Opera News

Well done Opera :-) :-) :-) and * * * * *

Sorted =D

Originally posted by kriidler:

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.

same here in Nigeria, people just take what is dish to them and shut up. nobody cares:worried:

I said "sued" because it's a damn sight quicker than saying "That's why Opera tattled on them to the authority who ensures that everyone gets a fair chance in business except the market leader, who has to follow arbitrary laws set up to hold them down while those laws don't have to be followed by people who aren't the market leader." Happy now? That's also the shortened version I used when I talked about Google suing Apple.

You're arguing something completely different to us by the way. We're not saying that Microsoft didn't break the law (as well as destroy people's idea of web standards with that so called "web browser"). The point is not that Microsoft broke the law while others didn't. The point we're making is that the law is unfair while it only applies to the market leader. Stopping Microsoft from taking advantage of their monopoly on PCs by making them put up a browser select screen is unfair unless it applies to everyone else too. Apple constantly say that Macs aren't PCs so they have a monopoly on Mac operating systems and should be forced to do the same thing. The point is that other operating systems aren't forced to do this and they should be else the law itself that supposedly protects fair business practice is only effective in holding down the market leader, not giving other businesses a chance. It's ridiculous.

Is that what happened in that case Doc? I thought they turned them down using that excuse. Oh well, always good to get a new bit of knowledge. The iPhone doesn't have a monopoly, but Apple have created a set of rules that give them a monopoly on applications for it. It's disgusting that something that markets itself as a smartphone (without meeting the requirements to be a smartphone, I might and regularly do add) would try to destroy competition that much. They've already sold the phone, and they get 30% of the price of all applications sold, yet they don't allow things that duplicate already existing functionality? And why does that only apply to things by big names like Google, when other applications that duplicate functionality make it through the App Store process all the time? Sounds fishy to me. Yeah, they've been reported to the FCC already down to the Google Voice debacle, and their advertising policy ("Look, we can do Flash on our own adverts even though the phone doesn't support Flash.") has gotten them in trouble as well. I believe these things along with dodgy measures like making it network exclusive in countries where that is illegal in order to stop any network gaining a monopoly and refusing to back down should count as breaking the law, but laws only apply to anyone with a monopoly it seems.

Originally posted by Aux:

Will Opera sue them?

They reported Microsoft, they didn't sue. Besides, Chrome isn't a threat to the web.

"we can proudly say that a settlement has been reached; Microsoft has committed to providing a choice of browsers.. "
Congrats, Godt gået..!!

why suddenly the little ones become the evil doers.


opera is right to push into European courts this issue.

http://files.myopera.com/Tamil/Smilies/Applause.gif - http://files.myopera.com/Tamil/Smilies/ThumbsUp.gif - http://files.myopera.com/Tamil/Smilies/Victory.gif -

Originally posted by Purdi:

The guy who controls the browser basically conrols the web

Who is controlling the browser you use?

Originally posted by ellinidata:

Microsoft has committed to providing a choice of browsers to its Windows users in Europe

They already do- go download Opera, Firefox, Chrome..

Originally posted by flotsam22:

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

Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Originally posted by starcatcher66:

They already do- go download Opera, Firefox, Chrome..

I am a proud Opera user

Originally posted by DanielHendrycks:

Besides, Chrome isn't a threat to the web.

not yet but i think they will some time soon.

Originally posted by zikzakatak:

not yet but i think they will some time soon.

It will be interesting after 2012. I fear, if Google Chrome reach enough market share, they will stop the support of non-IE browsers, so many of them go bankrupt.

Originally posted by DanielHendrycks:

Chrome isn't a threat to the web.

Not yet. Chrome/Google main issues will be about privacy, and not web standards or lock people on flawed software like MS/IE.

Opera just ROCKS!
My congratulations to all people who made this time come true!

@d4rkn1ght: Wow, that video was an eye opener! I have now turned off Javascript on Google (not that I use it much, tbh).

@Purdi: The people who are saying it's a double standard isn't arguing over the FACT that MS was doing something illegal, but the fact that the LAW itself poses as a double standard, which I have to agree with.

Why should a certain law only apply to monopolies? If a company abuses their market share, they should be punished regardless of whether or not they have a monopoly; or do you not believe that consumers have a right to be protected from "small/mid-sized" businesses that perform "questionable" business practices that are not strictly illegal?

wait, has apple ever waited 6 years before coming out with a new version of safari? have you ever come across a site that was unusable because it was written specifically for safari?
it's not about only being a monopoly, it's about misusing that position.

