Comments on: Microsoft strikes back at Opera antitrust claims

Software giant denies abusing its market position and says it has no intention of unbundling IE and Windows.

[cary1]

If Opera is a better browser...

If Opera is a beter browser, it is going to win.

Opera has been around for ten years, but still have less than one percent share. Look at firefox on the other hand. It was released just a few years ago and now has almost 20% market share. What's the difference? There might be some minor differences between the two, but Firefox can't do anything that Opera can't do. Why is that Opera got left behind in the race?

[tashman]

Opera's Problem is just like Apple's

Opera would have more market share except in the beginning it had two versions, free with ads or non-free. So just like Apple 20 years ago their product was two expensive when compared to the competition, in others words EGO.

tim

[mababah]

You are missing the point

That you can install Firefox is irrelevant to the fact that Microsoft has abused its market power to prevent competition. To this day, there are MANY sites that require MSIE. That you can install Firefox doesn't mean that it will magically work on all these sites.

Mozilla has had billions of dollars and many years of support from the likes of Google, IBM and Sun.

AND YET MICROSOFT STILL HOLDS NEARLY 90% OF THE BROWSER MARKET.

AND YET MSIE IS STILL REQUIRED ON MANY SITES.

It doesn't matter if you make a better browser. Microsoft's market position and undermining of standards ensures that you will be FORCED to continue usine MSIE.

[gi0zgb]

Opera v IE

I agree, Opera is a better browser in many respects, and that whilst competing on a playing field that is anything but level!
All browsers are entitled to fair play and equal opportunity to win public support. As it stands that is not happening, and, despite hiding behind weasel words, Microsoft is exploiting the loopholes for unfair advantage and self interest.
It behoves the EU to make a watertight case against this behemoth and control its self evident contempt for fair competition.

[TheRealMegatronlives]

We all have standerds

Like the previous comment so eloquently put it ?bundling is not the issue.? Microsoft bundling IE with windows is no worst then automotive manufactures bundling audio systems with there cars. And just like you can change your factory issue sound system for something better you can also install another browser on your windows OS.

The real problem is Microsoft blatant disregard of the current web standards. Because Microsoft chooses to ?do its own thing? when it comes to IE combined with the fact that everyone have IE on there windows PC, I and other developer are forces the code for IE first and everyone else second. How many times have you seen a website with the words ?best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer? at the bottom of the page. The whole idea of having the internet conform to a browser and not the browse conforming to the internet is wrong in so many ways. Can you imagine Sony dictating the format broadcasters should send there TV signals in. The amount of productivity (aka money) lost by developers having the write all this cross browser code is ridicules. Opera would get more support if they drop the whole bundling thing and emphasize the real issue of Microsoft conforming to web standards.

[cary1]

I completely agree with this...

I think the growing share of Firefox will force Microsoft to be more standards compliant. Till then, I will code for IE first.. coz that brings me bread and butter

[gggg sssss]

Sony

I guess you have beed succesful in buying a SOny pictures movie on HD-DVD?

[The_Decider]

More MS shortsightedness

First of all this is an admission that MS knows it can not compete on a level playing field.

A large part of the security woes of MS has to do with the fact that IE, WMP, Messenger, OE are all part of the operating system. These are application level programs and do not belong in the OS level. If they were to properly disengage these programs from the OS, much of the security issues would vanish.

Of course, it wouldn't help them from the core OS being insecure, or the security nightmare of ActiveX, but it would be a good start.

[Orpeus]

Core OS

The core OS is very secure. Probably more secure than Unix.

The problem is that Microsoft pokes all sorts of holes through the security to make their network access (web, email, etc..) seem flashier.

[jschind]

They should sue Ubuntu next...

After all, the Opera browser works in Linux... and Ubuntu comes bundled with Firefox.

I am not an M$ fan, but come on... this is silly. The OS needs a browser...

[ethana2]

Firefox's goals include W3C compliance

IE has no such stated goals.

And Ubuntu is one distro of many, though it has an impressive share at present (I use it myself).
Windows distros? Well, that's basically piracy.

And with WINE progressing as fast as it is.. We won't need windows very much longer.

[wwwXpert]

For consumers or for Opera's top line

Opera Corporation filed the claim against Microsoft on behalf of consumers, but are they looking out for consumers? Data proves otherwise.

I'm in charge of global Web initiatives for a billion dollar consumer goods company with access to consumer data that reveals much about browser usage. According to server logs, Opera is used less than 0.5% compared to IE leading at 74% followed by Firefox at 18%. Consumers surveyed also reveal that most are unaware of Opera and those who are don't use it because it's not free.

Browsers should be free just as Linux is.

