Firefox's Market Share Hits 28% in Europe

Mitchell's Boy Toy writes "Firefox's market share has hit 28.0% in Europe as of December 2007, according to a French web metrics firm. That's a 20.7% increase from the beginning of 2007. 'Finland currently has the highest Firefox market share in Europe with 45.4 percent, followed by Slovenia with 44.6 percent and Poland with 42.4 percent.' IE share fell to just 66.1% in December, a 0.9 point loss in just a month. It should also be noted that Firefox's success could spell trouble for Opera's antitrust complaint: 'Firefox's continued success in Europe may undermine some of the arguments made by Norwegian browser maker Opera in an antitrust complaint filed against Microsoft in December of last year. Opera accused Microsoft of abusing its dominant position in the web browser market by tying Internet Explorer to Windows.'"

Comments

shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[yagu]

The summary suggests that Firefox's success could come at Opera's expense:

'Firefox's continued success in Europe may undermine some of the arguments made by Norwegian browser maker Opera in an antitrust complaint filed against Microsoft in December of last year. Opera accused Microsoft of abusing its dominant position in the web browser market by tying Internet Explorer to Windows.

Isn't the issue with Microsoft more correctly framed that Microsoft is using its monopoly and dominance of its OS to stifle competition in other markets, in this case, specifically browsers? I believe that if Firefox is actually close to 30% market share, Microsoft's position in browsers wouldn't (or would barely) meet the threshold for monopoly. It's their position in their OS. Opera's case shouldn't be at risk.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[poetmatt]

Yep,I agree. I don't know how that was missed, but I'm with you Yagu.

Even if Firefox had a 100% market share, the issue is the bundling of the browser, not the market share. All the other things that result from IE bundling are just results to that.

Where in contrast linux usually comes with a few browsers so people can pick what they want. MS is screwed because even if they included FF in addition to IE, you still can neither get rid of IE completely and also it would add more bloat to the size of windows installations. Let alone administrative and procedural issues if they were to "Add it" or "add the option of it being installed with the OS"

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[bunratty]

Opera's saying that it can't compete because users won't download browsers when they already have IE installed along with Windows, which has more than 90% of the desktop OS market share. But wait! 30% of users download Firefox, what's up with that? I guess users will go out of their way to download other browsers, after all. That undermines Opera's case. Oops!

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[yagu]

The key here is they can't compete... not that they can't get some business. Yes, people may have shown they go out of their way to download a different browser, but if the market is still severely skewed (IMO it is) because of a monopoly abuse, there is a case for a remedy.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[plague3106]

But if FF numbers are raising and those numbers are accurate, than it follows MS isn't (or can't) leverage its OS monopoly. In other words, Opera's complaint falls apart, because an OS monopoly is proving not to be effective to leverage another market.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[omnipresentbob]

Is that close to 30% of Windows users, or 30% of all web browsers?

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[hkmwbz]

Actually, MS does and can leverage its OS monopoly. It has done so for many years, to the detriment of other browsers. To this day, many sites still require IE. Opera's complaint does not fall apart since it can be shown that Microsoft has indeed been involved in anti-competitive practices, and the recent IE8 standards switch just proves this point.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[bunratty]

If you look back at the history of web browsers, one browser has usually had a majority of the usage share. First it was Mosaic, then Netscape, then Internet Explorer. I would agree that IE is the most popular browser currently because of the bundling with Windows, and that the over 90% of IE usage in the early 2000s was skewed from the normal browser usage pattern. But one browser having 80% usage share is normal and has happened before. For example, Netscape had 80% usage share around 1995-1996 without being bundled with an OS. With IE usage dropping below 80% worldwide and below 70% in Europe and continuing to drop every year, it doesn't look like the market is severely skewed towards IE. Skewed, yes, but not severely skewed.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[themushroom]

Firefox or Opera gaining market share has nothing to do with whether IE is tightly integrated into Windows.

