Comments on: Opera lashes out over Microsoft's browser removal
The software maker's move to strip Internet Explorer from Windows 7 in Europe will do nothing to restore competition, the Norwegian browser maker tells CNET News.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Beyond Binary
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.
Beyond Binary is a look at how technology is changing our lives and the people behind all that life-changing stuff, with an extra emphasis on that which emanates from Redmond, Wash.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Beyond Binary topics
Binary Bits
Follow Ina on Twitter (Twitter name: InaFried)
Is Mac OS X dominant like Windows? No? Then no, they don't have to stop bundling.
Is the iPhone dominant? Nope. Same.
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the basic facts of the case.
I believe you are the shill here. Only a shill would constantly try to assert his point constantly and brutally, using specific statistics about the company that only a shill or someone with an unhealthy obsession with a company would know.
Or maybe you have a large stake in Opera...?
You're fighting too hard over something that the normal, non-technically apt, computer user could probably care less about.
Isn't it about time that Opera stops using the governments to push their product onto everyone?
Opera is FREE OF CHARGE. Has been for everal years.
And no, Opera is not "the one pushing microsoft to add their browser to Windows". Both Google and Mozilla have joined the complaint as well.
Opera isn't using governments to push their product onto anyone. Opera reported Microsoft's crimes.
America has antitrust laws as well, and they are being used. In fact, Microsoft was busted for their browser nonsense 10 years ago in the US!
So no, antitrust/competition law is not a waste of time.
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
Microsoft is trying to dictate to you what you use.
The fact that Microsoft broke the law is not just a technicality, but a fact. And breaking the law must have consequences. Why should Microsoft be able to break the law without consequences?
No one is taking away your choice. You can still use your favorite browser IE if you want to. It just won't be forced on everyone else anymore.
Microsoft gamed the market by breaking the law, and thus undermined the free market. Antitrust laws are used to correct that.
Your first post was about how you don't have to deal with this in the US, but I pointed out that the US has antitrust laws as well.
# If things like anti trust laws start to drive the market, we are all
# losers because instead of forcing companies to create better
# products, we will be keeping crappy ones around.
Antitrust laws don't DRIVE the market. They are used to ensure that abusers are taken care of.
Funny how you contradict yourself, by the way. The web remained dormant for several years after IE became the dominant browser. They even disbanded their browser team! So the crappy IE6 was out for years, and nothing happened. The crappy browser was kept around.
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
then opera will make an app store and file antitrust complaints that Windows uses Microsoft app store and not Opera's. where does it end, an EU run app store? EU run app store, did you just jizz in your pants when you read that?
You will have to show that Microsoft has broken the law in all those cases. I doubt that you can show this for Notepad, for instance. Notepad doesn't produce proprietary text files. Its text files are perfectly readable in other text editors. It is interoperable with other editors. IE, on the other hand, is full of proprietary technologies, and causes lock-in.
IE forces developers to create sites using prorietary IE technologies because IE is the dominant browser, and doesn't follow open standards. Developers have no choice but to code for IE's proprietary technologies, meaning that other browsers are locked out.
An antitrust laws (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.
Please identify the proprietary technologies that web developers are FORCED to use? I for one, in my 12 years of web design experience, have never once used any code or web technology that was specifically created by Microsoft.
Seriously, can you reply to a comment without reiterating the same information over and over again and without attaching a personal insult?
Why should people be allowed to repeat the same old lies over and over, but I can't respond to them and set things straight?
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
That's hilarious dude! YOU repeating the same tired anti-MS rhetoric ad-infinitum doesn't make it true.
Chill. Peace out.
Actually, the EU has already kicked Microsoft's ass with the Windows Media Player case. They forced Microsoft to open APIs and such to third parties. When Microsoft tried to stall, they were smacked with huge fines. The fines continued until Microsoft obeyed the law.
So if anyone is suffering from Microsoft's pathetic attempts at getting away from the law, it's Microsoft.
Today, a browser is a utility - those who care to choose alternatives probably have - but selling an OS without one is ridiculous.
The issue today is standards. What we need is for all browsers to support W3C standards so web developers don't have to constantly account for differences between them. Then we'll really have a choice.
Selling a CPU without an OS is ridiculous. You need a CPU to use an OS after all. Should the CPU be bundled with the OS? If Microsoft released their own CPU tomorrow and required PC makers to buy the OS/CPU bundle, would you support that? Remember, an OS doesn't work without a CPU. And the PC makers can always throw away the MS CPU and buy one from Intel and AMD (but without Windows).
