Questions about Opera's antitrust complaint against Microsoft
Friday, 14. December 2007, 15:36:52
Two days ago, Opera Software filed an antitrust complaint with the EU against Microsoft (please note that this is not a lawsuit). You have probably read about it by now, because it has been all over the Web (and then some).
Reading some of the discussions on this subject, I have noticed a lot of questions being asked, and many assumptions about Opera's position and motives for doing this. I know that we are going to be giving out more details as time goes by, but I thought that I would post some thoughts on the issue, from the perspective of someone inside the Opera organization.
One thing that has surprised me is the seemingly one-sided focus on one of the two proposed remedies, namely the unbundling of MSIE. People seem to forget about the second proposed remedy - forcing Microsoft to adhere to Web standards, which is even more important in my opinion. The first is just a way to prevent Microsoft from having the power to continue its practices. Both are about giving people an actual choice.
Anyway, here is my small "FAQ" based on some questions and issues I've seen raised around the Web.
Reading some of the discussions on this subject, I have noticed a lot of questions being asked, and many assumptions about Opera's position and motives for doing this. I know that we are going to be giving out more details as time goes by, but I thought that I would post some thoughts on the issue, from the perspective of someone inside the Opera organization.
One thing that has surprised me is the seemingly one-sided focus on one of the two proposed remedies, namely the unbundling of MSIE. People seem to forget about the second proposed remedy - forcing Microsoft to adhere to Web standards, which is even more important in my opinion. The first is just a way to prevent Microsoft from having the power to continue its practices. Both are about giving people an actual choice.
Anyway, here is my small "FAQ" based on some questions and issues I've seen raised around the Web.
Related posts:
Q: Why Now?
A: Because the EU is currently investigating Microsoft. This is a window of opportunity to take Microsoft to task for their actions. If we do not seize this opportunity, it might be gone forever, and the fight for an open Web might be lost.
Q: How does forcing Microsoft to adhere to standards promote choice in browsers?
A: While it is easy, at least for tech-savvy people, to install a different browser, many sites still require you to use MSIE due to their use of proprietary MS technologies supported only by IE, or hacks designed to fix IE's broken standards support, which can themselves break in other browsers. For there to be actual choice, Web users must be able to choose another browser and use it on any site they wish.
Q: How are people going to be able to download a browser without a browser pre-installed?
A: The complaint doesn't mean that Windows must be stripped of all browsers. What matters is that there is actual choice.
Currently, Microsoft is bundling their browser with the dominant desktop operating system. This would not have been a problem in itself if Microsoft did not actively undermine open standards. Basically, Microsoft's position in the browser market allows it to lock people to their proprietary technologies.
With this two-pronged approach, Microsoft would be forced to adhere to standards, and at the same time they would not be as well equipped to repeat their actions in the future because their browser would no longer be as dominant.
Q: But Opera is bundled on various devices. Doesn't that make Opera Software a hypocrite?
A: Bundling software in itself is not the problem. The problem with Internet Explorer is that Microsoft has used its strong position in the market to stifle competition.
Q: But Apple bundles Safari/Ubuntu bundles Firefox, etc.?
A: See above. Bundling in itself is not a problem, but it becomes a problem when a dominant player in the market uses bundling in combination with other tactics to prevent others from competing in the market.
Please note that Safari and Firefox are very good at standards compliance. If they didn't have to deal with MSIE compatibility, they (and Opera) could have spent even more time on improving their standards support.
Q: Opera should do more advertising instead of just complaining. Look at Firefox.
A: Billions of dollars and many years have been spent on trying to dethronine MSIE, and it still commands more than 80% of the market. Microsoft also continues to undermine standards to prevent competition (see the EcmaScript 4 debate). Firefox has done admirably well with help from companies like Google and IBM, but 80-90% market share is still far too much for a company with a history of abusing its market position.
Q: Opera is only doing this out of desperation.
A: Opera Software is doing very well financially, with a sizable pile of cash in the bank, a profitable operation, and a revenue growth of more than 50% in the third quarter of 2007 compared to 2006 (desktop revenues increased by more than 100%). On the mobile and devices side, some of Opera Software's current customers include well-known companies like Nintendo, Sony, Nokia, Samsung and Motorola, and our free mobile browser is quickly gaining market share.
