Opera files antitrust complaint against Microsoft
63 CommentsPublished December 13th, 2007 8:55 AM EST By Daniel Goldman
Yesterday, Opera filed a complaint with the European Commission to force Microsoft to make significant changes to Internet Explorer.
As you know, Opera strongly believes in open Web standards and that Web users should have a genuine choice in how they access and use the Internet. In addition, we believe that Web developers should be allowed to unleash their creativity and code for the Web rather than individual platforms or browsers.
The Web is developing faster now than ever before. We hope this innovation will continue, unimpeded, but unfortunately we find ourselves in the position of having to champion this cause against forces who would rather control the Web than see it reach its potential.
We have taken a stand.
We have requested the European Commission do two things:
- Obligate Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows and/or carry alternative browsers pre-installed on the desktop.
- Require Microsoft to follow fundamental and open Web standards.
If you’re a Web developer, you surely know about Internet Explorer’s limitations and bugs with its implementation of Web technologies (XHTML, CSS, and DOM). The fact is that with a market share of around 80%, developers end up being forced to code their sites to Internet Explorer’s limitations and bugs.
For the past 11 years, Microsoft has used its dominant market position to control genuine consumer choice and created roadblocks in Web innovation. By tying its Internet Explorer browser to Windows, Microsoft has forced developers to choose proprietary technologies over open Web standards.
The Web has become essential to our everyday lives. We can’t let one company, Microsoft, control its innovation. This is a fight to protect the Web’s future.
I hope that as developers and Web users you will all show support for this cause. This is not Opera vs. Microsoft, but rather the continued innovation of the Web vs. Microsoft.
We, as Web users, will greatly benefit when Microsoft will start supporting Web standards, something which the other major Web browsers (Firefox, Opera, and Safari) have been doing for quite some time already.
If you enjoyed this post, then make sure you subscribe to my RSS Feed.
using
Good for you! Good luck!
But why do you think the EU can force MS to do those things? Where’s the laws stating they have to play nice on the web?
using
Very interesting development. I think a question a lot of people have is “why now?”
I can see how it makes sense after the success in the Media Player ruling, but that was already some time ago. And since no IE8 features have been announced yet, how does Opera know how good its standards support will be? Do you guys know something others don’t?
And yes, I realize the severe unlikelyhood that IE8 will solve all standards issues, but it would have made more sense to me to wait a few more months to confirm that.
using
Take that microsoft. I dugg that article.
using
Fantastic — I’m looking forward to Microsoft’s response to this!
using
Can we take a look at the complaint?
It can be reasonably argued that Windows needs a HTML rendering application for various OS parts (file explorer, help, system update, etc). That’s why there’s an “and/or” after “unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows”. It’s looking good, though.
What’s interesting to see is what “alternative browsers” is Opera proposing. Is MS really asked to support/keep them updated? If not, how are users without install rights supposed to keep the security bugs away?
I rather see it as forcing MS to include the Gecko/WebKit/Kestrel rendering and scripting engines inside IE. Opera will make them Kestrel/Peregrine available for embedding, right?
Open standards FTW.
using
I’m disappointed in this. My respect for Opera just dropped ten fold. This reaks of Opera wanting publicity and market share rather than an open web.
using
Hmm, must say I’m dubious about this.
Is 9.5 nearing full release perhaps? Is this jsut the start of the marketing for it?
And in just the last week Molly Holzschlag got Bill Gates to say he’d get on the IE teams backs about lack of IE8 info, and it looks like we are supposed to find out more about it in the next few months.
So as a previous commenter said, “why now?”. It does smell like a marketing ploy, rather than a serious attempt to hit MS.
I actually think it’s reasonable to bundle a browser with an OS anyway. It might be nice if there was some sort of choice, but moaning that an OS carries a fairly essential app these days is a bit off I think.
And what about Apple? they obviously bundle Safari… Though of course it’s not them with the market share….
And yes, IE6/7 are below par, and are a pain in the *** for web devs like myself. But moaning about it now, when they are meant to be on the way to building IE8, which should be a big improvement (IE7 was basically a quick fix to IE6 afterall). Surely the time to attack IE’s lack of support was some time ago?
