Slashdot Mirror
Opera Files EU Complaint Against Microsoft
A number of readers have sent word about Opera Software ASA's antitrust complaint against Microsoft filed with the EU. Here is Opera's press release on the filing. The company wants the EU to "obligate Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows and/or carry alternative browsers pre-installed on the desktop" and to "require Microsoft to follow fundamental and open Web standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities." The latter request makes this a case to watch. Will the Commissioner take the Acid2 test using IE7?
Why should Microsoft do that? It's not like you can't install another browser if you don't want. Unbundling it would mean the OS doesn't have a functioning browser (not to mention it's built-in to the OS, so removal would be only a cosmetic feat (removing the icon) not actually removing the browser). Including other browsers makes more sense, but won't it make Windows even more bloaty? Is this just a sandy vagina move, or do they have a point?
From the article:
Wasn't this part of the settlement before? I often wonder why we have to see other countries doing the heavy lifting to throttle Microsoft. Microsoft lost, was set up for some pretty severe controls to be administered and lucked out with a changing of the guard and a Justice Department that lost any appetite to really control Microsoft.Also,
This one does get interesting. Maybe this is the avenue required to get Microsoft to move closer to compliance on the accepted standards. There certainly hasn't been any bending to pressures from developers.This seems like a rehash of the Netscape suit years ago. Didnt that jumpstart the initial monopoly case? Anyway I find it more interesting at this point that they want for force IE into compliance with a standard that is defined and regulated by an open assembly. I think that is more important as that will ensure that web 3.0 doesn't use mono/.net, Silverlight or some proprietary based framework that forces us back to the days when you can't go to a bank, school, work, website w/o IE.
How am I going to download an Internet browser if my Operating System has no way of browsing the Internet?
IANAL, but I think Opera might win this war. Netscape lost a similar battle, but they couldn't leverage the power of EU like Opera can. The EU is also likely to be biased towards Opera because it's a European company (although it is Norwegian, and Norway is not a member of the EU).
On the other hand: the precedence from the media player debacle points to a possible "solution" (forcing Microsoft to release a special version without IE) which in practice means a loss to Opera. The potential buyer of such a product does not exist: He needs to be both knowledgeable about Opera and not knowledgeable enough to know how to install Opera himself.
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
Some people actually like the browser. If microsoft had the choice of including other browsers or just not bundeling I'm pretty sure they would go with the no including one. That way they can start selling IE as its own piece of software getting them a couple bucks here and there. Think about it in these terms a typical home user is most likely to use windows. If a browser wasn't included they would have no idea how to get some free version browser like firefox. Thier only option would be to go down to the store and pick up a copy of IE. Granted I'm sure some people wouldn't buy windows if they started doing something like that but people in general are not aware of the alternatives to windows and IE. Also I enjoy Windows enough to deal with some of the problems but if they were to do something like that it would probably give me enough of a reason to start dual booting and just using windows strictly for games.
I dislike MS's monopolistic practices as much as anyone. But really, there's not much harm in bundling an OS with a browser IF they don't prevent OEMs from including other browsers or from removing the IE icon from the desktop.
Even if MS were forced to include some other browser along with IE, that probably wouldn't help Opera. Unless, of course, their actual goal is to simply force MS to bundle *their* browser. And that would seem to be a fairly ridiculous demand.
They might want to specify that Microsoft should be compelled to follow published w3c standards, not just accepted standards. The "standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities" today are pretty much "Code everything for IE6. If there's free time after that's done and the pub isn't open yet, test in Firefox"...
0 1 - just my two bits
So tell me then... Once the OS and the Internet start to become seamless (as if they aren't aleady getting there)... Are you going to ask Microsoft to unbundle its OS from itself? This is bullshit, and I like Opera, but fuck them. And fuck the EU for even considering this. This is Microsoft's OS, and they can ship it however the hell they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or are you forgetting that there are actually other options, like OS X and Linux (of many flavors)?
You know what this is? It's jealousy, and it's greed. It's not ethical. It's not reasonable. And I am saying this despite the fact that I don't even like Microsoft all that much.
But people who support this bullshit, they are even worse than MS. I couldn't even begin to imagine what Microsoft would be like if it was run by people like this. You think Microsoft is bad now? ROFL.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
No, they don't. However, KDE, Apple, and even Nintendo, do.
Why? Because Microsoft is a monopoly. Monopolies have to play by different rules.
Actually, it is, because I can actually uninstall Konqueror. Dolphin is the new default file manager, and nothing else requires Konqueror. I can then set Firefox or Opera as the default browser.
