Opera News

On one hand, I'm thinking 'Well, it is Microsoft's operating system... they can and should be able to do whatever they want with it' and if they can't - does that mean Apple should be forced to offer a browser choice instead of just bundling their OS with Safari, or the future Google OS with Chrome?

On the other hand, I am thinking it'll positively impact web development and give bring a more competitive edge to the browser market... but I'm not sure which argument is more important.

Maybe the same logic could be taken to search engines - that you see a screen on first installation of a browser which asked which search engine you'd like to use as default? Google have a greater monopoly in that respect and it's personally more of a pressing issue than IE on Microsoft Windows.

so america did nothing but europe came out better!

congrats!
'< auuuuuuuuuuuuu

R.I.P. IE

Yayyyy!

Originally posted by coxy:

On one hand, I'm thinking 'Well, it is Microsoft's operating system... they can and should be able to do whatever they want with it' and if they can't - does that mean Apple should be forced to offer a browser choice instead of just bundling their OS with Safari, or the future Google OS with Chrome?

Maybe the same logic could be taken to search engines - that you see a screen on first installation of a browser which asked which search engine you'd like to use as default? Google have a greater monopoly in that respect and it's personally more of a pressing issue than IE on Microsoft Windows.

My opinion.

Let's go!

Im all up for healthy competition so why not the same treatment to Apple then? Isnt Safari bundled with Mac OS X? Along with iTunes and iChat and Quicktime and whatever. Sometimes this EC favouritism really gets to me.

KUULT!

Yeah, very nice !!!

Congrats!

Originally posted by coxy:

does that mean Apple should be forced to offer a browser choice instead of just bundling their OS with Safari, or the future Google OS with Chrome?

You should look up the meaning of the word monopoly. When you control most of the market share, you have to play by different/special rules. Also, IE is damaging the landscape of the web. If Safari or Chrome were king, it would be helpful and force IE to get in line or just not work. Web standards growth and adoption are being hindered by the mere existence and proliferation of IE.

Originally posted by coxy:

On one hand, I'm thinking 'Well, it is Microsoft's operating system... they can and should be able to do whatever they want with it' and if they can't - does that mean Apple should be forced to offer a browser choice instead of just bundling their OS with Safari, or the future Google OS with Chrome?

On the other hand, I am thinking it'll positively impact web development and give bring a more competitive edge to the browser market... but I'm not sure which argument is more important.

Maybe the same logic could be taken to search engines - that you see a screen on first installation of a browser which asked which search engine you'd like to use as default? Google have a greater monopoly in that respect and it's personally more of a pressing issue than IE on Microsoft Windows.

That's exactly how I feel about the matter.

Originally posted by fearphage:

When you control most of the market share, you have to play by different/special rules.

I think this should either be applied to all or no one. Double standards like this just stick out to me.

Originally posted by fearphage:

You should look up the meaning of the word monopoly. When you control most of the market share, you have to play by different/special rules.

Originally posted by coxy:

Maybe the same logic could be taken to search engines - that you see a screen on first installation of a browser which asked which search engine you'd like to use as default? Google have a greater monopoly in that respect and it's personally more of a pressing issue than IE on Microsoft Windows.

Hey look! I used the word monopoly correctly in the same post you quoted stating I don't know what a monopoly is!

Originally posted by fearphage:

Also, IE is damaging the landscape of the web. If Safari or Chrome were king, it would be helpful and force IE to get in line or just not work. Web standards growth and adoption are being hindered by the mere existence and proliferation of IE.

I disagree. Versions below IE8 are damaging the landscape of the web. That is history that can't necessarily be accounted for now and with IE8 and future versions, the Internet Explorer team are coming into line with Web Standards and are making an effort to make a decent browser.

If the decision of browser choice was adopted 5 years ago, you'd have a much stronger point for your argument but as it stands the landscape is already progressing and I think that, whilst this will help, it's not as true as it once was.

Growth and adoption is currently being hindered by people using dated software - if everyone on old versions of IE6 upgraded to IE8, there wouldn't necessarily be a problem.

What's more, from personal experience, the ratio of people I know opting to purchase a new Mac instead of a new PC is far greater. For every 1 person I know purchasing a new Windows PC, I know at least 10 - 15 people who are opting for an Apple product instead.