That'd be like saying that RealPlayer nullifies the EU's complaints about Windows Media Player being tightly embedded... and we know how that case turned out.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[Elite_Warrior]

this has mixed effect of followings:-
1.Opera's antitrust case against Microsoft
2.All Major Linux Vendor have firefox as default browser in their distro
3.Firefox related campaign like spread firefox or blog happy
4.IE's state of standard compliance

With the release of firefox 3,the score will get much higher because of many bug fixes,new features and standard compliance.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[bunratty]

Both. Nearly all desktop computers have Windows installed. That's especially true in Europe where Mac OS is not popular.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[b.emile]

The reason Netscape dominated the market was because no systems had bundled browsers, not in spite of it. The reason Netscape took a dump in market share was because Microsoft started bundling IE with Windows in 1995, essentially killing Netscape.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[Bogtha]

I guess users will go out of their way to download other browsers, after all. That undermines Opera's case.

No it doesn't. Just because it's obvious that Microsoft hasn't totally eradicated all competition, it doesn't mean that the market hasn't been harmed or that Opera hasn't had an undue burden placed upon it via illegal practices.

To draw an analogy, this is like arguing that the fact somebody can still walk means that they haven't been assaulted. Just because you can show that the harm hasn't gone to extremes, it doesn't mean the harm doesn't exist at all.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[bunratty]

My point is simply that a browser can get 80% or more of the market without being bundled with an OS. There's no guarantee that IE usage will drop to a minority share just because it becomes unbundled from Windows.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[bunratty]

Go back and read what I said. I never said the harm doesn't exist at all. There is some harm to the browser market due to IE being bundled with Windows. However, alternative browsers can not only compete, they can thrive. For example, Firefox.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[Bogtha]

There is some harm to the browser market due to IE being bundled with Windows.

That is the basis of Opera's claim. If you can accept that is true in spite of this article, then you cannot believe the article undermines Opera's case. They are mutually exclusive opinions.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[Misch]

But if FF numbers are raising and those numbers are accurate, than it follows MS isn't (or can't) leverage its OS monopoly

No, it was Microsoft's interference in business contracts that prevented OEM computer manufacturers from bundling alternate web browsers on computers that had Windows installed.

The fact that I can download and install Firefox isn't the issue. The issue is that Microsoft illegally used its monopoly in the operating system market to interfere with the web browser market.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[bunratty]

In my dictionary, it says that undermine means weaken. Therefore, what I am saying is that Opera does have a case, but it is weakened by Firefox having 30% share in Europe. I am not saying that fact has completely obliterated Opera's case, just weakened it.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[Arthur B.]

Who is microsoft abusing exactly ? What this shows is that some do a very good browser and some go whining in courts. We have patent-trolls, I suggest to call Opera an anti-trust-troll.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[Bogtha]

My point is simply that a browser can get 80% or more of the market without being bundled with an OS.

And b.emile's point was that this has only ever been demonstrated when the dominant operating system didn't have a browser bundled with it. The historical fact you point out is irrelevant because of this. You are excusing bundling because the desired outcome was possible before bundling was put into practice — you are begging the question.

There's no guarantee that IE usage will drop to a minority share just because it becomes unbundled from Windows.

It's not about making Internet Explorer drop to a minority share, it's about making browsers compete based on their value rather than whether the dominant desktop OS vendor makes them.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[mdwh2]

Who is microsoft abusing exactly ? What this shows is that some do a very good browser and some go whining in courts. We have patent-trolls, I suggest to call Opera an anti-trust-troll.

The point is that it's illegal to use a monopolistic position in one market to gain share in another. It doesn't matter how big the share in that other market is.

We can debate whether that should be illegal or not, but Opera is not trolling. Indeed, if Firefox was a commercial product they would still have reason to also bring a case against Microsoft. After all, are people really suggesting that IE is a much better browser than Firefox? Or would they say it's only more popular because it's bundled with Windows?

