Out of options, Opera files EU antitrust claim against Microsoft

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

December 13, 2007, 10:52 AM

Just when Microsoft thought it had the EU out of its hair, Opera may have brought it back to the bargaining table.

UPDATED Opera has struggled against Microsoft's Internet Explorer, only managing a little over a half percent worldwide market share compared to IE's 77% in November, according to NetApplications.

The browser is also falling further behind fellow alternative browser Firefox which now has 16 percent of the market, so filing an antitrust complaint seems like a last ditch effort. Much of what Opera accuses Microsoft of seems to already have been settled in the EU's antitrust case against the company.

Although that judgment dealt with Windows Media Player, the settlement of that case makes it somewhat unlikely that the governing body would go after Microsoft again.

Microsoft is accused of abusing its dominant position by tying its browser to Windows, and hindering interoperability by not following web standards. It asks the commission to order IE be unbundled from Windows, and to follow web standards.

"We are filing this complaint on behalf of all consumers who are tired of having a monopolist make choices for them," Opera CEO Jon von Tetzchner said. "We cannot rest until we've brought fair and equitable options to consumers worldwide."

Opera's calls may fall on deaf ears however, especially considering Firefox's rise from Opera's levels to almost a fifth of the browser market in less than two years. The problem with Opera may not be Microsoft per se, but more a lack of buzz in its own product.

Firefox has been able to not only get people to switch to its browser, but also build a vibrant enough community around it that it has actively gone out to pursue converts. On the flip side, the Norwegian browser company has done little to advance its cause on a public level.

"In the end, Microsoft's own inertia, browser-security problems and inability to react quickly to market changes will continue to help its browser competitors more than a ruling by the EU or other antitrust body would," added noted pundit Mary Jo Foley, who gave several other reasons why Opera's antitrust complaint was a bad idea in a blog post Thursday.

Update ribbon (small)

UPDATE 12:30 pm ET December 13, 2007 - In a response to BetaNews early this afternoon, Microsoft seemed to brush off Opera's accusations.

"It's important to note that computer users have complete freedom of choice to use and set as default any browser they wish, including Opera, and PC manufacturers can also pre-install any browser as the default on any Windows machine they sell," Microsoft Legal spokesperson Jack Evans said.

"We will of course cooperate with any inquiries into these issues, but we believe the inclusion of the browser into the operating system benefits consumers, and that consumers and PC manufacturers already are free to choose to use any browsers they wish."

Add a Comment (160 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By tennant-it

edited Dec 15, 2007 - 12:25 PM

It seems Opera's case is a bit week, although, I think it's a very good and stable browser. I also support the fact they are willing to go out and fight for the rights of people that use their software, advanced software that they distribute for free out of the goodness of their hearts. I think they have the monopoly on mobile hand-held devices, the mobile browser is much better than the one that came with my phone. I think it would be nice if there was an uninstall option in Windows for Internet Explorer, I never use it, I only use Firefox. In my experience I found Internet Explorer to be slow and cause problems such as security and stability issues. Have we forgotten about Netscape? I love having choices and that's why I hope all these great browsers are around for years to come.

Score: 0

By simko

posted Dec 16, 2007 - 5:32 AM

opera is real desperate imo,

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 17, 2007 - 3:20 PM

How so? Opera is profitable, has lots of cash, and had a revenue increase of more than 50% in the last quarter.

The company is financially healthy with major growth in all business areas. How is that "desperate"?

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 3:47 PM

How is Opera out of options?

It's profitable, had a revenue growth of more than 50% in the previous quarter, and keeps landing huge deals. It's the dominant mobile browser.

So how is Opera out options, exactly?

Score: 0

By smalldick

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 2:20 PM

WHAT MONOPOLY DUDE?
ITS AN OS.

WINDOWS DOES NOT RESTRICT AND FORBID YOU TO USE ANOTHER BROWSER

Score: 0

By lemonlovr

posted Dec 15, 2007 - 4:58 AM

I like to look at it like this.

OS X includes Safari as the default browser, based on WebKit, based on the open-source KHTML rendering engine. Note that while Apple markets Safari and does some customization, all changes to Webkit are given back to the open-source community.

Ubuntu includes Firefox as the default browser, based on the open-source Gecko rendering engine. Both are independent of Ubuntu and Canonical.

Windows includes Internet Explorer as the default browser, which is based on...Microsoft. They control the codebase for both the OS and the browser. If IE was based on an open-source or other 3rd party rendering engine, such as Webkit, Gecko, or Opera's own Presto, there wouldn't be a problem. But by controlling both the OS and the rendering, Microsoft is able to use the browser to further the interests of the OS and vice versa.

It's not about forbidding the use of another browser. It's not even about Opera. It's about being open and playing nice with others.

