done now?

[SMELTN]

I disagree with Opera completely on this. I think they are just trying anything they can do to get attention.

Thanks for posting this though, because it made me go directly to control panel and uninstall Opera 10.

[d_ralphie]

So no one from the likes of petrossa, d_ralphie has commented on my post yet? If you want Microsoft to provide update service to their platform

Please produce evidence that Opera has asked Microsoft to offer Opera through Windows Update.

You post something that is a fabrication, and then wonder why no one has responded? Hilarious.

I disagree with Opera completely on this. I think they are just trying anything they can do to get attention.

Please produce evidence that Opera has asked Microsoft to offer Opera through Windows Update.

10% in Europe? bull****.

I said "quickly approacing 10%. But whatever. And XiTi is useless. StatCounter is much more reliable:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-eu-mont...0811-200906-bar

It would be nice to have an update system for all applications on Windows, similar to the systems available on Linux. However, forcing it on Microsoft because it would make the browser market more fair?

Please produce evidence that Opera has asked Microsoft to offer Opera through Windows Update.

[petrossa]

I disagree with Opera completely on this. I think they are just trying anything they can do to get attention.

Thanks for posting this though, because it made me go directly to control panel and uninstall Opera 10.

My pleasure, we aim to please. So don't go and install FireFox or Chrome now!?

[d_ralphie]

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.

Which court has decided that violating/sabotaging standards is a crime, and that Microsoft is guilty of it?

Both of you need to read what I wrote instead of assuming things.

My point is that Microsoft has always had a conscious strategy to compat interoperability on the web. I mentioned 2 quite recent examples of Microsoft consciously undermining open standards, e.g. ECMAScript 4 because it was a threat to Silverlight (see the Mozilla guy's comments in the links I gave you).

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.

Please stop trying to change the topic. I asked you some very simple questions, so please answer them instead of continuing with your personal attacks:

Are you 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?

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

Uh, no, I have no such authority. And why are you ignoring what I wrote once again? Here it is, since you clearly didn't get it the first 2 times:

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.

This is MY OPINION based on the facts of the case. To clarify YOU opinion I asked you a few questions above, which I hope you will FINALLY answer.

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?

You don't need a verdict to form your own opinion.

This is a forum. In a forum, you debate things. You can form all sorts of opinions on all sorts of things. Other people can then disagree and attempt to refute the arguments you are using to support your opinion.

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?

We already know that Microsoft has been convicted of anti-competitive practices several times and in several countries in the past. We can identify the same patterns in the latest antitrust case as we have witnessed with Microsoft's previous convictions. We can also observe that IE's inclusion in Windows, the dominant desktop OS, gives it a huge advantage, and that its dominance is a result of said bundling. We also know that Microsoft has a history of willfully violating standards, and even sabotaging them. This is but one example of their conscious strategy to prevent competition in the market, and such behavior is illegal.

[petrossa]

Both of you need to read what I wrote instead of assuming things.

We already know that Microsoft has been convicted of anti-competitive practices several times and in several countries in the past. We can identify the same patterns in the latest antitrust case as we have witnessed with Microsoft's previous convictions. We can also observe that IE's inclusion in Windows, the dominant desktop OS, gives it a huge advantage, and that its dominance is a result of said bundling. We also know that Microsoft has a history of willfully violating standards, and even sabotaging them. This is but one example of their conscious strategy to prevent competition in the market, and such behavior is illegal.

No, Microsoft has been convicted of impeding competition by abusing it's marketshare domination by BUNDLING?>software and thereby impeding competitive products to sell their goods.

Doesn't matterwhat> it bundled, it mattersthat >MS bundled software for which there were existing competitive products.

So as IE is also bundled it was a sitting duck waiting for someone brave enough to shoot it. The offense was already committed, IE is bundled and itis> anti-competitive.

There's no recourse here, no appeal. It's a done deal. This is not a court case, this is an infraction of EU trade laws because the EU committee charged with controlling adherence to the law says so.?

All MS can do is appeal to the height of the fines, or the severity of the measures taken.?

[d_ralphie]

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

It is, if it undermines competition in the market.

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.

That is exactly what it does. I suggest that you educate yourself before commeting. Dominant companies actually play by special rules because their actions have such a huge impact on the market. That's the LAW.

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.

Actually, it does fly in any other industry. But evidently some people want special rules just because it's Microsoft. For example, Coca Cola was convicted on antitrust charges, and was forced to offer competitor products in their fridges.

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?

Yes they should, if they are dominant, and illegally abuse their position to prevent competition. Like Microsoft did.