The logic only falls apart if Firefox overtakes IE in share.

If we're talking trolls, it sounds more to me like people having an automatic anti-Opera reaction, which seems to always happen here on Slashdot for some unknown reason.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[happydan]

Assuming there isn't one already bundled.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[Arthur B.]

The point is that it's illegal to use a monopolistic position in one market to gain share in another. It doesn't matter how big the share in that other market is.
So ?

We can debate whether that should be illegal or not, but Opera is not trolling.
How is it different from using the patent system? To me they're both lame people who try to whine to the government to further their end instead of focusing on their product.

After all, are people really suggesting that IE is a much better browser than Firefox? Or would they say it's only more popular because it's bundled with Windows?

For most people IE is much better than firefox because you don't need to download it.

If we're talking trolls, it sounds more to me like people having an automatic anti-Opera reaction, which seems to always happen here on Slashdot for some unknown reason.
For what it's worth, I think Opera is a better browser than Firefox.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[bunratty]

I'm not excusing bundling. I'm saying it's not severely skewing the market. If it were, the unbundling would mean IE's usage would definitely drop severely from 70-80% to under 50%.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[mdwh2]

So ?

So what?

How is it different from using the patent system? To me they're both lame people who try to whine to the government to further their end instead of focusing on their product.

There's nothing wrong with using the patent system (unless you're someone who believes patents shouldn't exist at all). A patent troll is a company that abuses the patent system.

And if you are someone who believes patents shouldn't exist, I'd say criticising the system is better than branding every company with a patent (which is most of them, I imagine) as being a troll.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[amias]

Firefox is good way of making a windows machine more secure.

I've persuaded quite a few of my clients to move to firefox for security , which has
involved me installing it for them . Others must be doing the same and its starting
to show in the usage stats.

Toodle-pip
Amias

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[Anonymous Coward]

Netscape peaked in 1996, 1997ish. Windows 95 came with IE 2, in 1995. Thus, Netscape continued to rise against a bundled browser for almost two years, and largely tanked because their browser turned to crap.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[mqduck]

Yes, people may have shown they go out of their way to download a different browser, but if the market is still severely skewed (IMO it is) because of a monopoly abuse, there is a case for a remedy. I don't really know anything about Opera's case, but isn't the more important monopoly to point out, that they have a monopoly on Windows? (werent they supposed to break up?! :-P)

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[ozmanjusri]

Who is microsoft abusing exactly ?

Its customers.

Between 2001 and 2007, IE6 was virtually the only game in town. Viruses targeting it cost companies fortunes.

In a competitive environment, there would have been a continuous improvement of products as companies leapfrogged each other with new and better features. In the monopoly environment though, with IE6 bundled, Mozilla had to produce a browser that was an order of magnitude better than IE to gain even a small market share.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[JohnBailey]

I'm not excusing bundling. I'm saying it's not severely skewing the market. If it were, the unbundling would mean IE's usage would definitely drop severely from 70-80% to under 50%. My personal experience with indifferent home users would tend to disagree with you.

So far, Everyone I have installed Firefox for has not switched back to IE, and are very impressed with the plugins and themes, and the spell checker in text fields. And of those who have tried IE7, only one likes it.

If IE was unbundled, then I don't think many people would download it as an informed choice, if anything, people might keep it around for Windows updates, but not much else. There are a lot of IE users, but at a guess, those that don't specifically need it to access a given web page are unaware of alternatives. The number of "IE by informed free choice" users I think is very small.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[thannine]

You're partly right here, but only partly. First of all, IE 2 was a very crappy browser, to the extent of being unusable. Also, at that point the web was full of "Netscape standard" quirks, that did not work well with IE.

After that IE got better, and Netscape got worse. But still, had it not been for IE bundling, it would never have gotten 90% market share. It might even have been that Opera would have won the battle, as for some time it was by far the best browser there was. But IE came with the PC you bought, at the time you just learnes that there was this thing called internets. And you could open the internets by clicking the "Internet" icon at your desktop.