I’ll see how it pans out, but I’m wondering if this will go any further than just trying to raise Opera’s profile a bit.
using
This one, I myself don’t agree with, nor do I think you will get. Perhaps if you had only request they be obligated to carry other browsers but the unbundling is a dumb thing to request.
Love it or hate it I want my OS to come with a browser and a media player, so I can get to what I want asap, therefore I see nothing wrong with including other competing software. This i would love to see apple and the various Linux Distros do too. An computer with no browser preinstalled is a most pointless affair.
Really? What for? Microsoft’s browser doesn’t follow accepted web standards, I use Opera, which adheres to web standards and still there are sites that wont work well. Perhaps opera should sue those web designers/developers also.
I know the idea is that if Microsoft adopts the standards then developers should follow suit, but that is flawed logic as we see now that some sites that don’t support IE are coding specifically for Firefox. Perhaps a lawsuit is in order for those people at Mozilla as well.
Google sites are notorious for producing incompatible code that is coded for IE and Firefox, you should file suit on them too. Banks and other sites that require activeX controls to function, sue them too.
What the current generation of browsers show is that more and more universally accessible content is more an issue than teh idiots and their non-compliant browser, whose only virtue is their ever dwindling majority share.
…
Besides i’m not comfortable with Opera becoming litigious, it seems like whining, and i don’t respect whiners at all.
…
FLAME ON!
using
Hate to see this,and dissapointed with opera:(
using
While I agree that some of the points above are valid, I think this a great move by Opera. We can’t just keep sitting back and let MS roll all over us. And then complain “poor us, MS doesn’t support standards.” We have to do something about it, and I think it’s fantastic that Opera is taking it to the next level. Even if they don’t “win”, this can only bring more publicity to the problems with Microsoft’s anticompetitive practices.
using
Good for Opera! It’s time Bill Gates & Co were dragged kicking and screaming into the real world!
using
Go Opera!
using
Good luck with the legal battle. Opera may win, but nothing will change. See previous antitrust decisions against Microsoft in Europe.
using
I agree that Microsoft should support web standards, but the second notion is crazy. Remove the Internet Explorer from Windows?
It’s been said above, but can you imagine buying a computer that came without a web browser? No offense, but people like my Gran don’t care whether it’s Opera, or Firefox, or Internet Explorer… they just want to buy a computer that lets them get to Google (or other search engine) out-of-the-box.
And, how come Apple gets away with putting Safari on the Mac… but Microsoft should be removing IE? Sue them too.
using
As for request # 2 : follow *standards*. European Commision has no jurisdiction to decide World Wide Web standards. So that request will be cicked out of *court* at arrival.
As for request # 1 b : preinstall alternative browser. That’s manufacturers choice, and not the responsibility of a OS supplier.
As for request # 1 a : stop bundling. Yes, agree, manufacturers should be free to offer any combination of OS and Browser, eg. sell desktops with Windows and Opera preinstalled… No reason to judge Media Player different than Browser ?
using
File a suit against Firefox too for not copying Opera! Screw Microsoft and I hate the way it controls the Operating System market too. Am seriously pissed because I cant make my hardware work on Linux. Way to go and I am sure you are going find a lot of support. I hope that Opera has a lot of cash under it’s belt to make sure that they would fight the evil corporation down to the last penny.
Well, in a way, it does sound circumspect too. As one of the readers pointed it out here, why now? Opera had all the time in the world to file a suit earlier on. An advertising ploy? If yes, it is a brilliant idea. Look at the free press that Opera would be getting. It is worthwhile to see how this unfolds.
Cheers anyway.
using
I realize Opera isn’t considered a “monopoly” on devices like MS is in OS, but it does seem a bit hypocritical to have a section showcasing the bundling of Opera on devices in light of this.
using
Corrected link
using
If you want to out-compete Microsoft, then devote as much time to advertising Opera products as you do to developing Opera itself. Going by the law that demand creates supply, people will be forced to develop with opera in mind if the demand for using it is existant.
using
Opera’s argument is very weak. Looking from current web browser statistics, their suit is simply a cheap grab for press.