Originally posted by coxy:

On one hand, I'm thinking 'Well, it is Microsoft's operating system... they can and should be able to do whatever they want with it' and if they can't - does that mean Apple should be forced to offer a browser choice instead of just bundling their OS with Safari, or the future Google OS with Chrome?

Microsoft can do whatever it wants until it breaks the law. Microsoft broke the law. Consequently, Microsoft can no longer do whatever it wants.

Apple and Google did not break the law, so they can carry on.

Simple.

Google have a greater monopoly in that respect and it's personally more of a pressing issue than IE on Microsoft Windows.

Not if Google didn't break the law. Monopolies aren't illegal. Abusing them is.

The browser vendors decide which browser they want to install by default. This is not google making it happen.

Originally posted by Kyle Baker:

I think this should either be applied to all or no one. Double standards like this just stick out to me.

I'm not responsible for the rules. Perhaps you should direct this to your congressman or something. Do you remember how IE killed Netscape? I personally don't feel that should be allowed to happen. Without rules/laws, I could see Microsoft prohibiting installation of other browsers.

Originally posted by ga41:

Im all up for healthy competition so why not the same treatment to Apple then? Isnt Safari bundled with Mac OS X? Along with iTunes and iChat and Quicktime and whatever. Sometimes this EC favouritism really gets to me.

Originally posted by kyleabaker:

I think this should either be applied to all or no one. Double standards like this just stick out to me.

Look, Microsoft abused its monopoly. That is illegal.

Apple did not abuse its non-existing OS monopoly, so why should they be punished for a crime they didn't commit (Microsoft abused their OS monopoly to ruin the browser market)?

No double standards. They are being perfectly consistent: Break the law, face the consequences. MS did, Apple did not.

"EC favouritism"? LOL.

The only thing Apple could get close to having a monopoly on is phones and they are still #2 or #3 to my knowledge. In most other fields, their market share is too small to be considered remotely monopolistic. Just like Chrome and Opera are not in danger of becoming Monopolies. Windows/Microsoft controls 85+% of computers.

Originally posted by fearphage:

I could see Microsoft prohibiting installation of other browsers.

Just like Mac banned competitor's browser in iPhone?

Originally posted by fearphage:

The only thing Apple could get close to having a monopoly on is phones and they are still #2 or #3 to my knowledge. In most other fields, their market share is too small to be considered remotely monopolistic.

I think the point now is that the ruling shouldn't have been to impose a restriction solely on Microsoft, but rather impose the restriction to all commercially available Operating Systems.

It's not like Microsoft are currently doing anything different to their competitors in bundling their own browser with their OS - and this has been the case for years. As of the latest release of Windows, you can (apparently) uninstall Internet Explorer if desired, and you're not restricted on what alternatives you can install / set as your default browser.

Like Sir Kyle Baker said, there's double standards - and if the aim is to keep things 'fair' with this ruling, it's a bit stupid how to play fair, you have to abide by a biased ruling.

Originally posted by dude09:

Just like Mac banned competitor's browser in iPhone?

No. The iPhone does not hold a monopoly. Not even close. Nokia is the biggest smartphone maker.

Originally posted by coxy:

I think the point now is that the ruling shouldn't have been to impose a restriction solely on Microsoft, but rather impose the restriction to all commercially available Operating Systems.

The EC can't make new laws. They can only enforce current laws.

The ruling imposed a restriction solely on Microsoft because Microsoft is the only one who broke the law.

It's not like Microsoft are currently doing anything different to their competitors in bundling their own browser with their OS - and this has been the case for years.

Yes they are. They are abusing their monopoly. THAT is what they are doing. They have an OS monopoly, and they are using that to mess up the competition in the browser market (doing things like bullying OEMs). And that's illegal. And no one else is doing it.

Like Sir Kyle Baker said, there's double standards - and if the aim is to keep things 'fair' with this ruling, it's a bit stupid how to play fair, you have to abide by a biased ruling.

There is no double standard.

Claiming that there is a double standard is like saying that it's a double standard that a convicted thief gets a prison sentence but not everyone else.

Purdi, stop telling me what actually happened. I know what happened, I know why it happened - you've repeated it enough - I'd rather hear and discuss your opinion on the situation.

You'd be rubbish on a discussion panel.

