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.

[SouthSideSmoker]

Thank you Microsoft

Thank you for giving me IE with Windows and a great web browsing experience for many years.

[pilaa]

Good Luck Getting Windows updates!

Ever try going to Microsoft's website to update Windows OS service packs? The first thing is tells you is your browser is not supported and requires you to download and install IE. Now if they (Microsoft) actually did adhere to web standards would antitrust really be an issue?? I think not!

[pololoco44]

IE

I have no trouble with IE on The Microsoft Operating System. It's no differnent then Apple having Safari or Linux having firefox built in their Operating Systems.

[pololoco44]

What is wrong with IE?

I honestly don't know what's wrong with IE it works fine. Too many people complain in this world about every little thing wasting money in the process. Why can't we all just get along?

[mocax]

They should sue Apple too

I absolutely abhor the inclusion of Safari into Mac OS X.

[Lee in San Diego]

How does that affect you?

n/t

[JadedGamer]

Not an issue

Safari is a standards compliant browser and thus not a target for Opera's real complaint (IE's non-standard quirks).

[neil schubert]

Internet Explorer Is a Virus

I have been an opera user since 2003. So far, Opera has NEVER allowed any spyware, trojans, malicious software, or anything else into my computer. It's better than firefox! It allowes the user to have full control of what is happening with their web browsing, and doesn't turn your computer into a two-way street to the internet.

If the user sets opera up, it rejects those malicious pieces of code, simply ignores those tricky scripts that try to confuse the user into clicking an unsuspecting box. You can't be fooled by a hidden window, or a window that is designed to pop up past the edge of your screen. There's no automatic install of anything.

Unlike Internet Explorer, Opera respects your privacy. It doesn't store userdata in 5 different places in your computer, and then only partially delete it if you tell it to delete it. It is self-contained, and stays in one place.

Internet Explorer leaves your computer vulnerable to the web, and allows anything running on your computer to talk out via a shell command. wininet.dll, url.dll, urlmon.dll, and mshtml.dll all allow your computer to be vulnerable to the web - just waiting for a hacker to hack in or OUT of your computer.

A web browser is NOT supposed to be an operating system component. Just like you can buy Nero or Roxio or CD Architect to burn a CD, you should be able to choose what you want to buy for a browser.Microsoft operating systems don't include Microsoft Office, or any other Microsoft product that they can sell separately. But they force you to have their web browser and media player, and their e-mail program. And, there's NO un-install.And in most cases if you choose to update these programs, there's no going back, or it lies to you when it does uninstall.

I did manually uninstall IE from my computer, as well media player and the ever-vulnerable outlook express. Yes, Vista is a little different. But I guess my question is, if I don't want the software on my computer, why should I have to take a few hours of my time to remove it? (that's what it usually takes because of not being able to uninstall).

I don't buy the argument that the user has a choice to set their default browser. Yes they have a choice of the default, but nobody asked me if I wanted IE on my computer to begin with. My default browser is NO default browser, I will open one up when I want to use the internet! (security 101 guys!)

As far as Windows Update goes, I guess I ask the same question I always ask - If I paid good money for defective software, why does it need an UPDATE? Why can't I simply go down to my local store and buy a CD containing updates for my PC? Why do I have to download it? Isn't a genuine Microsoft CD more trustworthy than any download?

Wink Wink....How does Microsoft KNOW that I need an update......Wink Wink......

[mknopp]

Two different, yet related issues

I read through some of the comments, and see a lot of people who seem to be missing the point of the case, at least what I see as being the very important point.

The problem is that Microsoft incorporates IE into every install of Windows by default. Therefore, it is placed in front of the majority of computer users by default. Yes, those that are savvy can download and install an alternative browser, and many do, but again this isn't really the issue.

The real problem is when you factor in the ubiquitous nature of IE with its history of non-standards compliance and the effects on everybody that this has. Issues like the box problem, and many many others that any web designer has to struggle with every time they make any web page just so it can be compatible with the standards and IE lead to millions if not billions of additional cost in web page design each year for companies that have nothing to do with this war of the browsers. Then factor in the additional strain on an already strained data backbone caused by Microsoft's refusal to adhere to standards and the damage that their drive to try and make the web proprietary becomes even more clear.

It doesn't seem that big of a deal to add 500 bytes to a webpage to make it work with noncompliance in browsers when it is looked at as a single page, but then consider that nearly every page on the internet has to have that 500 bytes and multiply that 500 bytes by the millions of pages served each day and you find millions of bytes of pipeline being taken up simply because one company didn't want to follow the standards.