2007 IE7 IE6 IE5 Fx Moz S O
Oct 21.0% 34.5% 1.5% 36.0% 1.3% 1.7% 1.6%
Sep 20.8% 34.9% 1.5% 35.4% 1.2% 1.6% 1.5%
Aug 20.5% 35.7% 1.5% 34.9% 1.3% 1.5% 1.7%
Jul 20.1% 36.9% 1.5% 34.5% 1.4% 1.5% 1.9%
Jun 19.7% 37.3% 1.5% 34.0% 1.4% 1.5% 1.8%
May 19.2% 38.1% 1.6% 33.7% 1.3% 1.5% 1.7%
Apr 19.1% 38.4% 1.7% 32.9% 1.3% 1.5% 1.6%
Mar 18.0% 38.7% 2.0% 31.8% 1.3% 1.6% 1.6%
Feb 16.4% 39.8% 2.5% 31.2% 1.4% 1.7% 1.5%
Jan 13.3% 42.3% 3.0% 31.0% 1.5% 1.7% 1.5%
Source
Apparently nothing is stopping Firefox from increasing their market share despite IE being the supposed plague of the internet.
using
The issue is illegal bundling, yes or no…
“The European Court of First Instance confirmed in September that Microsoft has illegally tied Windows Media Player to Windows. We are simply asking the Commission to apply these same, clear principles to the Internet Explorer tie, a tie that has even more profound effects on consumers and innovation. We are confident that the Commission understands the significance of the Internet Explorer tie and will take the necessary actions to restore competition and consumer choice in the browser market.”
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2007/12/13/
using
Too bad http://people.opera.com/howcome/2007/msft/ does not validate according to http://validator.w3.org/
using
I looked up in Google and there are 83,700 results for the keyword: opera, complain, microsoft
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=opera+complain+microsoft&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
using
Opera’s argument is very weak. Looking from current web browser statistics, their suit is simply a cheap grab for press.
You ahev IE and use Vista (the most sucker OS ever created) and you are saying that. I have tried many pages, including mine that works very good under Opera, Safari and Firefox and when I use IE there is some mess or some things in the page are missing, specially when you use the tag OBJECT
using
The best way to create change in IE’s rendering engine is to get Google and Yahoo and the heavy-traffic sites to not specifically code for IE. If the page breaks, oh well–not Google’s responsibility to pay its employees twice as much for IE’s poor support. Once many pages are broken for IE (just like how several pages are and were broken for Opera several years ago), the IE devs will need to rethink their strategy that assumes perfect marketshare. Either that or Google should send the bill to Microsoft for extra time it takes to develop a webpage due to workarounds.
using
Unbundle Safari from OS X!!!
Looks like Opera is really desperate for some market share.
using
As Firefox proved, it is possible to steal market share from Microsoft by developing a better product, even though a lot of websites were coded for IE. It is sad Opera seems to feel they cant do the same.
using
@breun, the only reason it doesn’t validate is that it lacks a complete DOCTYPE statement. If you instruct the validator to treat it as HTML 4.01 Strict, it does tentatively validate.
Browsers only use the DOCTYPE statement to decide whether to use “quirks mode” (i.e. old behaviors that contradict the standards, but that authors used to expect) for backward compatibility. The partial doctype in that file, IIRC, is the one recommended by the HTML5 working group: just enough to indicate to a browser that it should use standards-compliant mode and not quirks mode.
using
First, Congratulations on this suit. If it was meant for advertising, good ploy. The points are valid.
People who say that Mozilla faced no problems increasing their market share forget that Mozilla is the old Netscape, and developers (some even still) just developed for these two browsers.
I am pretty surprised at people using Opera being ashamed . Were you ashamed to buy your OS when it has simply flouted all monopoly laws, and made you dependent on it?
A stand has to be made, so that the web is free. And if other browsers do not stand behind the call for open standards, well, too bad for them. It will just show that a browser with 1% market share has the gumption to stand up to IE, while all the others will be skulking in the background, afraid to come out in the open and fight for their right!
using
If firefox is able to reach 10%+ despite the “monopoly”, what is Opera’s excuse? It cannot be that it isn’t possible, as Firefox has managed this.
Even Safari has more users!
using
I for one am sick and tired of MS controlling what i as a developer can and cannot do on my websites! I have been saying for years already that the time wasted converting code written with standards in mind to work with microbloats IE is both inneficient and costly. We as developers are trying to keep our clients happy so it is difficult for us to do what it is that i for one, and i’m sure countless others, want – to say screw you MS, I am not wasting my money nor my time feeding your rubbish.
