Opera lashes out over Microsoft's browser removal
The chief complainant in the European browser case against Microsoft says that the move to strip Internet Explorer out of Windows 7 in Europe is an insufficient step that won't lead to better competition in the browser market.
In an interview, Opera Chief Technology Officer Hakon Wium Lie said that with regulators threatening action, Microsoft was under pressure to do something, but said that its choice wasn't what Opera was looking for. Lie told CNET that Opera wants people to have access to more browsers, not fewer.
Hakon Wium Lie
(Credit: Opera)"I don't believe this is going to restore competition in the marketplace," he said.
Instead, Lie favors a proposal that the European regulators have been considering that would require users to be given a choice to download one or more browsers the first time they access the Internet.
"We would like to give users a genuine choice," Lie said. The remedy that the EC has been discussing, a so-called "must-carry" remedy, would be a better solution, he said.
Microsoft acknowledged in a blog posting that regulators could still force that to happen.
"Our decision to only offer IE separately from Windows 7 in Europe cannot, of course, preclude the possibility of alternative approaches emerging through Commission processes," Deputy General Counsel Dave Heiner said in the blog.
But Heinen said that Microsoft believes its move puts it in compliance with European law.
Audio
What a browser-less Windows 7 means
CNET News intern Mats Lewan talks to reporter
Ina Fried about the impact of a browser-less Win7
on the market and European consumers.
Download mp3 (2.89MB)
"We believe that this new approach, while not our first choice, is the best path forward given the ongoing legal case in Europe," he wrote. "It will address the 'bundling' claim while providing European consumers with access to the full range of Windows 7 benefits that will be available in the rest of the world."
For his part, Lie said it is a solution that won't fundamentally change anything, as was the case when the company issued a version of Windows in Europe with the Media Player removed.
"They are under pressure to do something and they come up with this thing, which is quite obviously not going to work," he said. "This is very similar to what the remedy was in the Media Player case. It was widely recognized that that was an insufficient remedy. It was too little too late."
By removing the browser, Microsoft won't make life any easier for Opera, which still needs to find a way to get its browser on to computers. It could theoretically now strike a deal with PC makers to get Opera included in place of Internet Explorer, but of Microsoft's rivals, only Google seems likely to have that kind of money. Lie said his company definitely does not.
"Certainly, we are in no financial situation to pay lots of money to have Opera distributed on new PCs," he said.
The situation is even more precarious for those upgrading existing machines to Windows 7. In that case they get a PC with no browser at all. Microsoft will make lots of CDs that will give users IE 8 if they want, but Opera and rivals have no easy way to get on those machines, short of following Microsoft's approach.
Lie also objected to the fact Microsoft is only making the move in Europe.
"It's Europe only," he said. "We're looking for more than that. We want the whole world to have better access to better browsers."
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
It comes with a browser and from my past experience it's basically the internet explorer.
a) TCP/IP connectivity
b) Access to port 53 (DNS)
c) Access to port 80 (www)
So, they can basically set a large screen to show big icons of browsers, ORDERED RANDOMLY per each user and ask user what to use for browsing on their OS.
I am not a developer and yet, I can do such thing in minutes, not something large as MS can't do.
No CDs etc. needed. It is not 1990s, it is just MS not getting it.
AOL CD's dont offer free web browsers.
Before making a comment think about what you are going to "try" to point out idiot.
Here's the deal:
An antitrust law (both in the EU and US) is a law against undermining the free market by abusing one's dominant position. You are not allowed to undermine the free market by leveraging your dominance in another market. Microsoft has been found to have such a dominant position in the operating system market, which means that they are forbidden from abusing that position to disrupt other markets, such as the brwoser market.
Even if you disagree with the law, you can't demand that Microsoft be above the law while it is being enforced against everyone else. Why should Microsoft be the only company which is not subject to these laws? Even if the laws are completely wrong, Microsoft should still follow them. That you disagree with a law is no excuse for not following it. It won't get you out of jail.
.
(Semi-OT: Antitrust laws ensure that all players in a market are pressured to make the best product possible. Microsoft is merely making the worst browser slightly less terrible, but it isn't as good as other browsers. If the laws aren't enforced we can't expect the quick improvement and innovation present in other market because of the lack of financial incentive. We're already behind where we should have been in the browser market. We need to make sure Microsoft is pressured like everyone else to make the best product possible, which means that when they do have the worst product, they won't have 60-70+% market share like today. What's keeping IE in the game is bundling. The game needs to be changed, not because IE has to fail, but because Microsoft needs the pressure to make a better browser.)