There's just no way to compete with that, nor did that have anything to do with the quality of the browser.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[argiedot]

Well, that's actually the point. They're using the Windows monopoly to promote IE by bundling IE with Windows. The monopoly is Windows, they're trying to corner the browser market by using their OS monopoly.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[argiedot]

Opera's case is that there is some harm, you agree there is some harm. That's all there is. I'm pretty sure the anti-trust allegations could still be made if Opera, Firefox and IE were at 33% each. The point is that the Windows monopoly is being leveraged (by making IE so well integrated into the OS and hard to remove) to get into the browser market.

Essentially using your monopoly in one market (Windows in the OS market) to force another product in another market (IE in the browser market) is what caused the anti-trust allegations. That's all there is to it, IIRC, the second product (IE) doesn't even have to become a monopoly in the other market (browsers).

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[plague3106]

You keep saying that, yet its not true. I've been using FF since before it was renamed. Even then, I didn't hit sites that required IE. The compaint is that Opera can't compete because IE comes bundled and people won't download another browser. FF proves beyond a doubt this is not so, and that IE's OS monopoly isn't keeping other browsers down. Maybe people would rather get another browser FOR FREE than pay for Opera? Hmm..

and the recent IE8 standards switch just proves this point.

I like how everyone ignores that they worked with the HTML working group to put this idea together, and that there's nothing keeping other browsers from implmenting this and being included. But spin however you like.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[Fri13]

My point is simply that a browser can get 80% or more of the market without being bundled with an OS. There's no guarantee that IE usage will drop to a minority share just because it becomes unbundled from Windows.

Yes, browser CAN get 80% or more share without being integrated with OS. But question is, CAN browser get 80% or more if (and when) competitor browser IS integrated to OS?

Netscape got 80% marketshare because none of browser did come bundled or integrated to OS. Netscape lost it's marketshare because Microsoft integrated browser to their OS what already had biggest market share.

30% (and here in finland biggest share) share is not that all firefox users has downloaded browser. Firefox comes bundled (not integrated!) with many distributions and by that way, has got bigger marketshare. Why? because you cannot get IE for GNU/Linux OS. IMO Firefox share about 1/3 is GNU/Linux users and 2/3 are windows users so it has got better share by users who has downloaded it.

But they didn't download new browser because it was just "better", that share has come when Microsoft has those terrible times when all kind worms were "killing" Internet Explorer and users wanted more secure browser without pop-ups, without malware.

Without all kind crap for IE, i doupt that Firefox would got so big marketshare in firstplace. Now IE7 is bretty secure and it's seems that there aint big "wave" what would bring more Firefox users. Because windows users just dont have anykind reason to install firefox unless they need somekind firefox plugins, adblock aint one of them because Opera and IE has same ability, pop-up blocker is in every browser etc...

So IMO, Internet Explorer is still needed to get removed from windows, it can be bundled to OS installation media but is needed to install after Windows is installed, so if user has other browser, he can use it. And it would much better if ISP/ADSL/WLAN, every network device driver CD would come with firefox, opera and internet explorer and more can get installed to that CD if needed by other browser developers, and then Windows wouldn't come with IE bundled on Windows media and browser would be needed to get installed from one of network device/connection disk. Without network, you dont need browser or do you?

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[Arthur B.]

While I do think patent shouldn't exist, I make the difference between more or less legitimate patent waiving and wouldn't call a drug company a "troll". I still feel Opera falls in the troll category when it comes to antitrust, especially considering firefox marketshare.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[elrous0]

If I make a new calculator app, does this mean I can sue MS for bundling in a calculator app too?

Face it, people use IE because it was the only decent browser out there for a long time and website designers designed for it. IE didn't just take off the second they started bundling it with Windows, Netscape held on for some time. But, let's face it, Netscape started to seriously suck and became uber-bloated. Now Mozilla is making inroads because IE has started to really suck and lag behind.