Yes, the issue is standards, and Microsoft has abused its dominance to undermine standards.
Indeed, they went after Intel. Just like they go after anyone who breaks the law. That includes many European countries. But I have come to realize that you don't think the law matters.
Dell? How are they relevant? Does Dell have a monopoly?
Is Opera/Mozilla losing money because they've been refused by computer manufacturers? Are these browser builders trying to charge money to computer manufacturers for the privilege of installing their browser?
That must be it. Right?
So, then, if I offer something for free as a part of my long-dominant product...and that something is being sold by CompanyB? Even though I've offerred that freebie as a part of that product YEARS before CompanyB started selling it...it's my problem?
Help me understand, maybe I've got it wrong? Maybe M'Soft stole a patent or something, but that doesn't explain the "anti-trust" moniker?
If you don't understand antitrust law, why don't you read up on it?
Microsoft broke the law by abusing their dominant position in one market (OSes) to undermine competition in a different market (the browser market).
If you make your search engine the home page, that is extremely valuable.
By having IE bundled on every PC, it gives Microsoft an extremely unfair advantage.
Having multiple browsers gives choice and people will choose the browser/s they like best. When they are not given a choice, they tend to use the default.
People generally use the bundled product because they are lazy or don't know any better. Why does this even need to be explained? That is akin to giving the browser market to one company.
The only reason Firefox, Safari, and Chrome make gains at all is because they are way ahead of IE as far as performance and innovation.
In a fair market, IE would be the browser less used, because it is an inferior product. This shows the true power of bundling and it should be (and is) illegal in the US and EU.
What is the problem with what the EU wants?
Customers get a choice that way, rather than Microsoft making huge gains by being the default.
There should be an option in the installation that asks what browser you want. At this stage it could be downloaded or installed from a disk or installed from the OS disk itself.
Number 1. Microsoft WIndows is the giant because of its functionality. As you continue to strip its functionality, what is the next step on this slippery slope? Software makers are just propagating this monopoly! Next, software makers cannot sell an app in the EU until they have written an equal app for Mac and Linux! When the government artificially F's with competition by crippling a good product, we lose.
At what point is a company, Apple for example, growing in market share so rapidly it decides "You know what, people really love our Operating System. It has been so popular. We really need to stop including so many helpful applications that make peoples experience with our software better." Is this the busines plan of the future?
Speaking of business plan.. That leads me to Number 2.
Did Google whine its way to the undisputed king of search engines? Did it ask the EU to put its search bar right next to MSN/Live/Bing's search bar? Or did they just work at being the best? If Opera can make a profit on the desktop market, good. But don't complain because you can't install your software over your competitor's (especially on their own OS). Just focus on being the best.
PS: Chrome and Firefox too. Its all free, if people wanted to not use IE, they could. becuase its free.
PPS: Opera being the king of mobile browsing?? Safari (when you factor the Ipod Touch and Iphone) is weeeeeell in the lead. *gasp!* The iphone should come with every mobile browser!
http://fortuneapple20.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/operaleadingiphone.png?w=454&h=267
Yes, if you become dominant in a market you have to be extra careful because your actions could have huge ramifications. So if Apple becomes dominant, they too will have to be careful about not breaking the law.
Google and Mozilla joined the complaint as well, so it's not just Opera.
the iPhone is not in the lead. Nokia sells a lot more handsets than Apple.
Plings states that EU is MS' biggest market. Totally untrue, in users, revenue, and profitability. Yes, EU is a big market, but not the biggest for MS. Nor is it a high-growth market. But market size isn't even the issue here.
The core issue is whether the browser market is separate and distinct from the OS market. Clearly, you can install as many browsers as you want on most any OS -- all are FREE. But having any OS without a browser is a waste. Companies like Opera often say that the browser market is separate and distinct because 3rd parties make competitive versions to what comes in the OS. But this is a pretty loose definition. 3rd parties also make disk defrag tools -- so should OS makers not be able to build defrag code into their products (Windows/Mac do)? What about desktop search for local files? All OS' include this functionality, even though Google (and others) offer 3rd party tools. So should MS drop this functionality? You can download aftermarket calculators, text editors, photo manipulation and management software, desktop themes, VPN clients, power management tools, firewalls, anti-spyware, anti-virus and just about anything else. So should Windows no longer include any functionality that any other company makes available aftermarket?
It's unclear just how far the EU will go (or should go) in this quest to kill Windows. I use Mac, Linux and Windows, all depending on what I'm doing. I like elements of all of them, and I personally don't want to see any of them crippled in the way tha the EU is seeking.