If you look at the statistics, you can see that MS does not dominate the browser market, all versions together only result in maybe 58% market share.
If Opera would create a browser truely magnificient people will use it as it happens with FireFox, but the fact is, nobody really cares about the tons of features a browser provides, all the end-user (the 1 Billion who actually make up the statistics) don't even care who creates the browser, the only thing they care about is that the can surf the web, get to their favorite web site and download their porn.
This anti-trust law has nothing to do with forcing anybody to make a better product or giving everybody a choice, people have a choice and they had a choice for the last 20 years. It is just that some people (Opera or other software writers) think that they have a good idea, build something and dream to get rich and when that doesn't work out they run to mummy (the government and consumer watch dogs orgs) and start crying about that nobody wants to use their product. Of couse they (software builders) start wyning to people who have not the slightes clue about what people really want so they (the government) makes up a law... classic play ground and elementry school tactics :-)
I am sorry I don't give one rats ass about this whole stupid debate, the fact is, I can just download any browser I want and use that. If you then say but you still have IE on your PC I say, so what, it is essential for the OS to be functional from a usability point of view. Say, 15 years ago MS decided not to build IE but just deliver an OS, what would have happend you think, maybe FireFox would have been born early or maybe Netscape actually new how to make a good browser and have made a deal with PC makers to preinstall their browser as a necessity to make the OS usefull because the real user (remember the 1 Billion ones) are not interested to hack around, download tarballs, compiles some obscure opensource code to then be able to browse, they look for out of the box convenience!
Maybe the only thing MS should do is to offer an uninstall option after you have installed the OS. But beside all that I said, the fact is that 58% of the 1 Billion users (or PC's) still use IE, not because IE is the only thing that will run on their OS but just because the real user just doesn't care and is happy with it and if they were not happy they would use something else.
And how is that Microsoft's problem?
Since the day that Mosaic came along, everybody has a had a free browser. There have been attempts to charge for browsers, but it does not work. It's not Microsoft's fault. They gave IE away for free and perhaps helped to perpetuate the free browser model, but they're not the ones who started the trend. And, if they did not do it, somebody else would. Just like an FTP client, a basic editing tool (e.g., notepad or "write"), a calculator, or other OS tools, a browser these days is a natural part of the OS.
Nobody in this world is disadvantaged by the fact that IE ships with Windows. As a very large percentage of the population has learned, it's quite simple to replace it with a different browser. I think not having IE installed is probably worse and I'm scratching my head over wondering why MS felt it necessary to remove IE. I think the antitrust crap is going a bit far when one has to single out a browser (when there are several free ones on the market) as some problem related to anti-trust laws.
Every distro of linux includes a browser (typically Firefox, but also elinks)
Apple OS X (Mac and iPhone) ship with Safari
And I bet if OS/2 were updated for today you best BET it would have one.
If you disagree, I want you to DEFINE what an OPERATING SYSTEM is.
You've posted roughly a dozen times in this article claiming that MS broke the law.
Repeating the same line ad-infinitum does not make it true!
First, antitrust law is full of grey areas. Economists themselves are not in agreement that antitrust law is required for the functioning of a free market. (for example, read this article by Milton Freidman himself: http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/friedman.html)
Second, given that antitrust law exists in the EU and MS has to play by those rules -- let's examine what those are. Well, they forbid a company with a monopoly from leveaging that monopoly in other markets. Now to prove a violation of that law here you need to prove a bunch of things:
1) MS has a monopoly in OSes (proven)
2) The browser market is a seperate market from the OS market (not proven - there is a credible argument that the browser is a required feature of a desktop/consumer OS)
3) MS leveraged their monopoly to dominate another market, in this case, the browser market (also not proven - IE's market share is lowest in Europe of all places. And given that a browser is a required feature of a consumer OS, the browser market is essentialy an 'aftermarket')
Third - MS has never prevented customers from installing and using the browser of their choice, and setting it as the default. MS has never prevented OEMs from installing the browser of their choice and setting it as the default. No artificial restrictions whatsoever. If customers were clamoring for a differnt browser, the OEMs can and will respond. If Opera wants a larger marketshare, they have to make a compelling business case to OEMs that they should preinstall Opera, why their customers will be happier as a result, etc. instead of whining that its too expensive for them to do that.