Instead of focusing on lawsuits against competitors, Opera should focus on brand marketing and changing its support-based revenue model. Opera should have learned from the many Linux distributions that went belly up a few years ago that shared a similar revenue model. So, is Opera looking out the for the consumers' best interest or just desparate to increase revenues because of a weak revenue model?

[wahoospa]

Comment from wwwXpert

Quote from wwwXpert: "I'm in charge of global Web initiatives for a billion dollar consumer goods company with access to consumer data that reveals much about browser usage."
Quote from wwwXpert: "Consumers surveyed also reveal that most are unaware of Opera and those who are don't use it because it's not free.
I cannot believe you are in this high position and say Opera is not free. The Opera Browser is free for all operating systems.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Good grief, sue the entire planet!

This claim has no teeth. But if they want to push it through, it has far reaching consequences:

Apple will be sued for iTunes which is included without your choice on every OS X installation.

Firefox is installed by default on most Linux distro's.

AMD/ATI can be sued because they use the Catalyst driver install package that includes drivers for graphic cards I don't have installed. They don't give you the option to pick out one driver only- you have to download the entire thing.

Chevrolet includes a GM engine in every vehicle they sell- they don't even give you the option of a Ford, Nissan, or Honda engine. Clearly that's a monopoly.

Opera- get a clue. It's called aftermarket for a reason. You didn't win the browser 'wars' and now are trying to get money through the courts. How about just putting out a good product, advertise it well and make it easy to obtain by consumers? Your money would be put to far better use in promoting your own product instead of wasting everyone's time with obsolete claims.

[mailhacker]

Well said

Well said Vegaman. I seriously believe that all this browser monopoly is a bit far fetched. I use Windows yet I use Firefox as my default browser. So there.

[mababah]

You are missing the point completely

Apple is not in a position where it has a monopoly to abuse, unlike Microsoft. The same goes for Firefox. and so on.

This is NOT a lawsuit. Opera will get NO MONEY from this at all.

Get a clue.

[wwwXpert]

Wasn't free

Opera wasn't free when I got it.

[morlamweb]

Not this BS again...

Didn't we fight this battle already? Sure, IE 6 is crap, but IE 7 is OK, and the latest Opera isn't that great (I've used it for 2 weeks, and most of my favorite websites, like Yahoo, were broken in Opera). No one is forced into using IE, unless a website doesn't work in a non-standard browser. And with firefox still gaining marketshare, how can anyone truly say that IE is still violating anti-trust laws? Yes, it's present by default in Windows OSs, but imagine the outcry if Windows DIDN'T come with a browser? It's the flipside of capitalism. If you do very well, like MS has with IE marketshare, you're damned if you do (include a browser, then you're changed with being a trust) and damned if you don't (include a browser, then you risk being behind the times).

Personally, I hope this suit is thrown out of court. Opera Software ASA would make better use of their money if they invested it in developing a REAL browser, not the ugly, slow, broken app that they have now.

[B.E2]

What are you talking about?

There are two reason why you don't see that IE is not standard compliant. First is because developer HAVE to fix these bugs or customers think that the website is not what is advertised. Secondly, your not a developer and as such don't see them.

[rapier1]

Does anyone else have a problem

Does anyone else have a problem with a governmental body
trying to impose web standards on anyone? Does anyone else
have the nagging suspicion that somehow, in someway, they'd
get it entirely wrong and end up making things worse?

For example, how will the standards be enforced? I'm more than
a little concerned that it will be overly broad and prevent any
level of innovation from being incorporated. People shouldn't
forget that when MS introduced XMLHTTP it wasn't part of any
standard. It eventually became part of the 'standard' but
eventually will become part of the standard (its still a working
draft document at this time). However, since MS introduced it
XMLHTTP has become the foundational technology behind AJAX
and the whole Web2.0 gestalt. Google would be in much
different shape without it to say the least.

As for those of you who can't believe MS had any thing to do
with something useful and innovative please see the special
thanks at the bottom of this page. http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/

Standards bodies move very slowly and their purpose isn't to
promote innovation but instead uniformity. This is a very
important and worthwhile undertaking but people will need to
think very carefully about how something like this would play
out.

[Orpeus]

Re: Does anyone else have a problem?

No one is suggesting a governmental body should create of maintain we standards. We already have organizations for that. Many of us have an ethical problem with a large corporation coming in and using it's wealth to subvert the existing standard process to ensure an unfair advantage.

[poindexteriii]

Um, here's a clue for you.

If you are not going to stick to a standard, make your "inovation" open source so everyone can freely see what the he## you are actually doing behind the scenes. MS IE is given away freely, so why not share the technology details?