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 3:34 PM

Actually, it does restrict you due to the proprietary Microsoft technologies on the web that cause problems to this day. Lots of sites still REQUIRE MSIE. My bank, for example.

Score: 0

By Ian C.

posted Dec 15, 2007 - 7:21 PM

You present a very rare case. IE7 has made great strides in standard compliance over version 6, although still a few quirks remain, it is nothing major. And all browsers have some sort of proprietary technology, for example, Firefox has style support for rounded corners, Opera has it's little bidirectional XML communication, and IE has ActiveX and a few others. Sometimes proprietary additions are a good thing, they drive innovation of the standards.

Score: 0

By flibberyGiveIt

edited Dec 15, 2007 - 11:27 PM

"You present a very rare case. IE7 has made great strides in standard compliance over version 6,"

IME All versions of IE do fine with all websites.

IME/O all versions of microsoft websites are made
to not work with browsers that conform to the
the standards that M$ signed to.

Lawsuits probably still exist.
This is very old. So far as I could tell, M$
a long time ago decided to make IE free only
because they would rather give something
away than have a competitor sell it.
Morte Netscape.

Score: 0

By smalldick

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 4:30 PM

thats too bad for YOU and your bank, and the obscure websites YOU use.

my bank BOFA, or CITICARDS, DISCOVER, AMEX, BESTBUY etc etc doesnt require no msie.

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 15, 2007 - 3:15 AM

Actually, it's too bad for the web since this costs both other browser vendors AND web developers a lot of money.

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 1:23 PM

It's just one question: who gets to pick what software is bundled with a PC?

In Europe they are seeing that the market only works when the PC builder decides what to offer their customers.

When a vendor with monopoly control of an essential component gets to decide there is less competition, less choice, and higher prices.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 10:17 AM

If I were them I'd head over to the International Panel On Climate Change. Maybe they could grab some of that carbon tax loot, if the UN ever manages to get their little Global warming protection racket up and running.

Score: 0

By smalldick

edited Dec 14, 2007 - 10:09 AM

Whiny little b****es

I NEVER understood WHY they FORCED MS to unbundle IE from windoze. Since the days of AOL I almost never used window's browser but netscape or whatever. And thats not because it was from MS.

These whiny little opera b****es should just give up on their s***ty nasty a** browser and quit complaining about MS,

OPERA, YOUR BROWSER SUCKS THATS WHY WE DONT USE IT !

do you need that in norwegian ?!
well, babelfish dont have norwegian, heres
dutch:

DE OPERA, UW BROWSER ZUIGT THATS WAAROM WIJ DONT HET GEBRUIKEN!

germanski?

OPER, IHRE DATENBANKSUCHROUTINE SAUGT THATS, WARUM WIR ES NICHT VERWENDEN!

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 3:36 PM

You are missing the point.

You can install Opera, but you will be forced to use MSIE from time to time due to Microsoft ignoring standards.

You focus only on the bundling issue, when the fact is that there is a second part to this complaint: Microsoft's attitude towards standards.

Due to Microsoft actively undermining standards, other browsers constantly have to chance a changing target because Microsoft has nearly 90% of the market and can dictate what goes and what doesn't.

Score: 0

By smalldick

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 4:28 PM

what? what the hell you pulled that out from?
i never needed to use msie in the past 5 years

if you can install opera what does that have to do with microsoft's standards?

what can microsoft dictate?! its a stupid a** user that has the choice of what buttons to press.

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 15, 2007 - 7:19 AM

That's great. You don't need MSIE. Other people do, because lots of sites, especially banks, still require you to use it. And that's a situation which cannot be accepted.

From a FAQ posted on this:

"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."

Score: 0

By smilerz

edited Dec 15, 2007 - 11:29 AM

Did you ever consider that they don't stick with standards because the standards don't off the functionality they are looking for?

Standards are not the be-all end-all - just because its standard doesn't mean its right.

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 16, 2007 - 4:13 AM

If the standards don't offer the functionality you are looking for, improve the standards. That's what Mozilla, Opera and others are doing. That's what Microsoft is PRETENDING to be doing as well.

Yes, standard means right. That's why it's called a standard.

And Microsoft has a special obligation to follow standards and not be anti-competitive due to its dominant position. It has failed.

Score: 0

By smalldick

posted Dec 16, 2007 - 3:16 PM

youre just an idiot who wont shut the f*uck up,
go code some compatible shiit and lets see your name somewhere productive you godd*** loser.

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Dec 17, 2007 - 1:59 PM

Score: 0

By molumen

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 2:56 PM

Your nickname says it all...

Score: 0

By smalldick

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 4:33 PM

would you like to fondle me?