Fourth - what prevented the EU from looking into this around the time of the MS-Netscape battles? Or did the EU only just decide to start treating MS as their own personal ATM?
Lastly - the success of Firefox on the desktop, and Opera on mobiles proves that they do have the opportunity to compete.
@timber2005: They broke the law by abusing their dominant position in the OS market to destroy competition in the browser market. Linux and Mac OS are not dominant. Windows is. Why should Microsoft be allowed to control access to something as important as the WWW?
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
The classical computer science definition of an operating system has no bearing on the product you see in real life. Users demand features and convenience. Going by the classical definition, even a windowing API should not be included.
They paid the fine and made themselves not break the law anymore.
That's it, we're done.
Why must they now also promote a competing product? It's not their job to undo the damage done. Maybe some of that fine money can be spent by the EU to advertise Opera and Firefox.
Don't screw with Microsoft!
As a Mac user, I am fortunate to have a web browser, media player, etc. bundled with my Macs. I would absolutely hate to have to figure out what I need instead of it being included.
My message to those media giants -- leave Microsoft alone and let the industry run itself.
Microsoft broke the law. Why should Microsoft not have to face the consequences of breaking the law?
"Let the market place figure out"
It has failed, which is why antitrust law applies.
"I wish the EU would stop trying to regulate everything."
America has the exact same antitrust laws. In fact, Microsoft was taken to court there ten years ago over browsers!
[CNET editor's note: Personal attacks deleted.]
I honestly think they just have it out for Microsoft, punishing them for their success. There is room for competition as Google, Mozilla, Apple, Linux have proven.
Opera needs to print up some CDs, advertise and innovate if they want to compete. The EU commission needs to stop treating Microsoft like their personal ATM.
Giving consumers an "actual" choice? I was unaware that providing an OS with the browser, precluded consumers from making another choice. I did not know that M$ offered mind control along with it's OS. This isn't 2000 any more. If anyone out there thinks that M$ has a monopoly on the browser market, you are kidding yourself, or you just hate M$. Hey, I don't blame you if you hate M$, a lot of us do, but just be honest about it.
FireFox, IMHO, is the talk of the town along with Chrome. Now that Apple has FINALLY fixed Safari, many browser options are not only out there, but they are media darlings. I am sorry that Opera just has bad leadership/management/marketing/engineers that made them into the bottom feeder browser that it is. The key to this is Opera, not Apple, not Google, not Mozilla, brought this to the EU in the first place. It wasn't on behalf of the poor single-browser consumers that were unable to download another browser.
Annnnnd. By just repeating the law over and over and over again, doesn't mean anything. The focus of the article is who really wins in this. Not a 10 stepper on the Antitrust laws. A law is a law, currently and nothing else. Just stating the law as a end-all be-all does not allow for intelligent debate. Do you want to go over the history of laws in the world that were just plain stupid? You can start with this one.
"Markets do what markets do, correct themselves harshly and with contradiction. BUT that is WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO."
Last quarter, revenues from Opera's desktop browser increased more than 100%. Does that sound like a company in trouble?
@casual_observe: You clearly care about Opera since you spend all your time whining about it :D
Opera is doing extremely well, but if it died, where would all the other browsers steal their features from?
Don't be fooled by "Virtual Machines" , "boot camp" etc. IE is MS Windows 32/64 exclusive software with a carefully crafted set of bugs and incompatibilities that makes impossible to clone. It is part of Microsoft's conviction in monopoly case.
If you have time/bandwidth/space or better look for a Windows 7 default desktop. You will see gigantic "IE" icon right next to start menu. They really make their intention clear. Imagine an empty Apple OS X dock with just Safari on it, makes sense to you?
Opera and Mozilla are making money by sending searches to Google and other search engines.
So there's both money in it, and an incentive for Microsoft to break the law in order to protect Windows.
Do you think EU is run by pair of idiots who will really listen to a "no name" company?
You don't have to pay attention to Opera. The EC is taking care of this case, remember? Opera merely reported Microsoft's crimes to the authorities.
Opera has 40 million desktop users, which means that it has about a 3% market share globally. In Europe, its market share is approaching 10%.
Also, BOTH MOZILLA AND GOOGLE JOINED THE COMPLAINT AGAINST MICROSOFT.
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
"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."
"what we really want is our browser installed on all Windows 7 machines and we can be the portal to give consumers REAL choice."
"wait... what we really want is a browser that's not a browser that can be easily removed and installed with our browser."