Unfortunately, a lot of resources is being spent on trying to fix problems that are a result of Microsoft's actions. Opera Software is not the only company with this problem. Other browser vendors as well as Web developers are spending a lot of money on these issues.
Q: But No browser is 100% standards compliant, right?
A: That is true. There are always bugs that need to be fixed, and not all standards can be fully implemented right away. But what if browser vendors did not have to spend so much time figuring out how other browsers work and work around problems that way, and could instead focus on only implementing the standards correctly? There is also a difference between having bugs in an implementation or not implementing it completely right away, and actively working to break the implementation to prevent others from competing in the market.
Q: Opera doesn't really care about open standards. This is just a cheap way to gain publicity!
A: While this has certainly given Opera Software quite a bit of publicity, one must understand that open standards are absolutely central to Opera Software. Opera has spent a lot of money on promoting open standards through the years, because open standards is what allows relatively smaller players like us to compete in the market.
One could say that the fight for open standards is a key component to Opera Software's business model.
Also, how about adding the questions/answers on CSS3.info?
By Fyrd, # 14. December 2007, 17:45:21
and even if you win this it would not clear up teh problem with sites that adhere to IE (activex et al) to function as they do now.
By KeMiSa, # 14. December 2007, 18:38:39
One idea that I have is when you start for first time Windows there should be a window to choose from a web browser.
Is my idea at least.
And thanks for the FAQs
Keep up the good work.
By yeeliberto, # 14. December 2007, 19:08:15
Originally posted by KeMiSa:
Open standards are key to Opera Software's business. Without open standards, Opera can not exist. Currently, Opera and other alternative browser are struggling with Microsoft's attempts to undermine open standards. If Microsoft successfully removes all open standards and replaces them with their own proprietary technologies, Opera and all other alternative browsers will die.
If fighting for the survival of oneself and competition in the market is whining, then I guess you may have a point.
By haavard, # 14. December 2007, 19:53:34
(this approach is not bad given IE's current dominant position, but it could be much better if IE wasn't around)
By porneL, # 14. December 2007, 20:17:41
IE isn't bundled with Windows, it's an integral part of the OS and that's where it went wrong. It didn't need to be integrated, so it passes on its insecurities to the OS.
Apart from standards there's the matter of choice. I choose not to use IE; have tried pretty well all browsers, but I'm still stuck with IE, index.dat and all that junk.
By GiraffePC, # 14. December 2007, 20:39:17
Firefox does not have problem with IE, about 30% (+) people use it. You should look for problems **within your company**, but nowhere else…
See: http://toplist.cz/global.html (same percentages can be seen in German, Sweden and/or France)
By radekradek, # 14. December 2007, 20:55:16
It has been proved that is not a core part. Like windows update, they made it wokr only with IE so it would become "core".
Source
By yeeliberto, # 14. December 2007, 21:07:42
I am a SW developer myself, and I could not imagine that some other competing SW developer could influence what I do with *my own* SW.
And as I said, Firefox does not have a problem with IE, its market share is very substantial.
Low Opera market share is only Opera's fault. What Opera is trying with EU complaint is very, ehm, communistic-like behaviour IMO.
By radekradek, # 14. December 2007, 21:13:02
1. Many people don't know there is a choce. Ask someone who's not IT professnional what Internet Explorer alternatives there are. You'll probably get answer like "Yahoo".
2. Many people who know about choice, actually aren't free to choose because of websites written for IE only. In being IE, IE has clearly unfair advantage
MSHTML is important part of the OS. The blue "e" on the desktop and toolbar buttons around MSHTML control aren't.
@radekradek:
And what is the problem within Opera? Opera is much faster, loaded with features, has fantastic security record and impressive standards support. And still 70% of people seem to choose to use inferior product.
Firefox won hearts of demanding users by providing extensions. That's great, but it's not Oprea vs Firefox. There's still a 70% majority of not-so-demanding users who defaulted on IE. If websites worked proportionally well to browser's web standards support, and users knew they have a choice, I bet more than 1% of them would gladly choose Opera.