A class action by developers for loss of earnings and/or stopping developing for IE seem to be the only routes that are available to get MS to listen, but niether of them are open for us to follow being stuck squarely between a rock (client who rightly wants a well developed WS) and a hard place (MS who dictate the terms of how to develop)!
For this reason i applaud Opera for their initiative, whatever the underlying reasons, simply because it highlights the stand that needs to be taken and it ultimatly may help us do our jobs more cost effectively and efficiently, which in turn can only benefit our clients!
Well done Opera!
using
Nilotpal, what does this complaint have to do with web being free?
As much as I admire Opera products, Opera the company is not exactly a champion of ‘free’. The desktop browser was not free until a viable, free alternative to IE (Firefox) has emerged. Opera for devices is not free. Opera Mini is free for end users only, but not to manufacturers who would like to bundle it. Opera is a public company and exists to make money. There is nothing wrong with this, but claiming that Opera or this complaint somehow ensure that “web is free” is nonsense.
Furthermore, the complaint is ridiculous because it will achieve nothing to promote Opera, except to generate some publicity and maybe bring a payoff from Microsoft. Just ask Real Networks how much the availability of Windows without a media player helped them. Manufacturers and end-users are already able to hide IE on their computers and install an alternate browser as the default. Asking courts to decide whether a particular software product supports a particular standard well enough is a lost cause: the courts will never be able to keep up with changes in technology.
As many others pointed out, Firefox managed to grab market share from Microsoft without litigation. And as many others, I am disappointed that Opera has chosen to complain rather than compete.
using
Please, do not confuse the European Commission (EC) with the European Union (EU). They are two different things although all the EU countries are members of the EC. Wikipedia should explain this further.
Opera is located in Norway which is only a member of the EC, not the EU.
using
Oh dear… I managed to mix up things completely…
The European Commission really is a part of the EU. The European Community is the ‘EC’ whose member Norway is.
using
The level of ignorance shown by some posters here is quite pathetic…people, *RTFA* and get some info about the EU antitrust laws, the Commission and the European Court before commenting, you would help yourself. This gem is a good example of utter ignorance:
legalalien
“except to generate some publicity and maybe bring a payoff from Microsoft.”
This is not a bloody lawsuit lad, money can’t fix it unless MS brives the Commission. Try to get yourself informed next time.
It’s also funny how some people use the Firefox card (one has to wonder how the reaction would be of the Mozilla.corp where the ones filling the complaint…) when the argument actually supports Opera’s case:
Netscape’s little child + Google’s help + huge marketing campains + 3′5 years = stuck at 10/15% marketshare which in legal terms makes IE a monopoly ( the European Court has stated that Windows OS is a monopoly with 80/85% so go figure).
For those who don’t understand why the standards are in the table, Microsoft is using IE’s position in the market – a monopoly that is – to generate de-facto standards, therefore other browser vendors can’t compete with it due to all the propietary stuff MS includes.
using
” Yehudah Goldstein : Unbundle Safari from OS X!!! Looks like Opera is really desperate for some market share. ”
Opera Mini spanks iPhone browser… http://operawatch.com/news/2007/12/browser-review-opera-mini-spanks-iphone-browser.html#comments
In *free to choose* markets, like the fast growing Mobile Web, Opera IS the leading browser. Why ?. No player *owns* it, and the other can’t deliver.
It’s not about market share, but all about illegal bundling, and it’s up to European Commision to decide…
Hmm… Illegal for good reasons : why should users be forced to buy what they don’t want ?… eg. pay for PIE on WM when their free choice is Opera ?
using
Well said…
I am disappointed at level of stupidity on discussion boards where this matter is discussed all over the net. It seems to be populated by teenage crack-heads that just realized MS was their dearest friend…
If it works, great! If not, well, nice try.
using
When you can’t win in the marketplace…. Sun and Real Networks did the same and filed against MS; can’t say it worked for either.
Until today, I saw Opera as a doer, not a cry-baby; I expected the company to win with an agressive marketing campaign designed to expose the real advantages of Opera to a mainstream audience. Mozilla didn’t have to go to court to get over 15% market share in 2 years.
There are mainly three reasons Opera has had such a low marketshare since its beginning: people don’t know about it, find it unintuitive to use, or simply view a web browser as a commodity and just use the browser that comes with their computer. These reasons are best addressed by an able marketing department, not a panel of judges.