"no, no, no.... we want a application that Microsoft will write for free which will install a browser... our browser is always on top of that choice because we lead the charge... "
"I mean.... we want all computers to just have Opera Browser installed and no Windows at all... we will take control of who gets what browser when we own the marketshare...."
"ahhh... I MEANT to say... USE OPERA NOW BECAUSE THE EU SAYS YOU CAN!"
Why don't you beg EU commission for money so you can distribute your browser with every PC. You don't want MS to ship their browser with their OS but you want them to help consumers to download your browser? geez!
Hint: CURL can be included and it can be directed to download browser of choice by user. Every single vendor has a central round-rubin fashion server that can handle that many downloads. Firefox even actually tested such thing and succeeded (remember FF3 release).
It is your OS VENDOR doing a small timer politician move, not Opera or EU. Stop acting like sheeps.
I'm not sure I really understand why Opera is crying foul, Mozilla was in the same boat a few years ago, and look at their market share now. Users can download Opera's browser as easily as any other offering.
Firefox is an anomaly, as Mozilla points out:
"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."
Opera particularly frustrated because they have had so many opportunities to really capture mind share but tripped themselves over so many times. Wasn't this the same Company that use to include ads in its browser, have trial and paid for version? And you wonder why people stuck with IE and Netscape. Now the market has gotten more crowded, Firefox is on a roll, Chrome is in the mix, Apple is getting a piece of the pie aggressively with Safari and Opera remains lost on the radar.
Opera, face it, you have an ugly icon and a browser nobody wants to use. Maybe you should ask Oprah the rights to her name and maybe it would have some hope of survival.
Opera is currently the dominant mobile browser. They basically own that market.
Firefox is irrelevant. An anomaly. As Mozilla points out:
Opera isn't trying to get money out of this. They never stood to make a single dime. Also, both Google and Mozilla have joined the complaint against Microsoft.
And Opera has 40 million desktop users, more than double what they had 2 years ago.
"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."
There are several browser companies out there, including Opera, Access and Mozila Corporation. There is big money in browsers.
Just asking...
Quite likely, 3 of the 4 available slots would be IE, FireFox & Chrome. However, the 4th could be Opera or Safari or any other browser, depending on negotiations with the PC makers.
This solution would at least prevent browser vendors with deep pockets (Microsoft, Google, Apple, ...) from "purchasing" 100% of the new PC installs. It would also gives future browser vendors a better shot at bringing their browser products into the mainstream.
They already do this for chipsets and graphics cards etc Perhaps, this will also give the EU commission a better feel for what their consumers want- the consumers that this silly piece of legislation is trying to protect
So IE is superior to Firefox and Chrome? Since you say that they would have to "settle" for them?
And Opera has lots of products and services as a matter of fact. It's the dominant mobile browser!
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
You also say Opera is making lots of money in previous posts. Yet you also claim they cannot afford large distribution deals. If you want to make money you need to invest in your distribution chain. They are trying to use litigation to get around it. You call others ignorant plings - you're the ignorant one here.
Opera isn't using litigation. What Opera did was the report a crime to the authorities. It did not sue Microsoft. Please stop spreadning nonsense.
Actually, it's 3% in 3.5 years. Opera was a specialized browser you had to pay for before that. Only 3.5 years ago did they actually aim for the mass-market.
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
EU may be Microsoft's biggest market but it has been their legal biggest pain in the rear of late. The way things look the EU wants to support its self by fines.
The US has nearly identical laws. In the EU it's called "competition law", and in the US "antitrust law".
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
Microsoft broke the law.
You must be a socialist.
SHUT UP already! youve been saying the same thing over and over again in all of these CNET posts. let some other poeple talk you loud mouthed jerk!
I'm saying the same thing over and over again because new Microsoft shills are constantly signing up to repeat the same fallacies over and over again.
Can you imagine a case similar to Microsoft?s being brought against BMW, Mercedes Benz or Ferrari?
Why is this situation any different?
If Opera can?t survive in a free market then perhaps Opera doesn?t need to exist at all.
Microsoft chose to break the law.
Your car analogy fails because the whole reason Microsoft got into this mess is that it abused its dominant position in one market (OSes) to prevent competition in another market (browsers). Good luck becoming the dominant car manufacturer in the world!
Opera is actually thriving. Their profits more than doubled last quarter. Massive growth all over the place.
Get a clue, kid.
So you are saying that IE is superior to Chrome and Firefox? If not, then why does it have a higher market share than both of them?