Score: 0

By Kado-pt

edited Dec 14, 2007 - 9:40 AM

This is ridiculous! Just because it is installed does not mean you have to use it, this is going the same way when EU sued M$ because of WiMP integration on XP and Vista. Well just remove IE and try to get Opera without a browser (unless you have it on other media). I mainly use FF2.x but I use IE7 when FF cant render the pages correctly. If Windows didn't have a browser/media player there would be someone complaining as well!

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 3:36 PM

You are missing the point.

You can install Opera, but you will be forced to use MSIE from time to time due to Microsoft ignoring standards.

You focus only on the bundling issue, when the fact is that there is a second part to this complaint: Microsoft's attitude towards standards.

Due to Microsoft actively undermining standards, other browsers constantly have to chance a changing target because Microsoft has nearly 90% of the market and can dictate what goes and what doesn't.

Score: 0

By smalldick

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 5:02 PM

are you some sorta broken record ?

Score: 0

By cool_guy

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 6:23 AM

"Why aren't they suing firefox since they also have more marketshare?"

Because FF is not tied to Windows. What MS shoud do is this. Have all three browsers installed: IE, Opera and FF and give the user an option which one to set as default or use. There would be an icon for "Internet Browser" and when this is selected or an HTML document is opened, the question is asked. How hard is this?

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 9:23 AM

Then why not have all major spyware players installed too? or all major media players? This, again, opens a can of worms

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 3:37 PM

You are missing the point.

You can install Opera, but you will be forced to use MSIE from time to time due to Microsoft ignoring standards.

You focus only on the bundling issue, when the fact is that there is a second part to this complaint: Microsoft's attitude towards standards.

Due to Microsoft actively undermining standards, other browsers constantly have to chance a changing target because Microsoft has nearly 90% of the market and can dictate what goes and what doesn't.

Score: 0

By smalldick

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 5:02 PM

are you some sorta broken record ?

Score: 0

By aepasa

edited Dec 14, 2007 - 4:13 AM

OperA deserves 6 out of 5!

[Just check what OperA can do [that no other browser[s] can]]!

Score: 0

By smalldick

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 4:34 PM

opera is s***ty, its interface sucks me

Score: 0

By lemonlovr

posted Dec 15, 2007 - 4:27 AM

I guess this one comes down to personal preference, as I can't use anything BUT Opera's interface. Everything else seems clunky to me but Opera puts everything where I need it with almost no customization necessary. Been using Opera since the 3.0 days and never looked back.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 8:26 AM

Firefox can do anything Opera can do (and so much more) with extensions.

However, I'm not saying Opera is a poor choice. I was an Opera user for a long time before switching over to Firefox.

Actually, if Internet Explorer 7 offered Adblock functionality, I'd probably switch back to that.

Score: 0

By lemonlovr

posted Dec 15, 2007 - 4:31 AM

I love the "Firefox can do extensions" argument. Again, personal preference. I prefer to use Opera specifically because I don't need to install any extensions. Everything is built in and I don't have any add-ons slowing me down. It absolutely kills me, for example, that Firefox doesn't include something as simple as mouse gestures in its default install. Why should I have to go find an extension to do something I do probably once a minute? Opera does things the right way - it keeps features turned off until the first time you attempt to use them and then asks you what you'd like to do.

For example: click on a mailto: link in Opera. It will prompt you to set up an account in Opera's M2 mail client or use your system default e-mail client. Use a mouse gesture for the first time? Opera recognizes this and asks you if you'd like to turn them on. Hit an RSS link? Opera asks if you'd like to add the feed to the Feeds menu. Nice and easy. No add-ons necessary.

Score: 0

By m_faccone

edited Dec 14, 2007 - 11:40 AM

IE7 with the help of a little extension IE7Pro does offer adblocking and much more.
IE7 with the inclusion of IE7Pro actually is much better than firefox.

Score: 0

By molumen

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 3:04 PM

IE7 cannot offer the speed of the Opera engine, nor its rendering quality and security.
IE7 has no Full SVG support, no CSS3 (that's already supported in Opera 9.50 Beta). It even can't handle the full CSS2.1 specification. And it has speed problems with javascript.

So NO, IE7 is a bad choice.

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 2:08 AM

Quote:

"Either we support efforts like Opera's, or we just give up and accept the fact that the web is broken, forever."

Score: 0

By molumen

edited Dec 13, 2007 - 9:02 PM

I just read all the comments so far and realized that IMO everyone missed the point of this case.

Opera is not struggling because of its small desktop market share. They DON'T DO MONEY out of the desktop version of Opera anymore. They don't sell it, there are no ads (as it was before version 7.24 or so).

Opera changed its business model for some time already. They make money out of their engine (which is the same in Opera for desktop, Opera mobile, Opera for Wii, and partly in Opera mini). They managed to create an engine that is standard compliant, fast (actually the fastest available today), incredibly small, and secure.