Different laws apply to monopolies. Monopolists are not allowed to do what they please. So you, private developer, can do whatever you like, but Microsoft can't.
By porneL, # 14. December 2007, 21:18:46
Unfortunately, Microsoft still commands more than 80% worldwide, and that allows them to continue to undermine open standards. Firefox does have problems, since many sites still require Internet Explorer to function properly.
And as you can see from the EcmaScript 4 debate, Microsoft continues to abuse its market power even today.
It is unfortunate that you are recommending people to uninstall Opera because we chose to take this opportunity to force Microsoft to adhere to open standards. Basically, it is now or never. If we do not seize this opportunity, we might as well accept that the Web is broken for all eternity. Microsoft will continue to abuse its market power to lock out competitors.
When you have a position like Microsoft's, you have a certain responsibility to not abuse your power. Microsoft failed to act responsibly, and has now been punished in several parts of the world for anti-competitive practices. When you abuse your power in this manner, you must also face the consequences. If Microsoft had not abused its position, this would not have happened.
This is not Communism, but rather a regulated market where cartels and monopolists are not allowed to ruin the competition.
By haavard, # 14. December 2007, 21:18:57
Originally posted by eckenheimer:
By haavard, # 14. December 2007, 21:33:25
Microsoft (or any other private company) should *not* be required to promote competitors browsers, which is what Opera wants. Or shall I require Microsoft to add MyEgo.cz (my webzine) to IE7 Favourites in default Vista install, in addition (or in exchange of) link to Microsoft.com? That sounds silly, right? Well, Opera claims are the same silliness…
What will come next? Calculator producers? Notepad producers? Antispyware and firewall producers?
Sounds like communism to me, force a private company to alter their own product according to what “commission” thinks is best for customers. Huh, since when are (European) commissions right?!
By radekradek, # 14. December 2007, 22:24:06
you can do what you like, use IE7, it is your choice. But in my eyes, you are a hypocrite! Did you tell your readers to boycott Windows because it is killing competition? Did you tell your readers to boycott Windows because it Microsoft is a proven liar, lying through the teeth about security issues, lying in court, lying everywhere? Of course, you do not dare to do so, your backside is owned by Microsoft. Take them, you deserve each other!
KeMiSa,
Sticking for your rights is whining? Tolerating shit for years, and then striking at the proper moment is whining? What is being done is striking, and I hope that IE gets a black eye. Opera is not whining, it is doing.
By nilotpal_c, # 14. December 2007, 22:29:16
By suribe, # 14. December 2007, 22:33:19
By nilotpal_c, # 14. December 2007, 22:39:36
Same with browsers.
People who care can easily get Firefox and/or Opera installed and set as a default browser, and they do! 30% (+) of them, which is a huge number. Most do not care, but so what? Shall they be *required* to care? Why?
Why should a private company (Microsoft) be required to promote competing products, just because small competing company wants, and wants to force people to decide, even if they couldn't care less?
What is so evil about IE7? It is a pretty good browser, especially with IE7 Pro "extension" (http://www.ie7pro.com/).
I was Opera affiliate myself, within top-100 refering sites, and wrote many articles about it. But not anymore. Opera's behaviour right now is absolutely unacceptable to me.
Your market share is close to none? Do something about your marketing. But do not complain, as a small child, to European commission (Big Daddy, please, help me!). Mozilla Foundation does not complain, and enjoys 30% market share.
By radekradek, # 14. December 2007, 22:57:56
http://digg.com/tech_news/Questions_about_Opera_s_antitrust_complaint_against_Microsof
By chesss, # 14. December 2007, 23:01:00
but what if your car manufacturers have a monopoly in teh car industry and bundle 5 years of gaswith every car, and make your car such that no other companies gas wld work? In other words they wld expand their monopoly not only over cars but over gas as well!!
Thats M$ for you..
By chesss, # 14. December 2007, 23:06:14
What is so evil about IE7? Well, does it support pages served as XHTML? Nope. CSS generated content? Nuh-uh. Data URIs? Nah. SVG? Nopers. CSS table/row/cell styling? None of it. The canvas element? Not at all. Need I go on? Because I can. There's plenty more.
Yet Firefox, Safari and Opera do ALL OF THESE THINGS, many of them for years.