Late ruling worse than no ruling ?

Case David vs Goliath. Goliath wins.

EC should have noticed that Google is using their dominant market position in the vital Search-for-my ads-business to squeeze out competitors including MS.

Forcing MS to market Google's business but not vice versa is not a good idea. As future will show.

Today the Web is financed by ads and not license fees . Google controls 90% of Ad-business in Europe MS less than 4%. Allowing Google to offer free software and services even free Operating Systems to attract even a bigger audience to their ads.

As a consequence competing suppliers in non-search and non-ad businesses are going bust. Eg suppliers in mapping and navigation industry as cannot offer their products for free. Also Browser makers are entirely dependent of Google thus will not survive if not hired by Google to sell tickets to Google's Ad-show.

MS abused market dominance by bundling IE to Windows. Giving browser away for free to block competitors from entering market. Google is doing the same. Using Search Engine instead of Operating System.

EC ruling has nothing to do with creating competition. Its all about replacing one Goliath with another.

We do no evil they say. Well history shows giants do what giants do. They are hungry and eat a lot. A peek at market share developments should give Opera no reason to celebrate. When done with MS the Davids will be left in the dust.

EC has solved one problem by creating a new. Keeps them busy for years to come.

Guess all are just minding their own business

Microsoft doesnt give you a choice, you have to make your own by choosing a browser of your own choice.unnerstand that dude.

Originally posted by Furie:

The point we're making is that the law is unfair while it only applies to the market leader. Stopping Microsoft from taking advantage of their monopoly on PCs by making them put up a browser select screen is unfair unless it applies to everyone else too.

No it isn't because the reason this happens is that Microsoft broke the law in the first place. If they hadn't broken the law we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The same laws apply to everyone else, but no one else is a monopolist like Microsoft is, so they aren't in violation of the law.

Apple constantly say that Macs aren't PCs so they have a monopoly on Mac operating systems and should be forced to do the same thing.

This is just insane. It's like saying that because Coca Cola has a monopoly over its own products, Coca Cola is a monopolist.

No, that's not the kind of monopoly Microsoft is. Microsoft has a market monopoly (it dominates an entire market). Apple only has a monopoly over its own products.

The point is that other operating systems aren't forced to do this and they should be else the law itself that supposedly protects fair business practice is only effective in holding down the market leader, not giving other businesses a chance. It's ridiculous.

No, what's ridiculous is your ignorance of the law, and your claim that it's unfair to punish a monopolist who abuses his monopoly in order to prevent competition.

Other operating systems aren't forced to do this because they are not market monopolies. They never broke the law.

You clearly don't understand competition law. Maybe you think the market shouldn't have any laws. A market anarchy! You think it's unfair that airlines, hospitals, nuclear plants, etc. have to comply with certain standards (such as safety standards) to be able to operate. That is the argument you are making here. No laws to regulate the market!

The iPhone doesn't have a monopoly, but Apple have created a set of rules that give them a monopoly on applications for it.

The iPhone does not have a monopoly in the market. Big difference. Pay attention. But if you think they are breaking the law with the iPhone, report it to the authorities instead of whining about it here!

Originally posted by starcatcher66:

Who is controlling the browser you use?

Microsoft's stragety was to lock web sites to Windows technologies like ActiveX. They have been trying hard to keep other browsers from competing with these strategies. This is illegal. They were busted.

Originally posted by starcatcher66:

Nobody is forcing you to use it.

They are trying to.

Originally posted by TripleDude:

@Purdi: The people who are saying it's a double standard isn't arguing over the FACT that MS was doing something illegal, but the fact that the LAW itself poses as a double standard, which I have to agree with.

This is completely nonsensical. There is no double standard: If you are a monopolist and have the power to illegally destroy the market, and do, you should be punished.

There is no double standard here. Anyone who destroys the market the way Microsoft did breaks the law, and should be punished.

You just don't understand competition law. That, or you think there should be no laws what so ever for corporations. So they can do whatever the hell they want. Such as not securing nuclear power plants. Because laws are double standards, right?

Why should a certain law only apply to monopolies?

Because the actions of monopolies have a huge impact on the market.

If a company abuses their market share, they should be punished regardless of whether or not they have a monopoly;

A small company can't abuse its market share - by definition!

or do you not believe that consumers have a right to be protected from "small/mid-sized" businesses that perform "questionable" business practices that are not strictly illegal?