They blame Microsoft for stopping the progress with its browser. IE6 is a CSS coder's nightmare. IE7 is a lot better but has by far the worst standard compliancy around.

Without IE, web devellopers would be free to adopt and use new web standards (like SVG, CSS3 etc...) a lot faster because they won't have to worry about "will that work in IE6? and what about IE7?". The web will be very different in just a year or two. And it will be the best place for Opera's engine. After that, Opera will have literally no concurrents on the market (specially on the mobile browser market).

This (and only this) is the real meaning of their complains. They want to change the web to have a better place in it. And the big winners of such a change will in the end be the users (and Opera will make some money of course).

Score: 0

By debonair

edited Dec 13, 2007 - 9:09 PM

I didn't miss that point at all. The fact remains that they are griping over the fact that not enough people are using their product. Boo hoo.

As previously stated, I've used opera since 1999, and I love it. But how is it microsoft's fault that not more people are using it? Why aren't they suing firefox since they also have more marketshare?

I think if opera was better at a lot of stuff than it is, more people would be using it. After 8 years of using it, I've seen a lot of improvements, but the fact is, I HAVE to use firefox for some browsing because some things simply don't work in Opera.

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 1:59 AM

You did miss this point:

They are not griping over not enough people using their product.

They are griping over Microsoft actively working to replace standards with its own proprietary technologies in order to prevent people from using other products.

"Why aren't they suing firefox since they also have more marketshare?"

If you had your facts straight you would have known that this is not about Microsoft having more market share as such. And this is not a lawsuit, but an antitrust complaint. And Mozilla is not a monopolist, and actually contributes a lot to open standards.

You HAVE to use Firefox for some browsing.

Exactly!

You also HAVE to use MSIE for some browsing, even today. My intranet application ONLY supports MSIE. Something simply don't work in Opera, Safari or Firefox because of Microsoft's destruction of standards.

Score: 0

By debonair

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 11:59 AM

hm, you're right. if that's the point they were making, I did miss it :/

It was all there too: "hindering interoperability by not following web standards"

Score: 0

By flibberyGiveIt

edited Dec 14, 2007 - 12:37 AM

you said: "how is it microsoft's fault that not more people are using it"
Ed said: "hindering interoperability by not following web standards"

M$ has In My Opinion on numerous occasions
tried to break Opera by ignoring contracts
and in fact willfully and maliciously has
tried to use its market share to destroy
and other wise ignore its contractual
obligations.

Ask Sun.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 8:05 PM

In the 'good old days' of DOS, you had DOS and you had a text editor ;-)

Why cant Windows JUST be the desktop. With JUST the bare minimum of applications. Notepad, Calculator, File Manager.

THEN everything else be sold as add-on packs.

Of course manufactures can put together their own collections.

Wouldnt this be a lot like the Linux distros ?! a common core (kernel) + Graphic Shell (eg KDE) + Apps (eg OpenOffice, Firefox)

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Dec 16, 2007 - 3:32 AM

DOS couldn't access the internet, Windows can. AOL, Prodigy and Compuserve don't count because the DOS versions of the client software could not access the internet. They could only access the previously mentioned proprietary online services and not the world wide web.

Score: 0

By smalldick

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 4:44 PM

linux? alrighty then, maybe you havent seen that the majority use windows,

and thinking of configuring and commands shells and other bullshiit compile crap makes me vomit

Score: 0

By debonair

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 9:11 PM

What distro supplies everything as an add-on? Do you think making the consumer have to download everying will give more or less consumer satisfaction?

Doesn't Ubuntu come with a browser? Doesn't mac os x come with a browser? Doesn't solaris come with a browser? In fact, there are only very few OS' that don't come with a browser. This is the internet age, so it makes sense to bundle a browser because that's what we use our computer for the most.

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 6:16 PM

Inclusion of the browser in the OS is a security issue. Are they that blind?

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 5:52 PM

If Microsoft removes Internet Explorer from OEM or retail copies of Windows XP and Vista then how will DIY computer users be able to easily download a web browser? This could potentially be a catch 22. Not every DIY computer user knows how to use the Unix command line FTP program that was ported over to Windows years ago.

Score: 0

By MarcFou

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 5:51 PM

I left Opera a year ago and this is just one more reason to stay away from it.

I dont use FireFox, but I do admire that they achieved in 1 year what Opera could not do in 10. Surely this is a desperate attempt on Opera's part.

After 4 years of using Opera I realized I had heard the word regression used so frequently, that it became the norm.

Score: 0

By lemonlovr

posted Dec 15, 2007 - 4:36 AM

What Firefox "achieved"? Firefox is where it is today because it had the buzz of being "open-source" and the full backing of Google. In fact, I would attribute the majority of Firefox's success to Google's constant badgering to install it. I'm sure if Google had chosen to support Opera, things would be a bit different.