I pick the technology I use based on its perceived superiority, rather than my feelings about the company which makes it; if that were not the case, I’d stop right now using and recommending Opera. What a sad day.
using
Instead of staging personal attacks, “Ignorance” needs to educate him/herself better.
Complaining to regulatory authorities is almost always a prelude to filing antitrust lawsuits. Real Networks was a driving force behind EU’s investigation of media player bundling in Windows XP, but withdrew from that case after getting $$$ from Microsoft.
According to earlier posts, Firefox market share is around 36% – larger than any single IE version. I bet many Firefox users don’t even remember Netscape as a standalone company, and the Mozilla Foundation certainly doesn’t have the money to spend on huge marketing campaigns. It spent $4.8M on sales and marketing last year, which is most likely comparable to what Opera spent (Opera does not break out sales and marketing expenses in their annual report).
Opera’s complaint “asks the European Commission to require Microsoft to follow fundamental and open Web standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities.” What exactly does it mean? EC should force Microsoft to pass Acid2 test or make sure IE supports every CSS3 attribute?
By the way, any distinction between European Commission and courts is irrelevant here, because the ruling most certainly will be appealed in court(s).
Please check your arguments and stick to issues next time.
using
legalalien
“Complaining to regulatory authorities is almost always a prelude to filing antitrust lawsuits. ”
Sorry lad, but you don’t have a freakin’ clue. Where are you from, the States perhaps? . You are pretty confused, There’s no lawsuit involved at all, it’s a complaint and the commission decides about it, if MS doesn’t agree with it, it appeals to the European Court. The sides involved are the Commission and MS, just those. It’s an Administrative Law issue, I guess this is why you are confused. BTW, “Almost a prelude”?, what kind of serious argument is that?.
“Real Networks was a driving force behind EU’s investigation of media player bundling in Windows XP, but withdrew from that case after getting $$$ from Microsoft.”
You’re shooting yourself in the foot here, Real was irrelevant once the complaint was filed, it was the Commission all by itself which put MS against the ropes and forced it to deploy a Windows version without WMP. Same happened with the MS servers and the interoperatibilty complaints. In both cases MS lost the appeal to the Commission, not the complaint fillers.
See a pattern here?. Once the complaint is filed, it’s the Commission’s duty to reach the end of the procedure and make a decission. This is how things work in Administrative Law, it has nothing to do with Civil lawsuits nor payoffs.
“According to earlier posts, Firefox market share is around 36%”
68% seems more accurate to me…
“By the way, any distinction between European Commission and courts is irrelevant here, because the ruling most certainly will be appealed in court(s).”
That’s a pretty oxymoron you got there, mate. How come the distinction between an administrative entity (the Commission) and the European Judicial System is irrelevant?.
What I said, the level of ignorance here is out of control. As Joar said above, it’s very dissapointed indeed.
using
What is the reason to complain at right now and not a long, long time ago?
using
Well, EC decided in September (2007), and Opera needed some weeks to… you know…
using
Ignorance, you are completely missing the point of my argument.
I understand the difference between this complaint and a civil lawsuit. I understand that the Commission has to finish investigation regardless of any settlement, though it may be more difficult to do without cooperation from the original complainer.
I’m arguing that complaints and lawsuits go hand in hand. Look at the list of companies that were involved in the original EC complaint against Microsoft – IBM, Novell, Sun, Real Networks – they all got paid by Microsoft. See the pattern? Complain to EC, file lawsuit, get paid.
30+% Firefox market share comes from many different sources, and does validate the argument that others can compete with IE without complaints or lawsuits.
Lastly, since EC decisions are appealed in courts, it is the courts that will ultimately decide this case. That refers to my statement that courts shouldn’t regulate compliance with standards.
using
” legalalien : I’m arguing that complaints and lawsuits go hand in hand. Look at the list of companies that were involved in the original EC complaint against Microsoft – IBM, Novell, Sun, Real Networks – they all got paid by Microsoft. See the pattern? Complain to EC, file lawsuit, get paid. ”
Indeed, I see the pattern… monopoly, abuse market, get rich, afford some law suits
using
Why now?
Because EU is investigating Microsoft right now. It’s now or never. Take action now, or let Microsoft dictate the market forever.