This is not simply a free economy issue, this is not simply a browser war that doesn't really effect us because we have a choice. This is an issue which effects all of us in a negative way, and this is not something that the general public should have to put up with.

Someone earlier made an example of a car and how they are not standards compliant, but that is absolutely false. Sure there are parts that do not adhere to any type of standard, but there are standards on how tall and how wide a vehicle can be. Imagine if GM or Ford decided that they wanted to make a truck that was twice as wide as any current truck. This would allow more hauling capacity and give them an advantage over their competitors. Well, they couldn't because that vehicle would be wider then the standard vehicle lane on roads and highways and would thus be a detriment to others.

Yeah, Microsoft's past practice of not being standards compliant is not as dangerous, in a life or death sense, as the above example, but it does have negative repercussions on the general public, and that is one of the few times that I feel the government should get involved in the free market. Sure, let the major browser designers duke it out to see who is the best, heck even let MS bundle IE with Windows, I don't care.

However, just as we don't let manufacturing companies design cheaper, but detrimental, products in the name of competition we cannot let MS (or any other browser designer) flagrantly ignore web standards, because in doing so they have a detrimental effect on all people who use the web and that is not acceptable in the name of free market competition.

Finally, to be completely fair every browser has some little issues with strict compliance, and really question is if this is still a valid argument with the release of IE7. IE6 was atrocious in web standards compliance, simply look at the shear number of hacks develop just to deal with the non-compliance of IE6 to see the problem. Yet, my experience in designing for IE7 has been much better. So the question is if MS should be punished for their past actions to set a precedent for future browser development.

Oh, and to whomever said that standards are a joke because of all the add-ons that are supported, but are not in the standards, you are mistaken in your conclusion. The issue is not really when a company adds onto the standards with some proprietary add-on. That might or might not catch on and then later be added to the standards, that is called growth and has historically led to many of the current standards, many other add-ons have flopped. The problem occurs when a company violates an existing standard. I reference again the box problem with IE6. That is the problem, not add-ons to the standard.

[tad1073]

In that case...

In that case, M$ is forcing people to use Windows. When you buy a new computer it is either Windows or whatever Apple's OS is called. the only way you have a choice with OS's is if you partition your HD and add the OS of your choice or build your own computer.

[ppapageorgiou]

Cart, horse

This argument that Microsoft is using its monopoly in operating
systems to corner the market of web browsers is silly. There is
no market for web browsers beyond a few niche products like
opera, or an OEM market for browsers in phones and the like. To
suggest that Microsoft cares, strategically, to invade this market
is like accusing GM of using its power in the car market to
promote some brand of car stereo. As magnitudes go, the
argument is backwards.

Microsoft is, of course, using its power in the operating systems
market to consolidate its power in the operating systems
market. In this, web browsers are relevant, but they are relevant
as chess pieces are to winning the match. Microsoft, like Apple
and the Linux community, aims to offer the most compelling
and well-rounded operating system platform, and to gain the
greatest possible share of users. Operating systems have long
evolved past basic mechanisms to operate the computer and
nowadays compete on user-level features such as web
browsing, email, personal information management, support for
consumer gadgets, support for games, security, etc. All the
major providers bundle their signature web browser into their
platform, as a means to differentiate the platform and make it
more desirable overall. From any credible point of view
representing the user, operating systems come with web
browsers and people who want to sell browsers are so 1990s.

A more subtle argument against Microsoft may be worth
making, but it has to be an argument about operating systems.
For example one could argue that including a windows-specific
technology such as Active-X in internet explorer promotes the
creation of Windows-specific web content that Mac and Linux
users cannot access. In this way Microsoft is using its power in
operating systems to influence the new domain of the web, but
in order to consolidate its position in operating systems, not to
sell web browsers!

[misterpinball]

Fault?

The Opera complaint is not about programing websites or being able to add a web browser. Microsoft IE is integrated into Windows itself. Rightly or wrongly, the EU has already ruled against such bundling. Whether or not that feature of Windows is a "fault," it is Microsoft's own doing.

[mariusthull]

Standards Compliant.

I've never understood why IE wasn't 100% standard compliant. MS creates Os'es, office suites and languages. To me creating a standards compliant browser should be child's play.

While I support the idea behind what Opera is trying to do they really shouldn't be throwing stones. I don't think any modern browser is 100% standards compliant.