That said, I find it amusing that Google has chosen the Webkit core (on which Safari is based) for the Android platform over a mobile implementation of Gecko upon which Firefox is based. Perhaps there is a shift brewing...

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 2:01 AM

Opera is hardly desperate.

The company is profitable, and had a revenue growth of more than 50% in the last quarter.

You will hear the word regression frequently with Firefox and Safari as well. It's called software development. Not that you are expected to know anything about that.

Score: 0

By debonair

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 9:12 PM

What do you use instead? I think they all suck, just opera sucks less which is why i've stuck with it.

Score: 0

By smalldick

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 4:44 PM

maybe you havent tried opera, it really sucks

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Dec 13, 2007 - 5:58 PM

"We are filing this complaint on behalf of all consumers who are tired of having a monopolist make choices for them,"

Yeah, my ass.

Make a better product, or move to a different field. We can install Opera fine on Microsoft Windows, I tried it the other day. No messages about Microsoft preventing unauthorised browser changes tried to stop me, no hate mail from Microsoft, nada. Go to www.opera.com, download their browser, run it, click yes that you trust the provider, then the installation works fine.

Like the Microsoft guy said, some brand PCs actually include Opera preinstalled on Microsoft Windows OEM installs too (although the brands I know of are pretty suckey :D )

Didn't Dell have some PCs that you could configure to include Firefox as the default browser out of box? Are these guys saying that Dell cannot do the same thing with Opera?

Should Microsoft not have any browser with Windows? How many home users do you know of that can download a web browser without having one to use to do it in the first place? I could figure it out, but could my mom?

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 2:03 AM

bourgeoisdude, you are missing the point.

You can install Opera, but you will be forced to use MSIE from time to time due to Microsoft ignoring standards.

You focus only on the bundling issue, when the fact is that there is a second part to this complaint: Microsoft's attitude towards standards.

Due to Microsoft actively undermining standards, other browsers constantly have to chance a changing target because Microsoft has nearly 90% of the market and can dictate what goes and what doesn't.

Score: 0

By smalldick

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 5:00 PM

are you some sorta broken record ?

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 3:58 PM

Product can't compete? Sue Microsoft!

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 2:03 AM

You are missing the point.

You can install Opera, but you will be forced to use MSIE from time to time due to Microsoft ignoring standards.

You focus only on the bundling issue, when the fact is that there is a second part to this complaint: Microsoft's attitude towards standards.

Due to Microsoft actively undermining standards, other browsers constantly have to chance a changing target because Microsoft has nearly 90% of the market and can dictate what goes and what doesn't.

Score: 0

By leojei

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 10:02 AM

IE is still losing market share despite the effort of using its dominant market share and ignorant of standards to hinder other browsers' grow.

Yes I'm forced to use MSIE on some pages when Firefox doesn't render "correctly" but so what, I still use Firefox as my major browser and use IE for let's say 1 out of 20 sites/pages I surf?

Firefox is still growing and most of us know why. Opera isn't growing not because of MSIE or Firefox, to me, it's because of themselves and their closed-source browser. There's no application with features that we all want, so extensibility in the applications is a must-have.

Score: 0

By lemonlovr

posted Dec 15, 2007 - 4:41 AM

Again, personal preference comes in to play here. I prefer using a closed-source browser. In fact, I prefer using closed-source everything if I have the choice. By controlling the development, Opera is able to add new features quickly and efficiently. All I've heard from tech pundits lately is how Firefox 2 is slow and bloated compared to Firefox 1.5 and that 3.0 isn't looking much better. To me, open-source hasn't proven itself to be an optimal method of software development. And before the flamers start flaming, I'm writing this post using Opera 9.5 beta running on Ubuntu. I know what open-source software can do and it's not quite there yet.

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 3:39 PM

Actually, IE still owns nearly 90% of the market. Recently, Firefox growth has stopped and even gone back a bit.

"Yes I'm forced to use MSIE on some pages"

EXACTLY! You are making my point. TO THIS DAY, you are required to use MSIE for some sites due to Microsoft's actions.

"Opera isn't growing"

Wrong. Opera is growing. In the third quarter of this year, Opera's desktop revenue increased by more than 100% due to more users.

But that doesn't change the fact that IE still has nearly 90% of the market EVEN AFTER THE LIKES OF GOOGLE HAVE SPENT MANY YEARS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TRYING TO FIGHT IT.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 3:48 PM

Personally, I would actually prefer to use Opera over Firefox. The problem is that Opera doesn't allow 3rd party plugins and extensions. I use a password manager called RoboForm, which works with both IE and Firefox, but obviously not with Opera. This is the main reason I will never switch to Opera. Sorry, but I'm not going to input several hundred logins/passwords into Opera's crappy The Wand password manager and be locked into a single browser. As long as Opera keeps their code completely closed and all 3rd party applications locked out, it will NEVER succeed. Period.