The comparisons with Apple and Opera being bundled on various devices are missing the point. Neither Apple nor Opera are in a market position to force anyone to do anything. Opera and Apple operate in the open market. There are actual competitors out there. Microsoft holds a dominant position, and has abused that position to rid itself of competitors.
There’s a huge difference there.
using
Yeah, it’s time for fighting against giant
using
Opera is not saying anything about removing IE, just unbundling it and allowing or including other browsers.
For those that don’t have any problem with Microsoft’s tying IE to its OS, the next time IE hangs and you need to kill it (or kill the process), watch how fast the desktop itself shuts down and has to reload because if you kill IE, you kill the desktop. They are tied together, plain and simple, even worse so than Media Player.
This is the same complaint that Real Networks filed regarding Media Player. Microsoft claimed that it couldn’t be removed because that it was tied to the OS. Real Networks dramatically proved in court that this claim was a lie (Microsoft lying? Tell me it isn’t so!)!
Also, regarding Apple’s bundling of Safari with OSX, try killing Safari when it hangs and watch OSX keeps running. And they are also pretty good at following the standards. Same with Linux and others.
Can you name any other piece of software (Microsoft included) that reboots (or even breaks) the desktop when you kill its process? If so, it’s pretty poorly written. Kind of sounds like IE, doesn’t it?
I use Opera and Firefox, but sometimes I even have to use IE when a site is written so badly because it had to get around IE’s proprietary ****.
Just a final warning about killing IE and trying to keep the desktop alive: “Don’t try this at home!”.
Steve Haney
Website Developer and
engineer for 35+ years
using
legalalien
This has been proved wrong, MS lost both cases, has paid the largest fine ever and they finally were forced to assume the decission made by the Commission, all that with Real et all out of the picture for the most part of the original procedure and the whole appeal to the Court. It’s not really relevant what the complaint filler does after filling.
Besides, assumptions about what Opera will do and how MS will respond are just that, assumptions. What we got now is a filed complaint.
What Opera will do – if it ever does something – in the Civil Jurisdiction is not the point here, your argument is pure straw man.
BTW, your pattern: “Complain to EC, file lawsuit, get paid.” misses something very important: Lose the case, pay the largest fine ever, assume the Commission’s decission, and in the ineroperability case, provide the relevant info to competitors so they can actually compete.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Firefox has 30% marketshare worldwide. It doesn’t matter, a product with 70% of marketshare which includes propietary stuff that makes it impossible for the compettion to work with certain websites (keep in mind that many of these are Gov’t websites) is a Monopoly in legal terms (see the court reasons for stating what a monopolistic position and behaviour means). Firefox suffers from it too: blocked, some functionality doesn’t work, etc. This is pretty common with Gov’t and intranet sites in Europe (and I bet in the rest of the world too), let alone the usual website which is broken because it only cares about that application that has a monopoly. The point is how MS blocks the web and tries to kill other competitors by including propietary stuff or just by don’t including anything so the web gets stuck, MS has always used the same tactic, blocking innovation means no one will change from our product since there is no other way to go to, no incentive at all. This has worked perfectly for them with the web, the PC market, etc.
What it is dissapointing is that when a company makes a move to try to put and end to this **** that we users and professionals have been suffering from, some people act like this is about Opera trying to gain a payoff by whinning and moaning. For f***’s sake, wouldn’t it be good a web that is not broken, not full of propietary shite, not stuck in 2001, and where the user could actually choose. This is all about protecting the free market, and no, a free market is not the one where a single company has the key to the whole market itself, that’s a monopoly which is the opposite of a free market.
Anyway, based on some of the reactions here (some of them are worth the term Stockholm syndrome), I can conclude that we users have the current crappy web and the disgraceful PC market because we deserve both. If you don’t fight for it you clearly don’t deserve it.
using
Firefox has, say, 30% market share. But other browsers fail to do it because they don’t have the kind of resources backing them that Firefox does. The fact that sites, to this day, fail in Opera, show the severity of the situation.
using
I have been a long time Opera user and supporter. But I dont fully agree with this move (or most of the antitrust moves).
I dont see why MS should be forced to make their product (Windows) less productive. Look around. All OS including Leopard(Mac), and various Linux distros come preloaded with multiple softwares(including web browser). So why pick on only MS? Why not sue apple also for carrying Safari?