If a small company breaks the law, it will be punished. Problem solved.

Originally posted by Investor:

EC should have noticed that Google is using their dominant market position in the vital Search-for-my ads-business to squeeze out competitors including MS.

Yep, Google needs to be scrutinized. But they have not acted in a predatory way just yet AFAICT.

Originally posted by Investor:

EC ruling has nothing to do with creating competition. Its all about replacing one Goliath with another.

And if they break the law, they will be punished too.

You know what, I've tried to be polite to you and I've tried to explain to you that you're misunderstanding what everyone is saying and that no-one is arguing with you about the law only that the law isn't fair. Yet here you are still saying the same thing in four seperate comments and trying to start arguments with people just because they don't have the exact same view as you.

You've had it explained to you yet you persist in saying that I'm arguing for no laws. That's not what I'm saying at all, what I'm saying is that the law doesn't make sense when it only punishes those who are the market leaders. There, I put it in bold so it'd be easier to see for you. Seriously, if you persist that I don't mean that then you really need to talk to a psychologist about your need for confrontation. As soon as someone else takes over that position the law will only apply to them and Microsoft will be back in the position to do whatever they like. That's where the law is ridiculous and doesn't help regulate the market. Only if the same law applied to everyone would it regulate the market, instead it overbalances it to make sure no-one can get ahead even if they deserve to by imposing limitations on only the market leader. Your continued support of that fact shows that you have more of a problem with Microsoft than you have any shred of common sense. Either that or you're just have too much ego to even consider someone else's point of view, which I suspect is the reason you can't admit that others beyond you have a valid point.

And as for my "whining", I started talking about the iPhone in response to your own statements about it on the comments in this very post, where you showed you had no idea of the many laws broken by Apple in creating that device and proclaimed that the situation was different than a company deciding what browser should be on it's operating system (something Apple does on all of it's devices including the iPhone) and therefore not illegal. I realise that you don't understand the mobile market and the laws governing it at all, but I'm just saying laws were broken by Apple in an attempt to drive others out of business.

Your argument in it's entirity is that laws can only be broken by the market leader, and that anyone else that breaks any law shouldn't be punished. Yes, we know that the law actually says that in this case (and most of us knew that without your constant argumentative and repetitive posts about it), but it's stupid and wouldn't apply anywhere else in the law. Look at it that way and you're effectively arguing that your local shop has the right to give you change for a five note when you paid twenty every time you visit but they wont be breaking the law because they're not the largest shop in the area. .

Anyway, I'm sure you'll have a multi-quote reply to this comment, probably saying the same things over and over again like every other comment you've written on this post. Don't bother though, I'm done with you and this post now.

Originally posted by Furie:

no-one is arguing with you about the law only that the law isn't fair

I know. Which is why I explained WHY the law IS fair.

That's not what I'm saying at all, what I'm saying is that the law doesn't make sense when it only punishes those who are the market leaders.

It doesn't punish the market leaders. It punishes companies who abuse their monoplies to undermine competition. BIG DIFFERENCE.

That's where the law is ridiculous and doesn't help regulate the market. Only if the same law applied to everyone would it regulate the market, instead it overbalances it to make sure no-one can get ahead even if they deserve to by imposing limitations on only the market leader.

WRONG AGAIN. It is PERFECTLY FINE to get ahead by BEING THE BEST as Google is doing. The law protects the market from PREDATORY PRACTICES, not from success.

you showed you had no idea of the many laws broken by Apple in creating that device and proclaimed that the situation was different than a company deciding what browser should be on it's operating system (something Apple does on all of it's devices including the iPhone) and therefore not illegal. I realise that you don't understand the mobile market and the laws governing it at all, but I'm just saying laws were broken by Apple in an attempt to drive others out of business.

Prove it, please! I just explained how Apple does NOT have a market monopoly.

Your argument in it's entirity is that laws can only be broken by the market leader, and that anyone else that breaks any law shouldn't be punished.

WRONG. Other companies without a monopoly CAN NOT violate competition law. Again the law is PERFECTLY consistent, and DOES NOT punish tiny fish who aren't messing up the market anyway.

Look at it that way and you're effectively arguing that your local shop has the right to give you change for a five note when you paid twenty every time you visit but they wont be breaking the law because they're not the largest shop in the area.