Score: 0

By kenheyden99

edited Dec 14, 2007 - 6:29 AM

I also use RoboForm but opera wont alow it. sorry Opera ill stick with IE 7 till you change this.

Score: 0

By lemonlovr

posted Dec 15, 2007 - 4:44 AM

It's not crappy if it's all you know. Tried RoboForm once, found it big, bloated, and unnecessary. On the other hand, if I didn't have my Wand, I wouldn't know how to log in to anything.

I don't want any extensions, I don't want anything from a 3rd party weighing down my browser. No add-ons is a GOOD thing.

Score: 0

By flibberyGiveIt

edited Dec 13, 2007 - 3:32 PM

I use Opera mostly with Hotmail (now Windows Live
Hotmail) because I have more than one ID and
M$ makes it a PITA to sign out--I have Opera set
to delete all cookies. (Yes, I could link the
ID's, but than they wouldn't be all separate)
What I noticed over the years is every little
while Hotmail would stop working in Opera and a
short time later Opera would have an update, and
Hotmail would work again.

As a side note. I don't know how long Firefox
has been "popular" but I expect M$ to start
trying to break it 2 to 3 years after it starts
being a "threat" to IE--that's about how long
it takes M$ to notice anything non routine.

Score: 0

By AnthonySPT

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 4:13 PM

Use Opera for Hotmail/Live? Ok, crawl out from under the rock, the aliens are gone.

Seriously, you do know that Live and Hotmail have a feature called Login Assistant and also lets you link multiple Passport/Live IDs, so you can access all your mail boxes, by signing into just one account that is authorized/linked?

Oh and you can set IE to delete the same crap as Opera does on exiting, so even if you want to use the old kill the cookie method, just turn that on in IE.

Geesh.

Score: 0

By flibberyGiveIt

edited Dec 13, 2007 - 8:26 PM

me: "(Yes, I could link the
ID's, but than they wouldn't be all separate)"
you: "Login Assistant"

1)a I opened my newest hotmail account very
many years ago, before they started their pass-
port "service"-my newer addresses are not
with M$.
1)b Login assistant is not easier than than
launching Opera, clicking the magic wand,
double clicking my user name.
2) Another family member used IE4, 5, & 6 and
I did not like the grunts about "[sites not
remembering]" that were caused by my deleting
cookies (separate windows 9x/NT/etc weren't
an option because that could have messed up my
DL of the collected works of Shakespeare).

Score: 0

By leojei

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 10:05 AM

You gonna be kidding me. Login Assistant is the thing that you have your name on the page (WLMail), you click on the arrow thing besides your name to show a list of your other accounts. Simply click one of those names will get your profile switched. You really think that launching Opera, deleting all Cookies, and go to WLMail site and sign in is easier than Login Assistant?

Score: 0

By flibberyGiveIt

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 2:03 PM

--sigh--.
To login to hotmail I: click the icon in the
quick launch bar, click the magic wand in opera,
double click the chosen user name. To log out
I close opera--total login time is some 6 sec.
Logout, about a quarter sec or less.

But my on topic point was my observation that
hotmail would stop working in Opera, and would
work again after the Opera update--my opinion
of that was M$ was probably deliberately doing
something nonstandard to break Opera on HM.

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Dec 13, 2007 - 4:06 PM

Did you just use a dollar sign instead of an S in Microsoft? That is so clever! Did you think of that? It's so funny because they like making money (unlike other businesses) and because an S sort of looks like a dollar sign! You're really cool! I have a great idea, instead of calling it Internet Explorer we should call it Internet Exploder! Ha ha!

In case you've been under a rock for the past few years Firefox already became a threat to IE, why do you think they suddenly got off their duffs and made IE7?

Score: 0

By flibberyGiveIt

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 8:29 PM

"why do you think they suddenly got off their duffs and made IE7?"

Good point, and in fact they even started letting
windows update work in FF.

Score: 0

By MikeTechno

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 1:28 AM

No, actually that still doesn't work with FF. I just tried it yesterday and it still sends back a message saying that you must be using a Microsoft based browser to do that. You must be thinking of a different browers there.

Score: 0

By flibberyGiveIt

posted Dec 15, 2007 - 10:49 PM

I did successfully run windows update in FF-had to disable Admuncher and
set the service "automatic updates" to "automatic" (I prefer "disabled" ;)
to get it to run but it did, and installed updates and rebooted....

Now, new box, different install of windows, sort of the same install of FF*:
WU won't load in FF. Won't load is different from the 'you gotta use IE'
message I got before WU worked.