Does IE7 support all the same Javascript properties, etc. that the other browsers do? Many, yes, but many others, no. Does IE7 at least display the CSS properties it does support correctly? A lot of the time yes, but still too many things NO.
Do you know how useful it would be if IE could just do these things? Again, there is SO MUCH that the other three browser can do and can agree upon, it's just IE that everyone's having to wait for.
By Fyrd, # 14. December 2007, 23:43:53
As a developer, I have seen many security bugs and display bugs. Using the latest technology or standards I can not use them fully because I might lose people that do not know that their browser does not coply with the standards. I tried this standards with Opera, Safari, and Firefox and they work nice, but IE, it almost crashes.
How would you do if your car did not coply with the standrds and you did not know it because you have no knowledge on it? would you state that this (the car)are the new standards?
And how much money is Microsoft paying you, like when MS paid blogger to say and recommend their product like Vista?
another link
By yeeliberto, # 14. December 2007, 23:55:00
As for Trident usage in Windows, there's nothing wrong with applications using Trident, it's MS' api. What users see is the blue IE icon, remove that and for most people you've effectively deleted their browser. Nobody said anything about removing IE anyway, it's a matter of giving users choice, you can't ship an OS without a browser and nobody is suggesting that they should.
By peroo, # 15. December 2007, 00:30:13
Also, Microsoft is not a private company; it is publicly traded. Also, any company in the American market may not run an illegal monopoly, which at least 1 court case has determined specifically about IE.
Opera's not the only company attacking Microsoft's malevolent practices. Mozilla has attacked and complained about them in the past as well.
I'm not about suing the big guy just because he's the big guy, but even if that's the only reason that Opera's doing it, I think it's better than sitting around while WWW technology is stagnating under a crappy browser's dictatorial dominance.
By armbar, # 15. December 2007, 00:52:50
Originally posted by radekradek:
I addressed this under the following question:
"How does forcing Microsoft to adhere to standards promote choice in browsers?"
It seems that what you are saying is that actions should not have consequences. In other words, cartels and other illegal entities are free to abuse the market as they see fit? Anti-competitive practices from dominant players in the market should not have consequences?
This tells me that you didn't quite understand the background of this complaint.
Can it be shown that Microsoft has used similar methods to prevent competition in these markets?
Would my gas example be best for the customers?
Unfortunately, it does not look like you read the example. Please read it again and tell me what you think.
I addressed this under the following question:
"Opera should do more advertising instead of just complaining. Look at Firefox."
The answer to this question includes a very recent example of Microsoft's attempts to undermine open standards for their own benefit, and to the detriment of the market.
World-wide, Internet Explorer has about 80% market share, according to (broken) browser stats. But I did address this in the FAQ itself (under "Opera should do more advertising instead of just complaining. Look at Firefox."), as well as in a previous comment to you.
It would be nice if you could actually address the points people raise instead of repeating yourself and pretending that no one answered your concerns. If we are going to have a proper debate, ignoring the points people are making is not going to help.
By haavard, # 15. December 2007, 08:36:14
The problem with today's situation is that IE still controls a large enough portion of the market that it can still be a threat, and Microsoft is still working to lock people to their browser by undermining open standards. If you follow the link to my blog post about EcmaScript 4, you will see that the struggle is still going on, and Mozilla is deeply involved.
The combination between an open window to have the EU investigate Microsoft, Microsoft still dominating the market, and their continued attempts to undermine open standards and lock out the competition means that the time for action is now.
If we don't act now, Microsoft could once again succeed in locking the Web to their proprietary technologies. Even if Microsoft does not succeed right away, the fight to keep Microsoft from doing so will be extremely expensive both to browser vendors and to Web developers.
Are we really willing to give up and admit defeat? Or are we willing to continue to pay the "Microsoft tax" on a network that should be open to all, and not just users of Microsoft products?
The bottom line is that Microsoft continues to try to lock the market to its proprietary solutions, so unless we take action now, there are three possible outcomes:
1. Microsoft succeeds at locking the market to their technologies, but the fight continues, and it will be extremely expensive for the market
2. We give up and accept the fact that the Web will be broken forever
3. Microsoft fails at locking the market to their technologies, but this will be an extremely expensive endeavour for the Web community
Neither of these are ideal, among other things because it will be incredibly expensive, as it has been so far. Ask Mozilla how much time they have spent working around IE issues - time that could have been spent on open standards instead. It will also be time-consuming, and the fight will go on for years and years.