And as for Opera's true goal, getting free distribution from the dominant player: Get real guys. This was transparent from Day 1. You aren't seeking open competition. You're only seeking free distribution. There is nothing inherent in competition law that ensures equal market access to any and all players regardless of size, product performance, or desire. Whether you like it or not, there is clearly competition among different browsers. This can be plainly seen by the market share, news coverage, and general interest in Firefox, Safari, Chrome and IE. Just because Opera doesn't have a seat at the Big Boys table doesn't mean that there isn't competition.
The only thing I'm figting for is to set the record straight. Your trolling against Opera notwithstanding, there is value in correcting misconceptions.
The browser market existed before Microsoft destroyed it.
It doesn't matter if browsers are free. Several companies are making money from them. Just like Google is making money from its free search service.
Whether Microsoft should drop other functionality or not is not relevant here. What's relevant is that Microsoft broke the law. Also, the browser is in a special position due to its importance in today's global communication.
Opera's true goal is to get actual competition in the market, but this is irrelevant. The only relevant fact here is that Microsoft broke the law. Your trolling against Opera does not change this fact.
No, since Opera is not made by Nokia.
I wonder, how do you feel about Google? DeBeers? Baseball?
Indeed, monopolies are not illegal, but they do have to abide by "special rules" because they have a lot of power.
There is more to competition law than price fixing, dear child. I suggest you educate yourself.
If Opera wants a spot EARN IT!. Just because Microsoft is the largest OS provider, that doesn't mean that have to provide you with other person/persons junk software to use on it..
Do your own work, don't try and make Microsoft do it for you.
I would rather go without a browser than use Operacrap!
Breaking the law has consequences.
Microsoft undermined competition in the browser market by abusing bundling and their dominant position in the OS market. This is illegal.
To those still on the kick that MSFT broke the law - BS - they competed hard as does most any other firm. Get over it. If you hate MSFT so much - don't buy their products - period. There is always linux and the wonderful, yet expensive Apple alternatives.
Opera is pointing out that this move by Microsoft is not sufficient to correct the damage Microsoft has done to the market.
Microsoft did break the law. It is illegal to abuse one's dominant position in one market (OSes) to prevent competition in a different market (browsers).
nobody is preventing competition. microsoft doesn't block you from installing other browsers, is not engaging in predatory pricing, isn't blocking windows from resolving opera.com ...
the EU is getting what deserves. if it wants to be a pain, it will get a (fully legal) incomplete OS
this is Windows Edition N all over again
The EU is getting what it deserves? What is it getting exactly, and why would it be getting it for enforcing its own laws? The EU has yet to make a judgement. For all we know, they may require Windows to come bundled with multiple browsers.
Summary: Microsoft may very well have broken the law. By removing IE from Windows, they are certainly no longer breaking that law. Microsoft should not be required to supply Opera with free advertising. Look at Chrome as an example of a browser that has made its own way without the litigious sillyness.
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
It's interesting that you should mention Chrome. Despite massive advertising all over the web by Google, Chrome has failed to even make a dent in Firefox's dominance as an alternative browser. Heck, it can't even get a higher market share than a tiny browser maker in Norway:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-daily-20080701-20090611-bar
Google is the most powerful advertising company in the world, has been pushing Chrome like mad, and yet it has hardly achieved anything! This goes to show just how poorly the browser market is doing.
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."
Non technically apt users do not do research... This is why computer scientists like myself have to consider the average user as "stupid" when we create programs.
So my opinion is - make a good browser, promote it well, and stop whining. Of course if you don't have a good product nobody would use it. Learn from Google Chrome - it just came out less than a year ago and already has a larger share than Opera, which existed for years.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-daily-20080701-20090611-bar
It has nearly 10% market share in Europe.
And you are correct that awareness about alternative browsers would be a good thing for Opera. But not just for Opera, for ALL other browsers.
Chrome does not have a higher market share than Opera. Look at the StatCounter numbers, which are the most accurate out there.
It's actually interesting that you should mention Chrome. Despite massive advertising all over the web by Google, Chrome has failed to even make a dent in Firefox's dominance as an alternative browser. Heck, it can't even get a higher market share than a tiny browser maker in Norway.
Google is the most powerful advertising company in the world, has been pushing Chrome like mad, and yet it has hardly achieved anything!
This goes to show just how poorly the browser market is doing.