WRONG. Doing that WOULD be illegal. What YOU are arguing for is that Microsoft should be allowed to use illegal methods to destroy an entire market without consequences.

@Purdi # 17. December 2009, 11:21:

" Yep, Google needs to be scrutinized. But they have not acted in a predatory way just yet AFAICT. "


Predatory pricing ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing

Its hard to beat free. Google controls Ad-business which in turn finances Google's increasing number of free services eg Google Maps Navigation... Consequence :

"Garmin, TomTom in Deep Waters...

Since navigation products are given to commoditization, there has always been significant pressure on prices. However, the more immediate threat is Google (NasdaqGS: GOOG - News), which intends to add free turn-by-turn directions to the Google Maps app for smartphones using its Android operating system..."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Garmin-TomTom-in-Deep-zacks-919506673.html?x=0&.v=1

Financial market reacted on the news. Reducing company market cap significantly. While they are not the law and not the judge they often are all that matters. Money makes the world go round. And companies too.

Law is not good at protecting against abuse. Its rather designed to punish abuse following complaints. Complaining is costly. Many Davids dont bother. Many Goliaths gamble on that.

Abuse ?

When agreement with Google states that Opera is not allowed to develop own Ad-business serving the 40 million Opera Mini users world wide

Originally posted by Investor:

Its hard to beat free. Google controls Ad-business which in turn finances Google's increasing number of free services eg Google Maps Navigation...

Google can do this because people love their products and they have a lot of goodwill. If Google starts acting up people will leave, and Google will take a nosedive.

I can tell why you are scared of Google, but they aren't able to lock people in like MS did. You can easily use a different webmail service while still using Google for search.

Apple does not have a position to abuse on the internet, it may only abuse its customers.

This news from Europe is very welcome. While I do not exactly think that including a home-brewed browser is anti-competitive, the purposeful ignorance of compatibility was.

On matter of search engines, Microsoft Search could not stop Google even as Firefox gained share on Internet Explorer. A contract of exclusivity in predefined searches, is much easier than any per-click cost calculator. And bear in mind that Opera has more than one search contract, Google just paid more.

Anything that makes it easier for people to choose differently than IE is most welcome. Internet Explorer never recovered from the lack of development after Windows XP was released.

It's hypocrite all this hate towards Microsoft. In this capitalist world the profit is the only thing that matters,

Opera Software knows that, they want to keep the leading position in the juicy Chinese mobile browser market, but that means to collaborate in the China's fierce censorship (and consequent repression).

Originally posted by sites.web.pt:

It's hypocrite all this hate towards Microsoft. In this capitalist world the profit is the only thing that matters,

Utter nonsense. There is no hypocrisy in punishing companies that violate the law. Even capitalist societies like the United States have laws.

Maybe you are an anarchist who believes that there should be no laws what so ever!

Opera Software knows that, they want to keep the leading position in the juicy Chinese mobile browser market, but that means to collaborate in the China's fierce censorship (and consequent repression).

What on earth are you talking about?

Originally posted by Purdi:

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that the servers for Chinese Opera Mini are only available within that country, therefor they are censored (filtered, let's not offend the mighty Chinese Government).

I've been a Opera fan for a long time( http://bit.ly/4HgMev ) but now I feel that it's just another tech company.

PS: China it's a (ultra) capitalist state too...

@The Dark Furie: Yes, somebody here has issues with lack of politeness and being confrontational but it's not Purdi.

@Purdi: So you don't feel too much like you're beating your head against a wall, someone here understands and agrees with you.

Originally posted by saroy01:

Are the web-standards run,owned or developed by a single entity? For example, 'FF ActiveX Host' can run ActiveX controls in Mozilla Firefox for Windows.

Strange that you can post this and not see how it really proves Purdi's point. If Microsoft hadn't forced the security issue-ridden ActiveX standard on everyone, other browsers wouldn't have to create compensations and workarounds for it; they could concentrate more of their efforts on their own innovations.

I don't know about you, but I have to mess with Opera's browser ID settings on an almost daily basis. If that doesn't work, which is fairly frequent, I use Neptune's "view in IE" plugin for Opera on certain sites. Sometimes even this plugin isn't enough and I have to use IE itself. This should not even have to be an issue at all and it annoys the crap out of me. As Purdi essentially says, web standards should not have been allowed to be so locked into to optimization for MS products. Fortunately, we are beginning to see that change, but for now it's still a time-wasting pain in the...