We now have an opportunity to do it in a more efficient manner, by actually blocking Microsoft's attempt to close the Web. If this succeeds, the result will be far more efficient, cheaper, and ensure an open Web.
So yes, Firefox has gained up to 20-30% market share, but Microsoft is not going down without a fight. With considerable resources at their disposal, they will continue to undermine the open Web, as is clear from the recent EcmaScript 4 debate. If Microsoft succeeds, we are back at square one again, and all will be in vain.
Basically, Firefox's 20-30% is not going to help if Microsoft succeeds at what they are trying to do.
By haavard, # 15. December 2007, 09:48:15
Now, IE7 might not support all *recommended* (not required or finished or whatever) CSS3 properties, but so what? It still does support CSS2 pretty good, which is quite sufficient. You can write advanced XHTML/CSS/AJAX apps even for obsolete IE6 from 2001, not to mention IE7 from 2006.
I would be happy to "force" people to upgrade from IE6 to IE7, but it is only up to them. They cannot be forced, if they do not care.
I work as a CTO for a webdesign company (do not want to spam URL here), we do very large projects, and do not have a single problem with IE7. All websites are XHTML 1.x / CSS 2.1 valid, of course. It works well. On the other hand, we have problems e.g. with Opera handling JavaScript with some
By radekradek, # 15. December 2007, 10:29:39
As a sidenote, remember that Opera, Mozilla and other browsers aren't really competing with MSIE. Bundling MSIE with Windows means that there is no actual competition, since Microsoft's browser has the advantage of being there by default.
Proponents of a free and competitive market should surely see the problem with this.
If browsers were competing on quality alone, the market would look rather different I think.
By haavard, # 15. December 2007, 11:11:02
By Case_, # 15. December 2007, 12:10:36
No matter opera does with opera desktop, it'll NEVER exceed or get near the marketshare of IE. The only unlikely way it could happen if there is a much better OS which doesn't include IE.
Reasons why:
1. ActiveX: Massively insecure technology aimed at providing only IE users with "mini-programs", this technology alone led to hundreds and thousands of spyware infected computers.
Now tell me, for the sake of your company, allow it?
2. Flash: Instead of a technology of getting html compatible video to the web, microsoft sat on their arses stifling any progress to this, therefore plugins was created to compensate for the lack of it, in the end people were forced to have this because the market leader had it. Many of the implentations of media plugins are still not cross-browser compatible.
3. Silverlight: A technology primarily aimed at IE users, enough said.
4. Many people cannot use IE7, why? because you need XPSP2 or later to get it, leaving many pre-XP users behind.
The problem is that you "conviniently" don't see is that microsoft need to stop the "i'm your only browser you should use" concept, that is all.
By shoust, # 15. December 2007, 12:42:00
Gecko has been in development for 10 years. Now that they are finally making a little headway (mostly due to extensions, not rendering), web developers all over the world are forced to effectively develop twice - once for IE, and hack around for FF - and hope that these workarounds just happen to work on other browsers.
Many corporate entities on tight budgets, tight deadlines or limited technical knowledge still go with 'IE must work, forget anything else'. And yes, FF still suffers from these cases, and yes, there are a lot of them.
The web is supposed to be write-once, read-anywhere. Open the Web!
By johnnysaucepn, # 15. December 2007, 14:14:06
The truth is, most people couldn't care less about browsers. Even old IE6 from 2001 is acceptable for many of them (if it would not be, they would actively look for alternatives, and some do).
There are news and articles about Mozilla/Firefox probably even in "CosmoGirl".
You should simply accept that about 60% of people do not care about browsers and/or are happy with upgrade to IE7. Some people want to bash Microsoft, so they use Firefox. Some other use Firefox because they think it is better. Small percentage loves Opera. Some use IE7 + IE7 Pro because they think *that* is the best choice.
Your complaint is very silly.