M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y anyone?

[jelloburn]

I have a problem...

With a company touting innovation in web technology, but then
keeping it completely to themselves and their operating system.
The fact that Microsoft has completely sequestered IE to the
Windows platform and not allowed anybody else to utilize
ActiveX in their browsers speaks volumes.

I agree that completely sticking to standards isn't necessarily the
best road to innovation. However, look at Flash. That was a
technology that was introduced by a third party for multiple
platforms and has now become the de-facto standard for web
animation. People don't have problems with Flash content (for
the most part) and that is because it is readily available and easy
to install. If Microsoft followed this lead perhaps they wouldn't
be falling into this antitrust business. Microsoft might care
somewhat about innovation, but they also are incredibly closed.
They exercise their monopoly by keeping their browser tied to
Windows and making web technologies that only work with IE.
That is anti-competitive.

Apple early on allowed Quicktime technologies to be used in
Windows, as well as iTunes, iPod, Bonjour, and Safari. Microsoft
still doesn't allow compatibility between OS X and the Zune, an
updated IE, or even an updated Windows Media Player that can
properly play WMVs. Eventually this is all going to come back
and bite them. Hopefully sooner than later.

[B.E2]

This article is about standards compliants

This has nothing to do with weather IE is integerated within the OS. IT has to do with web-standards.

As I'm a web developer myself, I spend 10% of my time writing javascript that works on standards compliant browsers(i.e Firefox, Opera, Safari), and the other 90% fixing up all the bugs, Microsoft's incompatibly to conform to a standard.

The developers have to fix these bugs, as most uses, use the browser that come with windows (most uses barely can control a mouse let alone download, install, and configure a browser).

An example of a bug that IE has that has hindered the progress of the computer industry (i think anyway). PNG is a image format that allows alpha channel (transparency). However IE 6, does not support this part of the standard. There are javascript hacks that solve this problem.

If IE were to support the standards like everyone else, our browsing eperience would be much better as developers like me can spend more time adding more content to websites.

[poindexteriii]

To clairy the problem, read

As a Business Web Developer and a Network Security Tech, there are a number of concerns that hinge on the following.

"MS is rumored to be developing a version of IE that has a coding language that web sites can use but require the consumer to use the new IE to view/access it"

Problems:
1.) (time is money) web developers will have to spend a large amount of time creating alternate pages to be served up depending on the consumer browser not to mention if their customers/clients speak multiple languages.
2.) (Anti-trust) As more and more websites appear that use the new MS programming language exclusively, the browser choices will all but disappear.
3.) (Paranoia) As MS grabs an ever-larger piece of the browser pie, any security vulnerability will reach an unprecedented level of hazard to the online population with no imediate recourse, as IE is so integrated into Windows that it will not run without it.

This MS endeavor is not only foolish; it is monopolistic and SHOULD be addressed harshly.

[TheBoots]

Microsoft IE Browser

I recall IE was so behind in its adoptions and innovations
(something like 5 years?) and only after Firefox etc. started
gaining some traction in market share did MSFT push out IE 7. If
that is MSFT's interpretation of "benefiting" consumers, I would
loathe to have them go through another round when they recoup
95% of market share again. Then we will enter the dark ages yet
one more time. Bottom line, I just don't trust MSFT's line of
argument anymore and have stopped using ANY of their
products where possible because I always fear there is some
application lurking in their software that will peep, disable or
just crash my other third party applications that "compete: with
theirs.

[TomsterSr]

Opera the Inferior

I have used/tried Opera for several weeks now and it IS inferior to IE. Opera is only looking for an easy way to explain there inability to be competitive. If they can use the whiney EU antitrust body to help them, what do they have to loose. The EU is well know for attacking highly competitive American companies to try to slow them down so the behind the times Euro companies can try to catch up. The list is so long it is hard to believe. IBM, Intel? Anyone remember what Airbus started as and all the government help it received?look how that has damaged Boeings once 87% share of the market.

[jeaverage]

No matter how valid Opera sounds whiney...

I use Opera all the time, am using it now. If
Opera wants a fair shot they ought to promote
Linux and help the Linux cause. They brought out
a Linux compatible Opera (my favorite OS and
favorite browser for a vast number of reasons) a
couple of years ago.

Help the Linux gurus with bugs or help develop
Linux software (not available on Windows to
drive innovation) for education or business or
whatever - much like Google is doing with their
surplus horsepower and money.

Linux has thousands of programs already and the
only thing that separates the best of Linux
software from the average Linux software are a
few rough edges. Already is a good portion of
Linux software as good or better than
proprietary Windows equivalents.