And second, the progress that Chrome has had all this time is amazing. Give it some more time, and it will eventually overcome Safari at the very least.
http://tinyurl.com/netapplies
Example: Google reported 10 million users for Chrome, and Opera reported having 30 million users. And yet Net Applications managed to show Chrome as having a higher market share than Opera for that period?! That alone shows how useles Net Applications are.
@ArtyomRocks: The facts in the blog can all be verified. Follow the links. Are you denying the facts presented?
The stats at w3schools.com is only for that particular site, so a non-representative sample.
The one at mattcutts.com is also just for one single site. Non-representative.
StatCounter is completely independent, and is the most accurate stat provider.
Yes, Chrome has a smaller market share than firefox. But, its also been out for a much shorter period of time than any other browser, and, considering the degree to which the market is stagnant (i. e. most people don't go hunting for a new browser every couple months just for fun), the market share that chrome has garnered is impressive, and is certainly larger than Opera's. That was my only point.
Despite massive advertising all over the web by Google, Chrome has failed to even make a dent in Firefox's dominance as an alternative browser. Heck, it can't even get a higher market share than a tiny browser maker in Norway:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-daily-20080701-20090611-bar
Google is the most powerful advertising company in the world, has been pushing Chrome like mad, and yet it has hardly achieved anything! This goes to show just how poorly the browser market is doing.
And again, here's the deal about the case:
An antitrust laws (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.
Chrome has been aggressively pushed by the world's most powerful marketing company, Google, and yet has failed to make a dent. That goes to show just how broken the browser market is.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that Microsoft is breaking the law. That is not what I'm contesting. They broke the law and should be forced to do something about that, to somehow fix the problem. How does removing IE from windows NOT solve the problem? How are they still breaking the law AFTER IE is removed?
Opera has a higher market share than Chrome, plain and simple. Chrome, despite massive and aggressive advertising is still extremely low. I would have expected it to have overtaken Opera a long time ago with the amount of adversiting resources at Google's disposal, but nope. DIdn't happen.
Microsoft has already broken the law. So the question is if Microsoft's action will restore competition in the market place. I don't think so, and as you can see, others agree that this move is just a way by Microsoft to dodge the issue. It's up to the EC to decide, though.
2. Google and Firefox joined in, because they are the beneficiaries, and penalizing MS is beneficial to them. Not because of the law or anything, it is just an opportunity
3. Chrome is on the market much shorter than Opera, the low marketshare is understandable, but Opera's 3.51% share after 3.5 years is much less spectacular than Chrome's 2.88% in months (not that LONG time ago).
4. In my opinion, MS has no obligation to restore the competition, and after they take out the bundle, the market share for browser is not up to MS. Therefore, they did their part to allow competition. Also, I don't think it is fair for MS to carry the burden of offering broswer choice to the customer; even they broke the law
5. User base number is meaningless, i can download all top 5 browsers, and still only using IE exclusively
6. Opera and Plings, you two turn the whole world against you by pointing out the "fact" which is not making sense with anynone here.
Law is law, but law comes from a political system which is human from behind, which is totally subjective. Yes US had that browser war ten years ago, but users are still getting their windows bundled with IE; and with freedom to get their own choice of browser.
- by flatrock19 June 11, 2009 5:09 PM PDT
- Opera doesn't want in which they can compete on equal footing. They want the government to step in and force their product to be put in front on consumers. They want to force Microsoft to do their marketing for them because they have been unable to market their product even remotely effectively. Opera has been around for a very long time, and while other browsers have been making inroads, Opera still has no significant market share.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by plings June 11, 2009 5:13 PM PDT
- Actually, Opera has only been free of charge for about 3.5 years. Now it has 40 million users. And is the #3 browser globally:
- Like this
-
- by gggg sssss June 11, 2009 6:06 PM PDT
- @plings 3% is less than the dirt under my fingernail. What are you so excited about?
- Like this
-
- by plings June 12, 2009 4:38 AM PDT
- Opera is the dominant mobile browser, and it has more than 40 million desktop users. If Opera is a joke, then why do everyone keep stealing its features? Like popup blocking, searches, multiple pages inside the main window, etc.?
- Like this
-
Showing 2 of 5 pages (358 Comments)This suit should have been dismissed from the start because Opera isn't even competitive with non-Microsoft browsers.
PC vendors aren't going to load Opera because they don't want to support a handful of browsers on the systems they sell. It is in their best interest to provide what their customers want, but to keep things as simple as possible. That means that they leave low interest products to those who download them on their own. The exception to that are products who's companies pay to have their products preloaded which offsets support costs.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-daily-20080701-20090611-bar
Opera didn't sue anyone. They merely reported Microsoft's crimes to the authorities.