If this should be "new marketing" of Opera, it has failed. Yes, you have gained a lot of press and attention, but you did not pursuade people to try Opera, by complaining. At least I do not think so...
You can pursuade people by having great product on the market (Opera Mini), and they *will* use it, but not by complaints.
By radekradek, # 15. December 2007, 16:15:58
By shoust, # 15. December 2007, 16:59:49
Maybe you're right, maybe 60% of people don't know or understand or care about web browsers - they're the 60% that don't understand when things break, who think it's because they've done something wrong, or will happily click and download anything that's put in front of them without knowing the risks.
MS is messing up the web for all of us, no matter what browser we use, no matter whether we know what browser we use. It's messing up the web for all developers all over the world. It's time to bring some attention to the problem. This isn't about selling products.
By johnnysaucepn, # 15. December 2007, 17:03:43
By scipio, # 15. December 2007, 18:25:04
The issues are not the toolbars or features, so we don't care about IEPro (which adds to IE feature that Opera has since ever).
It continues to be unsecure, and it's slower than 6.
You're constantly saying Opera is buggy, it sucks, and more yadda yadds yadda. So you're impliying that IE/FF/Saf are crystal perfect and you write all kinds of code without lots of testing, debugging and it works outright. Nice!
IE supports XHTML ? since when ? Support CSS2 ? oh, you're right, that's why IE7 renders acid2 so perfectly.
The sole issue here is standards support.
Someone with your knowledge wouldn't be fit for a developer, much less for a CTO. Go write your nonsenses elsewhere.
By xErath, # 15. December 2007, 18:43:33
And for others: radekradek is known czech liar. He will answer only that (part of) question/s which can make him "the greatest one". And that 10 thousand views per day is imo only for fun of his visitors, really ;-). IMO Nobody takes him seriously.
By Scarysek, # 15. December 2007, 20:26:12
Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:
That's not the way to go. I find it much more logical and easier to start from a standard-compliant code, then hack around for IE if necessary. The exception shouldn't come first, that could potentially spoil the whole structure of your site.
PS: I like Sickos' fallacy analysis.
By Stifu, # 15. December 2007, 21:11:33
Radek Hulan (here user "radekradek") is well known in Czech Republic for being MS-fan+Intel+nVidia boy with higly biased blog articles against all others including but not-limited to Firefox+AMD+ATI+Apple.
Most of his blog entries are advertisement of MS products. He always chooses the only positive from one side and only negative from the other, alters numbers to be more biased to "apropriate" side and applies censorship on comments on his blog leading to references showing his claims are not true.
I strongly recommend not to waste your time reacting on his comments. It's pointless and people in Czech Republic already know that.
By wessan, # 15. December 2007, 21:54:24
By the way he did not answer (like with other people's post) me how much money Micro$oft is paying him.
By yeeliberto, # 15. December 2007, 23:29:26
You got the point. A lot of people ask him the same question about money (guess it was never answered). Once Hulan made an advertising article about MS Messenger and he haven't blured the contact list and someone went through the list of people in the contacts and found out that one man in the contact list is Microsoft Evangelist for Internet Media for Czech Republic (or something like). This can be possible explanation about the contacts with MS.
He is not used to answer questions that are directed in direction he doesn't like. As I said he uses censorship in his blog in such cases and when commenting on czech media portals he also never answers to critical questions and never answeres when you prove his claims not being true.
By wessan, # 15. December 2007, 23:38:24
What was e.g. the decision of European commission about exclusion of Windows Media Player good for? We can all see that people do not buy crippled "Vista N" and/or "XP N", they do not want such a product. Instead, they buy full versions of the OS, and some of them later download WinAmp, Foobar, and/or iTunes (if they do not like WMP). Having WMP integrated does not make any harm to competition. Apple integrates iTunes, Ubuntu integrates Totem, OpenSUSE has AmaroK. But €500 mil fine was just irresistible ;-)
Vista without IE7 would be a crippled product. People *do* need an integrated browser and they *do not* need a crippled product. Market "success" of Vista N proved that. Linux does not ship as kernel w/ wget only, but with plenty of apps, yet there are (usually) not multiple apps for one task (same as in Windows).