Originally posted by Purdi:

Claiming that there is a double standard is like saying that it's a double standard that a convicted thief gets a prison sentence but not everyone else.

Wow, this is not the same at all.

About fucking time! Congrats on the settlement guys. Now, it's time for you to set up some battles on other monopolising points.

Coxy's got a very valid point by the way, even if some of you guys can't quite understand it. Microsoft weren't being sued for not allowing other browsers, they were being sued because they're the biggest ones that do that. This settlement is them trying to save money, but it would have been better if it had gone to court and Microsoft had been forced to change their ways. That would have set a precedent so that other operating systems would be more easily forced to offer choice as well.

Purdi, the iPhone may not hold a monopoly, but Apple have a monopoly on the applications for it and have set up a stringent set of rules that have seen them ban applications from manufacturers that they don't like. That's why they banned the Opera Mobile browser from the phone, and that's why they're getting sued for banning Google Voice. They only allow their approved applications on the system, even if the application isn't damaging or offers new improved functionality, and that's created a monopoly even though they aren't the top phone manufacturer. I should also point out they're being sued by Nokia because they've refused to pay license fees for technology needed to make calls on a cellular network and connect via Wi-Fi. Just because something isn't the biggest doesn't mean it shouldn't play by the rules.

Even though I'm using Opera since year 2000 I don't like this case. Google's Chrome OS is also bundling their own browser and there is even no way to change Chrome. Will Opera sue them?

I hope my favorite tech company will never make such step again.

Originally posted by Aux:

I hope my favorite tech company will never make such step again.

It's not made me dislike Opera any less... it's just made me stick up for Microsoft.

Originally posted by Aux:

Even though I'm using Opera since year 2000 I don't like this case. Google's Chrome OS is also bundling their own browser and there is even no way to change Chrome. Will Opera sue them?

I hope my favorite tech company will never make such step again.

All you people seem to absolutely no believe in the legal system. If somebody sues someone else, and the judges decide FOR him.. Well then I guess normally he was right in the first place.
We're not in Russia after all

For the Americans this discussion it's hard to understand, the market in America it's wide more open.

But in Europe the market it's much supervised. We don't accept the dominate abuse... This means that sometimes the biggest players had different rules... Until their lost their entire dominance.

Isn't just about being the biggest, it's about being dominant. being dominant. Ju

For instance. Imagine that nokia (the biggest), make something like this:
Make the best phone possible, and sell it below the price of coast. Yeah their gonna loose money, but everyone it's gonna to buy that mobile phone beacou it's the best and it's cheap!!!
So the other companies start to loosing their clients because they can't compete with Nokia and their crazy prices... So if the other manufactures can't compete with nokia, the go away of this market.

Than Nokia, because it's the only player in the market start to rise their prices in a crazy way. Much more expansive... like an exorbitant amout of money. Because the market only have one player anyone who want to buy a phone need to buy to Nokia... And then everyone will pay... it's the only available.

In America this is possible, wall mart), did this for many years. Open a new shop loose money for a while. The competitors can't compete, then they close. When wall mart it's the only survivor they rise their prices and everyone wil go there... it's the only one open....

In Europe this is impossible to happen. Not because Nokia, WallMart or Microsoft it's the biggest. it's because they have a dominate abuse.

Sorry the bad English. hope everyone understand my point!

Originally posted by coxy:

Purdi, stop telling me what actually happened. I know what happened, I know why it happened - you've repeated it enough - I'd rather hear and discuss your opinion on the situation.

You evidently don't know what happened since you think this is a "double standard" and "unfair". I explained how it isn't unfair or a double standard.

Originally posted by kyleabaker:

Wow, this is not the same at all.

Yes it is. Both are cases where a violator is punished for breaking the law. There is nothing hypocritical about punishing someone for breaking the law. Only punishing the guy who breaks the law and not everyone else IS NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD.

Originally posted by Furie:

Microsoft weren't being sued for not allowing other browsers, they were being sued because they're the biggest ones that do that. This settlement is them trying to save money, but it would have been better if it had gone to court and Microsoft had been forced to change their ways.

Microsoft was NOT SUED.

They were not reported because they were the biggest ones. They were reported because they violated European Competition Law. Being big alone doesn't make you violate the law.