Now, I like Konqueror, so I keep it around, but that is fundamentally different than IE. If Dell wanted to ship Kubuntu machines with Firefox instead of Konqueror, they could do that. But Dell cannot ship Windows machines with Firefox instead of IE, because you cannot remove IE from Windows.
Isn't that a legitimate complaint?
More importantly, IE is the least standards-compliant of any browser, STILL. Isn't it damaging to the Web as a whole to have the most popular browser also be the least compliant? It's precisely because of these people you talk about that I can't simply design a page for standards -- I now have to design it once for the standards (tested in Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, and Opera), and then add in a ton of hacks to make it work in IE.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Microsoft has every right to create a web browser and integrate it into their other products. It is no fundamentally different than Konqueror being the default browser within the KDE environment.
It is fundamentally different for one very good reason:
Microsoft are a convicted monopolist, the vendors using KDE are not. It is illegal for a monopoly to use their market position to leverage other markets, which is exactly what they are doing.
Also, I should point out that I know of no Linux distribution which comes with only one browser.
If Dell and others feel comfortable distributing **Linux**, what makes you think they wouldn't distribute Opera and Firefox if there were a demand for that?
Because there is no financial incentive to do so. They have already paid for IE (since it is bundled as part of the cost of Windows), so shipping another browser instead doesn't save them any money. It is easier for them to just leave the Windows installation as-is rather than having to remove IE (which is easier said than done) and install another browser.
On the other hand, if IE wasn't bundled with the stock distribution the cost to Dell of installing any (free) browser would be the same, giving other browsers an equal footing.
The people that Opera is whining about not having access to, are largely the people who think that Internet Explorer is "The Internet."
By either not bundling IE, or bundling alternatives, these people's awareness would be raised and they might actually try alternatives (and find something that suits them better) rather than assuming IE is "the internet". I see no reason why peoples' ignorance should be used as a reason for perpetuating their ignorance.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Except that you are making a very flawed assumtion: that most people care about the Acid2 test.
People care more about familiarity than some aritrary (in their eyes) standards. IE is familiar, and Opera has some wierd UI conventions when you are coming from a Windows perspective. Let's not forget, that as of about a year or so ago, Opera had to be paid for unless you wanted to endure some silly ad banner. Opera is a very good browser, but if it were really *that* much better more people would use it. I know it's a good browser, yet I use Firefox. I just don't like using Opera.
We, as web developers care immensely about web standards (or, we should), just as road engineers probably care immensely about grades of asphalt. Why, I'd bet there's some standards body akin to the w3c that sets forth standards for asphalt (let's call them the ASS, or the Asphalt Standards Society). However, it would be absurd for them to start doing PSAs to encourage people to drive only on ASS certified roads. Why? Because who the hell cares about the asphalt they drive on? If it's safe and doesn't kill too many people, then nobody really gives a crap.
Informing people about the Acid2 test would elicit a whole lot of "Nice. Who cares?" If Opera is going to compete, it won't be by informing people about its standards adherence.
It's not narcissicism if it's true!
It's also a way to point out to the uninformed masses that Opera is the only browser for Windows right now that passes the Acid2 test.
And apart from a relatively small number of people who develop web sites, no-one cares, because many of the technicalities in Acid2 are more about what your browser does with bad data it should never get in the first place from a well-designed web site. However, many people care that right now IE displays, say, their bank's web site properly while $SOME_ALTERNATIVE_BROWSER does not.
I would be very disturbed if the standards element of the lawsuit (assuming the summary given is accurate) gets anywhere. That would imply that the recommendation of a group of unelected people in a self-appointed standards body can legally compel an organisation with 80+% market share to change anything about how its wildly successful product works to benefit inferior (according to the market) competitors. What legal or ethical basis is there for such compulsion?
Challenging potential monopoly abuse and market distortion is reasonable. Complaining about a successful business not choosing to follow the recommendations of anyone much less successful's document for anything is a very dangerous path to tread.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
From the Opera press release:
Unbundling IE doesn't necessarily mean shipping an OS without a browser. If IE is an optional component, OEMs could still preinstall one browser or another. Even Opera is taking into account the fact that removing IE entirely might not be feasible, and suggesting that the system come with at least one alternative.
I agree that an OS needs to ship with a web browser. But it doesn't necessarily have to be a specific browser except for company policy. Witness Apple replacing IE with Safari, or Red Hat replacing Mozilla with Firefox, etc.