If people want your software, they will install it--period. Stop faulting MS for the fact that Netscape dropped the goddamn ball.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[hkmwbz]

I've been using FF since before it was renamed. Even then, I didn't hit sites that required IE.

Good for you. Not everyone is so lucky. It should be pointed out, however, that Firefox got a lot of compatibility for free because most webmasters knew about Netscape, so they took the new Netscape with Gecko into account when designing sites. Firefox used Gecko too, so it benefitted from Netscape's fame in webmaster circles.

The compaint is that Opera can't compete because IE comes bundled and people won't download another browser.

Nope. People can download other browsers, but in reality many sites still require IE because of Microsoft's transgressions.

FF proves beyond a doubt this is not so, and that IE's OS monopoly isn't keeping other browsers down.

It is. Firefox has 15% globally. Are you really saying that Firefox would have a mere 15% globally if there was actual competition in the browser market?

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[bunratty]

It's not black and white. The greater Firefox's usage, the less harm is apparent. With less harm, Opera has a weaker case. Yes, Opera could make a case even if all browsers had equal share. However, their case would be undermined (weakened) further. I never said Opera had no case, just that it was undermined by Firefox's high share. Is this really that hard to understand?

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[Bertie]

And also, lest we forget, because for a fair while IE was a better browser. Hell, I remember using IE4 in preference to Netscape 4.whatever on a Sun workstation in 1998. Microsoft sure didn't force me into that, and believe me, I hate them at least as much as the next guy.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[plague3106]

Good for you. Not everyone is so lucky. It should be pointed out, however, that Firefox got a lot of compatibility for free because most webmasters knew about Netscape, so they took the new Netscape with Gecko into account when designing sites. Firefox used Gecko too, so it benefitted from Netscape's fame in webmaster circles.

Followed by:

Nope. People can download other browsers, but in reality many sites still require IE because of Microsoft's transgressions.

Really, which is it? Also, please name some major sites that only work in IE. I've yet to find any.

It is. Firefox has 15% globally. Are you really saying that Firefox would have a mere 15% globally if there was actual competition in the browser market?

If there's not competition, than what prompted MS to start developing IE again? We just got version 7, and version 8 is coming... but if FF isn't real competition, really, why would MS waste time with furhter versions of IE? Your argument is not consistent.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[mqduck]

They're using the Windows monopoly to promote IE by bundling IE with Windows. The monopoly is Windows, they're trying to corner the browser market by using their OS monopoly. The crazy (yet sadly predictable) thing is, they're been convicted in court of doing just that. Yet they get to continue as if nothing happened.

Wanna know my theory? (hint: the answer is "yes") The government, despite it being a "Democracy", servers only the corporations, or the bourgeoisie if you will (the truth of that statement will hereafter be assumed). Is Mozilla a corporation in any meaningful sense? Primarily, it's the project of a bunch of hippies working on a pseudo-socialist application for the good of humankind. Mozilla is not something the government serves, but Microsoft is. Opera is too small to count. Netscape was once a somewhat powerful corporation (given its position). That is the time when the government wished to pursue anti-trust violations and whatever.

Sorry if I sound paranoid. ;)

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[hkmwbz]

Really, which is it?

What do you mean? I said "a lot of compatibility", not "complete compatibility".

Also, please name some major sites that only work in IE. I've yet to find any.

I mainly use Opera, and it's not like I keep track of sites that don't work in Firefox. When I've come across such sites I have just moved on. But you can feel free to search Bugzilla or MozillaZine. Unless you are claiming that Firefox is compatible with 100% of all sites out there of course :D

If there's not competition, than what prompted MS to start developing IE again?

To quote someone else in this discussion: "Just because it's obvious that Microsoft hasn't totally eradicated all competition, it doesn't mean that the market hasn't been harmed or that Opera hasn't had an undue burden placed upon it via illegal practices."