I'm sure I'd consider that an interesting problem and might pay attention
to how on Dead Box clicking the start menu item WU launched FF and how here
it launches the ugly and probably functional IE7 (A fun set of edits to get
working IIRC) but bored now. Leaving.

*installed FF to the new root drive. Went to the old root drive. Overwrote
all FF on new root with stuff from the old root and did get settings, book-
marks, history... back.

Score: 0

By dkratter

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 3:29 PM

Opera: don't blame Microsoft for your inability to make and market a product that a large percentage of people use. Maybe you have a better product (don't know, don't care) or a more standards-compliant product (again, don't know, don't care), but the way to win the game is to get people to use your product. Mozilla did it and continues to do it, why can't you? Perhaps you need to rethink your marketing strategy, and pour more resources into that, rather than waste them on frivolous lawsuits.

I'm so tired of companies and government bodies (EU) whining when things don't go the way they want. Microsoft makes the operating system and should be allowed to include in it whatever they want, just like everyone else. The only thing they shouldn't be allowed to do is pressure hardware vendors into selling MS products.

Score: 0

By willywonkah

edited Dec 14, 2007 - 2:05 AM

You are missing the point.

You can install Opera, but you will be forced to use MSIE from time to time due to Microsoft ignoring standards.

You focus only on the bundling issue, when the fact is that there is a second part to this complaint: Microsoft's attitude towards standards.

Due to Microsoft actively undermining standards, other browsers constantly have to chance a changing target because Microsoft has nearly 90% of the market and can dictate what goes and what doesn't.

Score: 0

By smalldick

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 5:02 PM

are you some sorta broken record ?

Score: 0

By MikeTechno

edited Dec 13, 2007 - 5:19 PM

Yeah, that is all fine and dandy until it crosses the line into being what is called a "Monopoly". Then we get into that pesky little area called anti-compeitive business practices. Once a company crosses the line into using tactics that qualify as preditory capitalism, that is where the government, and the court system, are perfectly justified in stepping in and bringing things back to what would largely be considered a level playing field thought the use of things like injunctions and court orders.

The same rules do not apply to all companies under all conditions. Once a company has reached a monopolistic position in a market they are held to an entirely different set of standards of behavior, and rightfully so.

Score: 0

By dkratter

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 7:21 PM

I think you need to reread what I said. I explicitly stated that Microsoft should not be allowed to pressure hardware vendors into selling only Microsoft products.

Don't confuse a monopoly with anti-competitive business practices. One is legal and one is not. Microsoft should be allowed to strive for as large a market share as is possible, as long it does not use its dominance to pressure vendors into do something improper.

Score: 0

By bsf

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 8:56 PM

the thing is if you have a product that is selling so well, even if you Don't pressure anyone, the vendor's are going to sell your product because if they don't, they go out of business.

Score: 0

By MikeTechno

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 1:36 AM

Agreed. In addition, recall what Microsoft has been caught doing in the past to their business partners due to their legal, but highly anti-competitve Monopolistic position in the market. Microsoft has repeatedly been caught using strong-arm and intimidation tactics to bend vendors and system builders to their will.

They have been caught "laying out the rules" by which vendors and system builders are allowed to play by, or Microsoft will simply revoke their ability to sell Window OS at all, or raise their licensing fees on the OS to the point where they can't be compeitive and will simply go out of business. That is the functional equivilent of putting a gun to someones head.

I don't know about you, but that is EXACTLY the definition of anti-competive business practices in my book. It isn't the monopoly that is illegal here. It is the blatent abuse of that advantageous market position that results in the adoption of illegal business practices that become available to a company that enjoys that monopoly position. You see, one very quicly and easily begets the other.

Score: 0

By K9

edited Dec 13, 2007 - 1:42 PM

Opera is filing now because of the victory against Microshaft three months ago.

For those ignorant of history (eg. more than six months ago) before Firefox came along, Opera had surpassed Nutscrape as the second most popular browser. Microshaft and several of its affiliated companies began a targeted and anti-competitive campaign against Opera.

Microshaft began designing its websites with scripts to detect Opera. If a person tried to view a Microshaft site with Opera, the script caused the website to be rendered improperly which Microshaft then claimed was a flaw in Opera's browser. However, if an Opera user changed a setting and made Opera identify itself as Infernal Exploder, the website would display the same as if using Infernal Exploder.

Clearly, this was not a flaw in Opera but rather a deliberate act to inconvenience and harass Opera users as well as Opera itself. It was anti-competitive and unethical. One has to wonder what Opera's market share would be if this harassment had not happened.

Now that Microshaft has lost one case, it clearly gave Opera hope to file a long overdue case of their own. I wish them luck and hope they win; the merits of the case are certainly not at issue, only whether Microshaft will try to outspend Opera, or worse, try to bribe the court.