This ruling is all very well and good (congrats on the win to Opera etc), but I think everyone is missing the point a bit. The ruling itself is just opening the gate, what matters most is how Opera respond to that open gate. We've seen them announce a pre-Alpha 10.5 version for Dec 22. That could be either a good or bad move depending on what that version has in it and how close to full release it is.

All the worlds media will be focused on the first Opera offering since the ruling was made on their complaint. They had better be right on target with their kit or they'll get slagged from all sides by the press. The fact that it's a pre-Alpha won't make damn all difference to the media mob who will all be expecting Opera to have something revolutionary up their sleeve. If Opera 10.5 doesn't live up to their expectations or crashes every time it's loaded, they will lose the best publicity opportunity for Opera EVER and may never be able to (re?)gain the momentum to persuade people to switch browsers! No pressure guys...

Originally posted by sites.web.pt:

I'm talking about the fact that the servers for Chinese Opera Mini are only available within that country, therefor they are censored (filtered, let's not offend the mighty Chinese Government).

This is crazy talk.

It's got nothing to do with not offendig the government. It's got something to do with the fact that if Opera hadn't complied, Opera would have been completely blocked in China, and their Chinese employees would have been jailed.

I've been a Opera fan for a long time( http://bit.ly/4HgMev ) but now I feel that it's just another tech company.

What, you think Opera is above the law the way you think Microsoft is? Laughable.

Originally posted by saroy01:

If that were the case then why did other browsers gain prominence on an IE dominated environment?

Only one browser did, and Mozilla explains why this proves that MS broke the law:

"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."

On the technological front, there are so many layout engines, plug-ins, controls and platforms, in short, so many technologies to chose from and the users are at their right to inform themselves of the latest web-standards and accordingly choose what is right for them.

This doesn't change the fact that Microsoft broke the law.

Purdi! Excuse me, but why should not the authorities to say that MS violate competition via making their product workable only on computers with IBM PC architecture? This is a huge market also, and there are other architectures, so why MS should not make all their products available on all possible architectures (at the same price, probably)? This is nonsense, as "breaking the law" by them. What exactly sentence in European Monopoly Law have they violated?

Constantine: I must politely tender that you have NO idea how computer architectures work. Microsoft has offered flavors of Windows on many platforms; but when the hardware does not sell and nobody programs for it, Microsoft withdraws support. ARM is a new and rising exception; it is possible that we will see Windows on other platforms again, but the potential demand must be sufficiently apparent.

Monopoly regulation and Antitrust laws are also intended for the health of the market leader. Microsoft's grand faltering in the browser market was fueled by complacency and lack of a more volatile competition. Microsoft "innovated" Netscape into the ground, then refused to give web developers new improvements and features to work with. If Microsoft had withdrawn its product when it ceased development, the internet would have evolved more quickly and evenly. If Microsoft had offered more information on its methods and requirements for internet programming, perhaps offered a standard of its own or submitted methods and testcases to online working groups for their review, the mess would not have gotten so bad.

The market was not moved strictly by consumer choice; it was moved by an insurrection among developers, and by countless news stories about the changing internet. One would hope that Mozilla closely considers this outcome, proprietary APIs are to be avoided like the plague for the company's own safety.

Companies have been harmed by IE6 and .NET; real harm to their networks, their offices, their upgrade options. El Reg just ran a piece on telco Orange, forced to use XP and IE6 in callcenters because their software uses proprietary and poorly understood features of the browser core. Updates to Internet Explorer have harmed Windows users, due to not being compatible with the Windows Explorer core.

Previously one could seamlessy move between local folders and web pages in one window. Now, typing an address or using Favorites from Windows Explorer must open a new window that uses the new core. Microsoft could not find a practical way to build newer Internet Explorer into the OS, could not deliver a tabbed file manager that took advantage of the new core. So Microsoft had programmed itself into a tight corner and a shoddy reputation. IE7 could have been the Windows version of Konqueror; integrating file managment, media playback and web browsing into a single tabbed interface. Instead they had a broken mess that continues to lose share against the *finally* encroaching competition.

Regulation is intended to improve conditions for all parts of the market, saving Microsoft from its own ideas; just as governments try to save banks (and their shareholders and account holders and employees) from their own stupid shortsighted risk-taking.

I understood that "regulation is saving Microsoft from its own ideas" and somebody "is forced to use XP and IE6" as well as IE7 has a very bad core.