Microsoft WAS forced to change its ways. Merely the knowledge that the authorities were watching them made them fix the standards mode in IE8. So even without a conviction they were forced to change their ways slightly. They directly admitted that they did this because they didn't want more trouble with the authorities.

That would have set a precedent so that other operating systems would be more easily forced to offer choice as well.

There's no point, unless they break the law like MS did.

Purdi, the iPhone may not hold a monopoly, but Apple have a monopoly on the applications for it and have set up a stringent set of rules that have seen them ban applications from manufacturers that they don't like.

That's irrelevant since the iPhone does not have a monopoly. If the iPhone gets a dominant market share and this continues, then the authorities will smack them down.

Originally posted by Aux:

Even though I'm using Opera since year 2000 I don't like this case. Google's Chrome OS is also bundling their own browser and there is even no way to change Chrome. Will Opera sue them?

Opera DID NOT SUE ANYONE. All they did was to report Microsoft's crimes to the authorities.

The comparison with Chrome OS is insane. Windows is a monopoly. Chrome OS is not.

Originally posted by PedroFelix:

But in Europe the market it's much supervised. We don't accept the dominate abuse... This means that sometimes the biggest players had different rules... Until their lost their entire dominance.

This is wrong. The US has their own Antitrust Laws, which are the same as European Competition Law. Monopolists who violate US Antitrust Laws are punished as well.

The EU should investigate legitamite cases. Proclaiming victory on a case involving free, downloadable software is hilarious.

Originally posted by starcatcher66:

The EU should investigate legitamite cases. Proclaiming victory on a case involving free, downloadable software is hilarious.

This is pure ignorance. Just because something is free doesn't mean that there is no market. Google searches are free - are you saying that there is no search engine market, and that Google isn't making money off of searches?

There is big money in browsers. And even more importantly, browsers are the window to the web. The guy who controls the browser basically controls the web.

Congrats
Now you "only" have to make sure that many users pick Opera from the up to 12 browsers that can be chosen

btw: also computer vendors can choose which browser(s) they offer their customers.

Originally posted by netwolf:

m all up for healthy competition so why not the same treatment to Apple then? Isnt Safari bundled with Mac OS X? Along with iTunes and iChat and Quicktime and whatever. Sometimes this EC favouritism really gets to me.

Even if it seems to be the same situation there are at least two differences between Apple and Microsoft:
1- Safari is better than Explorer in supporting internet standars (Presto and Webkit are the only rendering engines that are able to score 100/100 on Acid3 test)
2- On Macosx you are free to unistall Safari or Quicktime if you don't like them. On Windows if you remove IE or Windows media player the system becomes unstable.... I'm happy that from now on things are going to change.

The only pity is that it's only in Europe. In some countries, like South Africa, it'll be years before anything like this happens. In South Africa, 9 out of every 10 people think Apple is just a fruit, and don't even know about Linux. As to using "dated software," here we don't have uncapped internet access, the hardware, nor means to get the latest and greatest.

Bingo!

Originally posted by Furie:

That's why they banned the Opera Mobile browser from the phone

I have to correct you on that. The rules for Apples app store state that applications duplicate functionality built in to the phone are not allowed, thus Opera Software decided not to submit any versions of Opera to the app store.

They might be tested on their policy in the future, but at the moment I can't see any reason why it's an unlawful business practice.

Originally posted by DrLaunch:

They might be tested on their policy in the future, but at the moment I can't see any reason why it's an unlawful business practice.

Well, in other words this app store rule says "No competitors allowed".

Originally posted by Jon:

Today we can proudly say that a settlement has been reached; Microsoft has committed to providing a choice of browsers to its Windows users in Europe.

Congrats on the settlement Opera !

It is a logical choice for users to choose a browser which is
preferred by them instead of being forced to use one that is bundled with the OS that they have purchased.It is necessary that the Internet is not manipulated by one corporation only.
We are free people with our own choices of what we like or don't like,so it is high time this was realised by all concerned.I am glad that people are more aware now.Thanks for the good news.

i have to agree with Purdi this time. he is absolutely right in his arguments. it's a pity most people don't understand the case, and that is why it has become a pr disaster for opera. anyway, opera is absolutely right, even if a little late.
one more thing: there was basically the same process in the usa few years ago, so it is not only about europe harming the free market. it's normal anti monopoly abuse laws.