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[argiedot]

I understand what you're saying quite perfectly. However, I disagree that apparent harm even matters. Just the fact that they did bundle IE with Windows andand bullied companies out of replacing IE with another browser is enough for it to be an antitrust violation. There needn't be any harm, IE could be at 3% market share and it would still be an antitrust violation simply because they did attempt to leverage their OS monopoly to increase browser share - the final impact is irrelevant so long as there is proof that they attempted this.

Of course IANAL, so if you are one, then I won't argue any further.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[plague3106]

What do you mean? I said "a lot of compatibility", not "complete compatibility".

If your claim were true that many or most sites were built for IE though, than it would not matter how much compatibility FF got from Netscape.

I mainly use Opera, and it's not like I keep track of sites that don't work in Firefox. When I've come across such sites I have just moved on.

So then how are you in any position to claim that there are "many sites which only work in IE?" Did you consider that maybe they just aren't working on a tiny browser almost no one cares about?

Unless you are claiming that Firefox is compatible with 100% of all sites out there of course

Not at all. Just that they are rare. I don't care if someone's AOL page doesn't render properly.

To quote someone else in this discussion: "Just because it's obvious that Microsoft hasn't totally eradicated all competition, it doesn't mean that the market hasn't been harmed or that Opera hasn't had an undue burden placed upon it via illegal practices."

Yet you don't complain that FF is killing the pay for browser market, just IE. If IE did decline and FF was the major browser out there, would you be crying foul? If not, you don't really have a point, you just want to hate MS.

I suggest that the uptake of FF is proof that the market is actually doing very well; its just that no one thinks they should have to pay for a web browser.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[hkmwbz]

If your claim were true that many or most sites were built for IE though, than it would not matter how much compatibility FF got from Netscape.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. That Firefox got a lot of compatibility for free doesn't mean that it works on all sites. "A lot" != "all". Firefox has had a far easier time than other browsers because of its Netscape legacy.

So then how are you in any position to claim that there are "many sites which only work in IE?"

Because I've seen them myself, and also read many discussions in Firefox threads and forums like MozillaZine.

Did you consider that maybe they just aren't working on a tiny browser almost no one cares about?

Firefox is a tiny browser almost no one cares about?

Yet you don't complain that FF is killing the pay for browser market, just IE.

No one has complained about the pay for browser market being killed. Nice red herring, though.

Either you are trolling or you are ignorant. Opera and Opera Mini are in fact free of charge. And Opera's revenues from the desktop version has increased by more than 100% several quarters in a row.

If IE did decline and FF was the major browser out there, would you be crying foul? If not, you don't really have a point, you just want to hate MS.

This is a false dichotomy. "Either Microsoft has done no wrong, or Firefox has done the same as Microsoft." That's not how it works. Microsoft has abused its dominant position in the desktop market, while Firefox (Mozilla) has no such position to abuse.

I suggest that the uptake of FF is proof that the market is actually doing very well;

Again: "Just because it's obvious that Microsoft hasn't totally eradicated all competition, it doesn't mean that the market hasn't been harmed or that Opera hasn't had an undue burden placed upon it via illegal practices." At least read my comments before posting stuff I've already addressed. Further, are you really saying that if Firefox didn't compete with a bundled browser, it wouldn't have been much more widely used than it is today? That IE has had little or no benefit from being bundled?

its just that no one thinks they should have to pay for a web browser.

You don't have to pay for Opera for desktop (Opera's antitrust complaint is for the desktop market), so I really don't understand what on earth you are going on about. Trolling again?

What market?

[geoffspear]

Firefox accounts for 28% of all web browsers being purchased? How can I get into the business of selling people a product they can get from free?

Re:What market?

[Joe the Lesser]

I dunno...I'd ask Radiohead.