Anyway, this "antimonopoly" discussion is not even related to Opera claim in any way. Microsoft is *not* a monopoly, definitely *not in browsers*, there are plenty of alternatives, some of them having 30% (and more) of market share (Firefox). People can freely change their browser, they can set it as a default app, etc.
I do not expect Opera-lovers to agree 100% with "anti-Opera" posts on Opera website, but that is ok. Many people will read it, and make their own opinion ;-)
If European commission would decide Microsoft must supply other browsers in their OS, who would sue Microsoft next? We would have calculator producers, text editors produces, antispyware producers, video editing sw producers, etc., all suing Microsoft? That does not make any sense.
Should I be suing Microsoft that link to http://myego.cz/ is missing in default Vista installation, and consider this to be an "unfair competition"? They decideded to supply link to Microsoft.com instead, "limiting" my site potential! Hey, I could make (even more) money on AdSense with such a Favourite! Let's sue them!
(no, I should not, I am not Vista OS producer, thus I *cannot* claim any "rights" to it, which is exactly what Opera does)
You can pursuade people by having great product on the market (Opera Mini), and they *will* use it, but not by complaints.
--
As for "standards support", IE7 is doing well with CSS2. Should Microsoft be *required* to implement e.g. (unfinished) CSS3, just because some other small competitor (Opera) does it?
Well, answer that yourself...
PS: my webzine is one of them most visited in Czechia (http://toplist.cz/webziny) and as you can see, some teenagers cannot cope with that, always comming with stupid personal attacks instead of arguments and discussion related to the topic... Those are are just desperate expressions of their enviousness. Enough said. :-)
PPS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIllRdSzSug
By radekradek, # 16. December 2007, 00:07:14
The intervention could be useful in some cases. And it would be in this case too. Because of destructing of the market and obvieting full-value functioning and competing of other products (that is what the accusation is all about).
By Machh, # 16. December 2007, 00:39:22
Controlling 50% of a mraket is considered a monopoly. You should take some classes before answering questions. You remind me of a small child that being wrong and their parents tell him that he is wrong about something he still believes it.
Is worst browser rendering the acid2 test.
And what do we care about your page. It does not matter if your page is very visited or not, something popular does not mean it is right, such as smoking.
I just will not continue answering to you, a 8 years old boy understands better than you.
Tell me, you have not aswered any direct question to you. If you do not want to answer them, do not even think in coming back.
By yeeliberto, # 16. December 2007, 00:44:46
Exacly. Hulan talks often about things he knows nothing about. Economy is not an exception.
Simple about monopoly - free market is not perfect. From time to time monopoly appears and that leads to total destruction of free market (in other words free market rules no longer works as it should because no new competitor is able to enter the market as it can be bought immediately, destroyed by extremely low prices of the monopoly, or cannot provide the wide interconnected portfolio). Regulation of market to prevent monopoly from being abussed exists in every country. Even in the most liberal - logicaly to protect the free market itself that is core of healthly economy.
PS: you can ask radekradek about his economy education, it's quite interesting story
By wessan, # 16. December 2007, 00:52:16
EU needs another Margaret Thatcher :-)
"The intervention could be useful in some cases. And it would be in this case too. " --- No, it would not be. You know obviously nothing about economics ;-) (using same "arguments" as you do, couldn't resist)
Btw, if you look at news about Opera at Czech media, *none* of them agrees with Opera:
http://www.lupa.cz/clanky/opera-se-stebla-chyta/
http://petrkrcmar.blog.root.cz/0712/hraje-opera-cestnou-hru-nebo-podvadi
http://www.zive.cz/Blog-redaktoru/Opera-zalobnicek-zaluje-pod-nosem-si-maluje/sc-90-sr-1-a-139463/default.aspx
http://myego.cz/item/komuniste-zabili-miladu-horakovou-a-odsoudili-microsoft (my article)
People on (this) Opera website have a biased view, they are Opera lovers, but that is probably not the most objective view of reality. ;-)
By radekradek, # 16. December 2007, 00:54:38
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
--
Now, YOU should take some classes before answering questions ;-) Browser "market" does not have a single player, there are many of them (Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera, Apple, KHTML, etc.), and these are also perfect "substitutes" for a major browser (IE6 + IE7). No way you could call this a monopoly. People can download the browser freely, without any costs, and there is a lot of knowledge about possible alternatives.