If anything, that is communism at its worst

On the contrary. What YOU are proposing is actually Anarchy. Because your argument basically seems to be that there should be no laws to protect the free market. But even hardcore Captalists realize that we need laws to protect the market from predatory practices.

making others work for someone elses product, in which the person doing all the work wont receive a single benefit from it.

The person "doing all the work" shouldn't have broken the law in the first place!

Rules are not always right.

That isn't really relevant. The law is there, and it needs to be followed. If you don't like it, get into politics and change it. Unfortunately you are going to have an uphill battle, since even Republicans support antitrusw laws.

And actually, even Microsoft fully supports antitrust laws. The company has filed antitrust complaints against other companies, after all :D

[d_ralphie]

This started with a Lawsuit they seem to have won

No, it was not a lawsuit. Opera didn't sue Microsoft.

Opera reported a crime. That is not a lawsuit. Opera did not file in any courts, it sent a note to the authorities.

so are not putting in more request and technically yes they are "pushing more crap onto windows" that is microsoft product after all :laugh:

Opera is in no position to "put in requests". Also, even if they were, they would not have been "pushing" anything since they do not have the authority to tell Microsoft what to do.

as for the Thread starter failing to produce any evidence various reference articles have been posted since that time and as far as sources go thats all we've ever really had to depend on in pretty much all news on the interwebs

And it's a blatant lie. Opera never asked to be part of Windows Update. They were talking about ACCESS TO WEBSITES, not automatic updates.

I can't see anywhere in my posts stating i said "Opera has authority" i did say they have an influence over the EU and are able to push their agenda they shouldn't be confused as being the same thing

No, you are wrong again. Opera has no influence over the EU. No more than Google and Mozilla. They are all involved as "interested third parties", and that's it.

Alot of sources say antitrust lawsuit others say antitrust suit opera says complaint either way my point is still valid - they got the EU on their side and are trying to take advantage of it simple

No, you are wrong again. It doesn't matter if ignorant people call it a "lawsuit". An antitrust complaint is not a lawsuit, by definition. Opera's lawyers are not meeting in court to battle Microsoft's lawyers. In fact, Opera's lawyers have nothing to do with the case.

And Opera did not get the EU on their side. Opera reported a crime to the EU, and the EU investigated. If you report a crime and the authorities decide to prosecute the criminal, it is not because they are taking your site, it's because they are enforcing the law.

Opera have made a complaint EU has listened to them Microsoft has suffered and offered a ballot

Opera sees opportunity and tries to request more

Wrong. Opera is in no position to request anything. What they are doing is to answer questions from journalists, and that's it.

either microsoft gets screwed over because opera had a cry

When did Opera "have a cry"? What did they say when they "had a cry", specifically?

opera may be bigger but still its been out alot longer

Actually, Opera has only been a completely free download for 3 or so years.

No its very relevant, I also do web development for a living, its great to have optimizied code for various browsers but to know browsers are getting better (with some help from google compiling the js) it means we can eventually take advantage of that extra speed to get more done and be more creative

Yes, but THIS HAS NO EFFECT ON TODAY'S SITES. It is something for the FUTURE.

Yes,i will notice it on sites today. speak for yourself

No, you will not. JavaScript is something like 10% of the total CPU time on even the heaviest JS sites today.

[SMELTN]

On the contrary. What YOU are proposing is actually Anarchy. Because your argument basically seems to be that there should be no laws to protect the free market. But even hardcore Captalists realize that we need laws to protect the market from predatory practices.

No what he is supporting is Survival of the Fittest, or Capitalism. What Microsoft has done is offer you a operating system with a browser. I know its against the law and that law sucks. Opera is trying to find any reason they can to get on Microsoft, which I understand, little dogs who can't compete on their own have to try and find a good loophole or "law" to help them do better because they can't do it on their own, I understand that.

I mean 90% of the products we purchase now, we have to purchase something else to make them work completely.. I get it..

[d_ralphie]

US browser maker Mozilla reacted to Microsoft's ballot screen proposal in somewhat the same way as Opera.

It's only bad if Opera does it!

:whistle:

No what he is supporting is Survival of the Fittest, or Capitalism.

You seem to be confusing Anarchy for Capitalism. Capitalism is not a system without laws. In fact, it's important with laws that protect the free market. Microsoft violated those laws.

I know its against the law and that law sucks.

Even Microsoft fully embraces European competition law, so your desire for Anarchy is sadly not supported by even the company you are trying to defend.