Once upon a time I was strictly a Windows user
with Windows software. I was constantly fighting
the battles we all know well with viruses,
trojans, hackers, etc. After 1 particularly bad
round I decided I was going to make some big
changes. I tried Linux and never went back
(going on 6 years now).

In Linuxland Opera can be whatever they want to
be. They can help as much the "cause" as they
want help. Drive up the marketshare of Linux and
standards will be upheld b/c it will Microsoft
that is trying to catchup rather than the rest
of the world trying to catch up with MS's latest
curveball (corruption of international
standards).

Release Linux versions first and then a Windows
version later. Become a Linux browser first and
foremost.

[ruz555]

Users are migrating

Most users seem to be migrating to non-conventional freeware, which is freely integratable with their other data and globally accessible. This is seen in many PIM's and online operating systems like Goowy / Edeskonline.com / Google Apps etc.

Microsoft will lose out due to interoperability with other Information management tools and Opera will remain stagnant due to its whistle blowing techniques rather than focussing on improvements.

[irperez]

Unbundle? How would we download Opera?

Sorry Opera, I think your argument hurts customers more than it helps. The OS NEEDS a browser. If we had no browser initially installed we would have to go to Best Buy to get a browser! Thats so 90's! Cmon! Get Real! If you want your browser to have more market share, make a better product! Better than IE and better than FireFox.

[The_Decider]

The OS does not need a browser

You are confused by bundling and integration.

If IE didn't exist, then OEM's would ship their machines with something else.

That is not the issue. The issue is that IE is part of the OS. There is no technical reason for it, just a monopoly abuse reason.

[markdauvid]

ie

yes it is true ie is bundled with windows and i say so what. microsoft doesnt dictate what software we can istall or what browser we use. i have ie,opera,firefox,netscape,and,safari. i like safari but it has no configurable homepage. the same is true of opera and firefox. i like being able to configure a homepage. i agree completely with microsoft. as far as im concerned if microsoft wants to bundle software than bundle away. that just makes it easier for me when it comes to downloads and yes once again microsoft isnt there to prevent me from installing any software i want.

[Gunady]

IE is Too Important for Windows

If there's really no browser engine in OS, there'll be tons of application, either from Microsoft or other third party will not work. There are numbers of existing applications that use IE to render the interface. So, if Opera succeed with this, Microsoft and other third paty will get headache. The most Microsoft can do is just removing the shortcut to open IE.

The other idea that Opera ask to bundle all other major browser to OS will not benefit customer at all. If this one is approved, other type of application will follow. So, when you install Windows, there're tons of application installed. Or, when you install windows, you have to select tons of application.

Why does opera not look at Firefox? It is not bundled with Windows at all, but it can gain significant market share from IE.

[The_Decider]

No other OS

Requires that a web browser is part of the OS.

Why does Windows?

Hint: No technical reason exists.

[jdawgnoonan]

It is wrong

Microsoft has used IE for years to try to force everyone to need
Windows. With technologies like Active X (which fortunately is not
used nearly as much any more) Microsoft encouraged developers to
develop programs that would work on only one platform. IE has
always been the least standards compliant browser (and it still is).
Instead MS tried to set the standard through its market monopoly.
Fortunately, Firefox gained enough market share that this has
slipped in recent years for Microsoft.

[icache]

You don't get it

"Microsoft encouraged developers to
develop programs that would work on only one platform"

No, Microsoft gave us an opportunity to do new things that could only be done in their browser. Why, because other browsers were too lazy to catch up to the innovation.

Remember when Netscape ruled the world? Frames could only be done in Netscape, JavaScript was entirely proprietary (even carried a name -Java- borrowed from it's parent company's (Sun) off shoot). Netscape was so proprietary that Microsoft had to name their scripting "JScript". As for ActiveX, it was superior to Sun's Java but they both served the same purpose in browsers.

[whidbeyben]

Antitrust should focus on MS Server software

There is a clear-cut violation of antitrust laws in Microsoft's use
of code within MS server software that prohibits any other
browsers from accessing content. This is increasingly common
in enterprise software that requires users to access databases
with a browser. iSite Enterprise, which is software that allows
access to radiology studies remotely over the internet and
intranets, bars anything but the latest version of Internet
Explorer to access. Since MS no longer supports IE for Mac, it
has forced users to purchase Windows with IE to access this.
This is also true of software to access hospital medical records
systems. MS must be compelled by antitrust laws to open
access to these databases by alternate browsers.

[DrtyDogg]

Two things

iSite isn't even written by MS. Try complaining to Philips, the software creator.

Second any browser, or internet connected computer for that matter can access SQL server. The limitations you speak of are implemented by the software.

If you want the software on another OS, find it or write it.