I absolutely agree with demand #2 though.
using
legalalien,
try to understand the meaning of a free web. Hint: It has nothing to do with what a browser is charging.
using
free as in freedom!
using
A free web means using any browser to view it, regardless of cost or “open-sourceness”.
using
“I dont see why MS should be forced to make their product (Windows) less productive.”
The implication of this statement is that other browsers are less productive than IE. Is that really your opinion?
using
“… The point is how MS blocks the web and tries to kill other competitors by including propietary stuff or just by don’t including anything so the web gets stuck… ”
So competing browsers don’t work on sites, because of Windows OS ? Can Opera prove that ? Can Opera point to a fix, ie. the rewrite of Windows that would make all browsers work on all sites IE works on ?
(isn’t browser sniffing and blocking a developer / webmaster issue ?)
using
Opera doesn’t have to prove that. It is well known that Microsoft used MSIE to defeat Netscape, which they considered to be a threat against their desktop monopoly. Read the US antitrust vertict.
Everyone knows that Microsoft was able to use its dominant position in the desktop market (Windows) to kill the browser competition.
using
Investor
There wouldn’t be any IE with +80% of marketshare without Windows, Windows is a monopoly (this has been stated by the European Court) and it has been/is being used by Microsoft to extend its monopoly to other areas as well (see the MediaPlayer case), the web is one of them and IE is just the tool used to achieve it: Active X back then, the bloody Silverlight, their own modification to ECMAscript, not to mention their crappy standards support. All this breaks the web for all browers not named Internet Explorer generating huge problems for the competition (wasting money, time and resources implementing ways to make the browser compatible with IE-only code). The fact that the less advanced, more archaic browser is dominating the market speaks volumes about what is going on (this is like a 1985 Renault 5 having the 80% of cars sales market in 2007); in other words, a classic example of monopolistic behaviour from a monopolist.
The fix is pretty simple from a technical point of view, make IE a standard compliant browser, remove all the propietary shite and stop boycotting and undermining the standards. Of course, all this would create a truly open web which is one of the worst nightmares for Ballmer and co.
using
Not illegal for Windows OS (monopoly) to expand its market by offering IE. The illegal part is for a monopoly to give own products a special treat, making it tricky for others to compete.
So if Windows OS (monopoly) includes componets blocking competing browsers, then that would be illegal. Opera would have a strong case, but burden of proof. EC is a judge not a detective agency.
I take it developers code differently for IE, precisely because Windows OS has given IE a special treat. Coded in a competing way, eg. by following basic standards, the same web sites would not work ?
using
Windows has a need for html rendering in the OS, such as file explorer.
Whether Microsoft should be required to bundle every two-bit lousy browser developed is debatable. I could understand including Firefox, but Opera has an insignificant market share. Where do we draw the line?
Personally, I think Lynx is a far better browser than Opera.
using
“Personally, I think Lynx is a far better browser than Opera.”
Of course you do. Since Opera is smaller, faster, more standards compliant and more secure than Firefox, it must be bashed at every possible opportunity.
using
The implication of this statement is that other browsers are less productive than IE. Is that really your opinion?
Nope. Thats not what I meant to say.
What I meant was that Windows without IE is definitely less productive than Windows with IE. A browser is a very basic piece of software that every operating system should provide out of the box.
using
Windows can come with a browser “out of the box”. It just can’t be IE (alone).
By the way, the browser could be (chosen and) downloaded the first time you set up your internet connection (unless one has already been installed by your network admin, OEM, or whatever).
using
“Windows has a need for html rendering in the OS, such as file explorer.”
This is absolutely NOT true. They have a WANT (not a NEED) for HTML rendering to maintain their stranglehold. There are plenty of file explorers that have no need for HTML rendering (Directory Opus, as one example), and there are plenty of other OS’s that have no need for access to HTML at all (Linux, OSX, plenty more) in order to access files. This is just Microsoft’s half-hearted attempt at saying that HTML rendering is REQUIRED so as to tie everything together, thus bringing their monopoly full-circle.
As for their file explorer, see my earlier post. If Windows Explorer goes (hangs, then crashes), so goes the desktop (crashes), and therefore Windows (start over from scratch).
Steve Haney