Firefox takes 28% market share in Europe - July 13, 2007
http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2007/07/firefox-takes-28-market-share-in-europe
By radekradek, # 16. December 2007, 00:56:29
That this is an Opera community does not mean that they like it. http://www.hitslink.com/downloads/opera%20yeeliberto633333457018568249.pdf shows the percentage of browsers that used in My Opera of this month.
Do you know the meaning of absolute and relative? Like in in voting, you have the relative and economics (monopoly), you have the absolute that contols 50% or more (everything) or you have the relative (for example 3 companies, one controls 40%, the sond 30% and the third 30%, if they unite, they can overcome the first one, but if they don't ally or unite, they lose). You neither will find that in voting or monopoly in wikipedia. I hust took those classes and don't tell me I'm wrong. You can find that in in American goverment and Economics Today books.
And you still haven't answered me (and many other questions of toher people), how much money Microsoft is paying you?
By yeeliberto, # 16. December 2007, 01:17:48
See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Community_competition_law#Dominance_and_monopoly
"If a firm has a dominant position, because it has beyond a 39.7% market share then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market" --- Opera would have to prove that Microsoft (somehow) impairs competition in browsers.
I do not see this happening.
People are freely downloading Firefox, Opera, Flock, MyIE2 (I know this one is just IE skin) and other browsers, and 30% of them stay with them. Google promotes Firefox, not IE7. Firefox is getting a lot of attention, it even has bigger market share than IE7 (!!).
And that is very important, there is already a healthy competition (in browsers). Some people are simply not interested to upgrade, but you cannot force them. Interesting thing is that from those who do decide to upgrade, more of them choose Firefox over IE7.
Now how does Microsoft impair the browser market?! They do not...
As for "web standards", I had more problems with Opera JavaScript than with IE7 CSS.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=cs&q=Opera+Javascript+problems
http://www.google.com/search?q=Internet%20Explorer%20CSS%20problems
By radekradek, # 16. December 2007, 01:30:40
"Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods."
This is the right definition of monopoly situation on the market. Yeah, there is a viable substitute, but IT is too complex and too complicated problematic, that not many people understand what do they really do or use. They need the browser, they do not care about situation on the market of browsers and the security (they don't know anything about it, and they don't want to). BUT the politics of MS is going to destroy all other IE substituable products. And it is what do they (Opera) call for. To avoid this future possible situation.
"Only one provider of a product or service" isn't a premise.
I'm not sure, if you know the right meaning of "comunism". Maybe you should take same classes :-).
"
"The intervention could be useful in some cases. And it would be in this case too. " --- No, it would not be. You know obviously nothing about economics ;-) (using same "arguments" as you do, couldn't resist)
"
:-) now tell me why? Do you think that the situation with one dominating product is advantageous for the users? I'll answer. NO IT ISN'T.
It would have a little affect for MS to solve this situation. To get out the icon of IE or to allow peopole to choose.
I won't discuss the politics of EU and EC, it is discussion on another topic.
@wessan
I see. It seems like wiki education. :)
By Machh, # 16. December 2007, 01:32:25
@Machh - (partial repost, but relevant)
People are freely downloading Firefox, Opera, Flock, MyIE2 (I know this one is just IE skin) and other browsers, and most of them stay with them. Google promotes Firefox, not IE7. Firefox is getting a lot of attention, it even has bigger market share than IE7 (!!).
And that is very important, there is already a healthy competition (in browsers). Some people are simply not interested to upgrade, but you cannot force them. Interesting thing is that from those who do decide to upgrade, more of them choose Firefox over IE7.
Now how does Microsoft impair or control the browser market?! They do not... They lost it, in fact.
There is not even a dominating Microsoft product, you cannot count obsolete IE6 from 2001 into the equation. Many people have simply purchased the system (WinXP) and never upgraded anything, they will get a new browser with their new OS...
Browser market is a free market, people who want choose freely what fits them best.
(plus there is a certain percentage that does not want to upgrade anything, but they are not part of the market anyway)
By radekradek, # 16. December 2007, 01:42:19