Opera's complaint was with IE's META switch

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, Opera's complaint isn't that IE is not following standards; their complaint is with this new IE8 feature. Microsoft is taking the stance that they COULD render a page in the most standard compliant way but they refuse to do so for currently developed pages.

This is a case where IE is cheating when it is running into the problem that other browser developers have had for years. Pages written for IE with IE's bugs render impropperly on browsers that dont have IE's bugs. The IE development team's mantra of "Dont break the web" should be clarified; it acutally is "Dont fix the web". They had an opprotunity to make a browser that renders today's pages in a standard compliant way. This would cause rendering problems in IE8, which would mean that the web site would actually fix their pages. This would not only be good for IE8 users, but also users of alternative browsers that actually care about rendering to web standards instead of rendering to whatever the largest browser says the page should look like.

Re:Opera's complaint was with IE's META switch

[Perseid]

I think deep down in the bowels of Redmond Microsoft's tactic is still to deliberately render pages inaccurately so that web developers are forced to alter their pages to cater to it, thus breaking the browsers that do play by the rules.

Re:Opera's complaint was with IE's META switch

[hkmwbz]

It helps because all browsers would be (more) standards compliant. It would be cheaper to create sites for standards rather than for each browser.

Re:Opera's complaint was with IE's META switch

[b.emile]

All they would have to do is have IE8 scan the comments in HTML, CSS and Javascript files for things like "Stupid IE Hack" or "sucky hack because IE sucks" or "FU, IE", and switch the render engine accordingly.

Re:Opera's complaint was with IE's META switch

[stubear]

yeah, because adding "META=use IE8 rendering engine" adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to a web site development project.

Re:Opera's complaint was with IE's META switch

[Lunzo]

No but it will cause me a lot of frustration when I have to copy-paste that tag across the hundreds of pages in my project directory.

Re:Opera's complaint was with IE's META switch

[stubear]

Just do a find/replace and put the new META tag just after the tag. It shouldn't affect your pages and if you're pedantic about the order of your META tags you can just make the necessary changes as you actually edit the pages themselves.

Re:Opera's complaint was with IE's META switch

[bunratty]

The whole point of the tag is that you should not do exactly what you're proposing. Existing web pages that have been tested in IE6 and IE7 should be left as is so they will continue to work, even in newer IE browsers. You'll need to mark pages as tested with IE8 after testing them. You should also validate your HTML and CSS, and test in other more standards compliant browsers to ensure you're really following the web standards correctly, so that your pages will continue to work in all newer browsers.

Fell to just 66.1% in December

[dj245]

Thats still a majority. Implying otherwise is silly.

AT&T, Comcast and other ISPs

[davidsyes]

And, they need to stop discriminating against Linux-based or other Open Source-based browsers as regards "initial sign-on".

So, I say HOORAY to Europeans and others who are helping put a SERING and serious dent into ms' ie on that side of the pond. I am quite irritated that AT&T and others code for the unfairly dominant browser and not for one that follows W3C standards. I can't help but imagine that deliberately programming the Java to permit Konqueror, Flock, Firefox, et al can only be trivial.

My tidbits are in my journal.

Opera

[hilather]

Personally I think Operas anti-trust suit is a little ridiculous. Even though Microsoft may sell Windows with IE, how does Opera expect its consumers to download and install Opera without a web browser? Sure you could have someone put it on a disk for you, but its somewhat of a chicken and the egg problem, you need to start with something, and it might as well be a product Microsoft can include in its OS without having to go to a third party. I would be pretty upset if after installing Windows I couldn't browse the net.

Re:Opera

[TheRaven64]

Even though Microsoft may sell Windows with IE, how does Opera expect its consumers to download and install Opera without a web browser? By being OEMs. Every computer needs to come with a web browser, I'll agree, but if IE were not part of Windows then how many OEMs would bundle it? I'd imagine most would ship some cobranded version of Opera or Firefox and add it to their marketing ('comes with full-featured, secure, web browser with 90% more buzzwords than our leading competitor!').