Opera is trying to find any reason they can to get on Microsoft

They don't have to. The EC is taking care of things, prosecuting Microsoft for their crimes. All Opera did was to report Microsoft's crimes.

little dogs who can't compete on their own have to try and find a good loophole or "law" to help them do better because they can't do it on their own, I understand that.

They don't need to find any loopholes. All they did was to report Microsoft's crimes. I realyze that Anarchists like yourself don't like laws, but hey, sucks to be you then! :D

And guess what, Mozilla and Google joined the compaint was well. But I guess it's only bad to report a crime if it's Opera!

[panicswitched]

opera needs to build a built in updater (firefox has it, ie redirects your home page when youre using a old ver when using ie) wtf should microsoft distribute and be LIABLE to send out updates for software that is not even theirs..

as long as ms uses a ballot screen who cares move on opera

[d_ralphie]

opera needs to build a built in updater (firefox has it, ie redirects your home page when youre using a old ver when using ie) wtf should microsoft distribute and be LIABLE to send out updates for software that is not even theirs..

as long as ms uses a ballot screen who cares move on opera

If you had actually bothered to read the thread before commenting you would have known that:

1: Opera never asked to be distributed through Windows Update. The thread starter is lying.

2: Opera 10 has automatic updates.

[DDStriker]

d_ralphie you need to calm down you're going to have a heart attack or something

again 3 years is 3x longer then chrome has been out the fact its been out longer makes its situation worse

opera feels its being out shined by IE and they don't want the ballot-box to show pictures why? is it to trick people into clicking opera? confuse the user so they don't know whats what and hopefully they'll pick their browser?

i mean look at their initial complaint mozilla is in the same field as opera yet they have a better market share about 10x greater what does opera have to say about that?

back on the old topic i still don't see why microsoft needs a ballot-box or why anyone would support it

the idea may be good but the eu shouldn't be forcing it down their throats

No, you are wrong again. It doesn't matter if ignorant people call it a "lawsuit". An antitrust complaint is not a lawsuit, by definition. Opera's lawyers are not meeting in court to battle Microsoft's lawyers. In fact, Opera's lawyers have nothing to do with the case.

What is your problem? I'm pointing out to you why "I was wrong" calling it a lawsuit and you're being a complete prick about it

[d_ralphie]

again 3 years is 3x longer then chrome has been out the fact its been out longer makes its situation worse

It does not. Actually, it's irrelevant, because Opera is swimming in cash, doubled its profits last quarter, and desktop revenue alone has been up more than 100% several quarters in a row now. Opera is doing well by any measure.

And the fact that it's still ahead of the world's most powerful online advertiser is quite amazing. It says a lot about how Microsoft has messed up the market when Google can't even put a dent in IE's dominance despite pushing it heavily all over the web.

opera feels its being out shined by IE and they don't want the ballot-box to show pictures why?

Please stop lying. All Opera said whas that the IE logo is what most people think of as the "internet", so it would have a huge advantage over the other browsers there.

i mean look at their initial complaint mozilla is in the same field as opera yet they have a better market share about 10x greater what does opera have to say about that?

How about we hear what Mozilla has to say instead?

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser."

In other words: Firefox is proof that the market is broken.

back on the old topic i still don't see why microsoft needs a ballot-box or why anyone would support it

the idea may be good but the eu shouldn't be forcing it down their throats

Microsoft needs a ballot box because they broke the law, and a ballot box is probably the best way to fix the market Microsoft destroyed. But if you have any other suggestions, go ahead and contact the EC about it!

[petrossa]

back on the old topic i still don't see why microsoft needs a ballot-box or why anyone would support it

the idea may be good but the eu shouldn't be forcing it down their throats

Microsoft offered the ballot box as solution to the EU's finding that they where anti-competitive.

The EU has welcomed it, but hasn't said yes yet. They probably will say yes, but they haven't forced MS to do anything except come up with a viable solution.

[Eric Veteran]

Please produce evidence that Opera has asked Microsoft to offer Opera through Windows Update.

You post something that is a fabrication, and then wonder why no one has responded? Hilarious.

Please produce evidence that Opera has asked Microsoft to offer Opera through Windows Update.

I said "quickly approacing 10%. But whatever. And XiTi is useless. StatCounter is much more reliable:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-eu-mont...0811-200906-bar

Please produce evidence that Opera has asked Microsoft to offer Opera through Windows Update.

Please read the thread before comment on things that have already been discussed diligently.

Page 2: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/11/op...indows_ie_apis/

...von Tetzchner noted that integration would be meaningless unless rival browsers also got equal access to online sites such as Windows Update and Microsoft Update for patches and fixes...