BUT! Let me ask you in another way: why MS gives us a poorly-functioned Calculator instead of giving choice between Matlab, Mathcad and Mathematica? Why they abuse us by useless file manager and ROM-burning tool (scandisc, defragmenter, mouse driver, Paint.NET and address book) without giving choice of Total Commander or Nero Burning Rom? It is unfair to those famous brands and consumers as well as worsening the quality of mouse innovations!

Goodluck.
Marry christmas and happy new year 2010

Thank you, dear friend. Happy holidays to you also!

I think Matt Cox's question (as that which is also repeated later on by other commenters, but more as a voracious 'point to be made') is valid, so instead of dismissing it I will give my own answer to it:

The question was, I think, why should we not treat everyone the same way regardless of their size and importance? If I need correcting, do so.

I think the problem here is that it is assumed we can impose our morals (I think of morals as those unspoken 'laws' which come into being in social groups so the group can function long-term, and which are also loosely synonymous with Civil Laws) on a different system which is by its very nature amoral: capitalism (kept healthy and in-check in part by regulation and Antitrust law).

Consider these two phrases:

"Money is the root of all evil"

"...so-and-so is a necessary evil"

Well, it looks like we believe our money based system to be necessary, and for now maybe it is. Maybe in the future everything on Earth will be like Captain Picard says... for now it's not, so we need some laws to keep the system healthy. These laws come about by reaction to a problem, a bug in the system. Laws are effectively bug fixes.

Seen as a system, Capitalism is not like Society, however much the two may be intertwined. One is driven by money, the other by morals. Capitalism works like evolution before Humankind: "may the best man win!". Society works with morals, which are based on fairness.

If we are to have a completely morally driven system of life, then companies and businesses must become members of society, and that I think means that money itself cannot join the party. But evolution always finds a way in any system, regardless of the rules we impose. The reason for having special, amoral laws in the economic system is to speed up this process, but here we arrive at the problem that actually exists now:

Why wasn't Microsoft punished sooner?

Originally posted by Morten:

Law is not good at protecting against abuse. Its rather designed to punish abuse following complaints.

This is one of the most sensible comments on this page, and perhaps this is where a new law may come into being in response to this new bug, to help speed up the process by which companies are both punished and saved from themselves: All for the sake of competition and therefore consumers don't forget.

Originally posted by RadoxTheGreen:

All the worlds media will be focused on the first Opera offering since the ruling was made on their complaint. They had better be right on target with their kit or they'll get slagged from all sides by the press

While Opera ASA are getting slowly better at marketing their browser, the keys for success for them have always been two-fold:

Firstly: innovate and be better than everyone else.

Secondly: drive toward creating a level playing field (standards/open web) so that more people realise how good we are.

Despite an infuriating number of setbacks, Opera's overall market-share/business is apparently in near-constant growth, all throughout its 15 year history. They appear to be playing an incredibly long game!

It's all about vision, and you can't argue with how well this ship has been steered past all the icebergs.

With the current rate of growth at Opera, it's very easy to be optimistic about the future for its users. More importantly, we can look forward to a modern web to surf on regardless of browser.

Competition actually helps Opera because they have a superior browser. The lack of it is due to a stranglehold which IE has still not entirely relinquished. There is so much excitement over a web that works now that if Microsoft go their own way with IE this time they'll lose out, but they still hold a massive monopoly in business networks. I even read somewhere that the US Government still have to use IE6 because of other crappy software which relies upon it.

Like the sound of that... Bravo Microsoft

nooo!

I guees people are interested in this topic

The image posted by Coxy seems to be true, fair web for wall no matter what browser you use.

Microsoft ends 10-year fight with Europe on browsers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8415902.stm

Originally posted by RadoxTheGreen:

All the worlds media will be focused on the first Opera offering since the ruling was made on their complaint. They had better be right on target with their kit or they'll get slagged from all sides by the press. The fact that it's a pre-Alpha won't make damn all difference to the media mob who will all be expecting Opera to have something revolutionary up their sleeve. If Opera 10.5 doesn't live up to their expectations or crashes every time it's loaded, they will lose the best publicity opportunity for Opera EVER and may never be able to (re?)gain the momentum to persuade people to switch browsers! No pressure guys...

Excuse the French, but WTF are you going on about? You are not making any sense what so ever. Seems like just a random, ignorant rant.