Score: 0

By THZGryphon

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 5:23 PM

What an excellent and mature post.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 3:59 PM

You could have had a well thought out post there but using words like Nutscrape and Microshaft make you sound like a complete idiot. Sorry but it's true.

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 3:53 PM

Did you forget how to spell microsoft? its like 3rd grade English

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 6:14 PM

Is like it like?

Score: 0

By alphatrigon

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 3:28 PM

just for kicks and also my attempt at being cool, let's call Opera, Oprah. har har, not funny but just trying to be like you! hehe

Score: 0

By internetworld7

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 3:24 PM

Perhaps this will some how bring much needed attention to Opera. Prior to Firefox, Opera was perfectly content to just sell it's browser for $39. They weren't the least bit concerned about market share. When Firefox came on the seen and became wildly popular almost overnight, the folks over at Opera have been envious and jealous ever since. If it were not for the emergence of Firefox, Opera would still be $39 or Ad supported.

Opera simply missed their opportunity. Their browser is good and is getting better but unfortunately everything they are doing comes too little and too late.

Bottom line? Switch to a Mac, use Safari and add the Saft plugin for it. :)

Score: 0

By lemonlovr

posted Dec 15, 2007 - 4:50 AM

I just had to jump on this one.

"...unfortunately everything they are doing comes too little and too late."

What a load of crap. Let's see...

Opera invented the precursor to tabs (in 1994), Page Zoom (1994), was the first browser to block pop-up ads (2000), first to add a Search field in the browser toolbar (2000), Sessions (1996), deleting private data (2000), Mouse Gestures (2000), User JavaScript (2005), BitTorrent support (2005), Widgets (2006), and Speed Dial (2007).

And that's only a partial list. Yet Firefox takes this stuff and puts it in and gets 1% more market share. Why? GOOGLE

Score: 0

By willywonkah

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 2:04 AM

You are missing the point.

You can install Opera, but you will be forced to use MSIE from time to time due to Microsoft ignoring standards.

You focus only on the bundling issue, when the fact is that there is a second part to this complaint: Microsoft's attitude towards standards.

Due to Microsoft actively undermining standards, other browsers constantly have to chance a changing target because Microsoft has nearly 90% of the market and can dictate what goes and what doesn't.

Score: 0

By billweh

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 4:05 PM

[quote]Perhaps this will some how bring much needed attention to Opera.[quote]

They hope - it's not like anyone realizes that Opera is even available anymore. Crap - does anyone know what percentage (do they even have a full percentage point - outside of their own servers that is) of use?

Score: 0

By frankwick

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 2:35 PM

opera doesn't think they will actually win. This is simply about getting in the news so people will check out Opera. Most people don't even know about opera. The timing was perfect for this suit. Had they filed earlier then the EU case would have over-shadowed this. Now that EU is over, they will be the main story.

People moan about IE not being 100% W3C compliant. The truth is that only people on tech boards care. The other 99.999% of the population doesn't care or even have a clue what it means. They know that they can fire up IE and it works. Why should MS devote time to get that one rare Javascript/CSS incompatibility working, when they know that the website builder will work around it?

You people than moan about standards compliance really don't have much business sense.

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 6:35 PM

Go learn something about web standards. Following web standards can significantly reduce filesizes, download times, response delays, and bandwidth usage, while increasing options (such as using XSLT for rendering into other formats) and making it easier for those who have accessibility requirements (such as the blind). That's good business sense, being able to maintain code easier and slash bandwidth costs while making websites more responsive. It's not just tech board members who care. Why would you think that?

We're not asking for 100% compliance. We want more than lip service and doublespeak. We want a decent attempt at a decent product. We want something that doesn't put us at the mercy of every website we visit.

Score: 0

By alphatrigon

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 2:34 PM

I wish for IE to be bundled with my purchase of Vista Ultimate. Please allow the maker of an OS or other software piece, to bundle any other software they create, for their consumers.
Opera "devs" please feel free to create your own os. Thank you :D

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 2:19 PM

the question is:

"will the fat-lady get to sing?"

Score: 0

By netdragon

edited Dec 13, 2007 - 2:03 PM

You forgot that Netscape (the original code for Firefox) already settled out of court against M$. Also, a LOT more money has been dumped on the Mozilla foundation than Opera could ever hope, as a private software company, to get its hands on. Different case completely.

Score: 0

By frankwick

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 2:29 PM

just to clarify, there is not much (if any) Netscape code in Firefox. Netscape started the FF project and donated resources, etc... but I believe the original code was from scratch. I was actually an original tester of the code during the old days (1997ish) when they were releasing milestone builds.

The thought from Netscape was that they would take the outcome from FF and wrap their junk around it for the new Netscape browser. The problem with this was