Re:Opera

[hkmwbz]

how does Opera expect its consumers to download and install Opera without a web browser?

To quote myself: Does Debian require a browser to use its package manager? Or Ubuntu?

Re:Opera

[Bogtha]

how does Opera expect its consumers to download and install Opera without a web browser?

Quite apart from the OEM example already provided, just because you think it's necessary to have some easy way of installing other browsers, it doesn't follow that Microsoft should have bundled a full-fledged web browser. There was nothing stopping Microsoft from bundling a bare-bones browser intended only as a last resort. They did that with their FTP and telnet clients.

You don't need half the features present in Internet Explorer to download and install a proper browser. Favourites, ActiveX, JavaScript, VBScript, Flash, tabs, history, there are plenty of features that are in Internet Explorer that just aren't necessary for the requirement you lay out. Microsoft could have provided an even playing field by bundling a bare-bones browser like that built-in, and offering Internet Explorer as an optional download, just like all other browsers.

Re:Opera

[edxwelch]

Maybe you should try actually reading Operas complaint:
"...First, it requests the Commission to obligate Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows and/or carry alternative browsers pre-installed on the desktop. Second, it asks the European Commission to require Microsoft to follow fundamental and open Web standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities. The complaint calls on Microsoft to adhere to its own public pronouncements to support these standards, instead of stifling them with its notorious "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" strategy. Microsoft's unilateral control over standards in some markets creates a de facto standard that is more costly to support, harder to maintain, and technologically inferior and that can even expose users to security risks."

Re:Opera

[Glimmerdark]

yes.. just what i want, all browsers to not just be adware infected, but adware themselves! the problem with IE isn't that it's bundled with windows, or that MS has a monopoly. the issue is that it's a browser that doesn't follow standards. -that's- what needs to be fixed.

Re:Opera

[Stewie241]

On the other hand, how many OEMs bundle OpenOffice? To me, that is a no-brainer... but it doesn't happen... arguments for or against OpenOffice aside, it is far better than nothing and would do an adequate job for most users.

If they aren't bundling openoffice, why would they bundle firefox vs. IE?

Re:Opera

[Twillerror]

So yell at Dell, IBM, etc. These people could easily bundle Opera and Firefox.

Microsoft can't and shouldn't in my opinion. If they bundle it they are somehow indicating that they should support it.

So now if I'm IBM or Dell should I bundle Firefox and then support it myself. Lets think, I can just bundle Internet Explorer and Ms will support it or at least help me support it.

IBM and Dell could easily remove all the shortcuts. I imagine if you renamed iexplorer.exe things would probably break.

Firefox offers free chat support, but it requires a browser. Microsfot could be contacted by phone. Opera likely has some sort of support. So there isn't
really a reason for IBM or Dell not to bundle Firefox. So won't don't they...yell at the OEMs not Microsoft. IE might suck to you, but it is free...should no Linux distribution comes with Firefox on the CD?

Re:Opera

[RightSaidFred99]

They have exactly 0 chances of getting their first request. It's been tried, the courts laughed. Yeah, it really helps the consumer to remove IE from Windows. That would be just dandy. Christ. As for carrying alternative browsers, that's silly too. You're going to force a company to include another company's product in their own? Just silly. Note that OEMs can in fact add Opera's (or any other) browser they want.

They have a tiny chance of any traction on second point. Standards are really just your competitors getting together to try to screw you. Besides, IE8 looks to be largely standards compliant. Opera is wasting their time and money and they don't have a snowball's chance in hell.

Re:Opera

[edxwelch]

"Just silly. Note that OEMs can in fact add Opera's (or any other) browser they want."
In fact there is some doubt about this. MS has a record of co-ercing OEMs against installing competitors products, though various schemes, such as "marking discounts". There are no checks to verify that MS is doing this currently. The previous US agreement expired in 2006 and besides that only applied in US. And the fact that none of the major OEMs install alternative browsers, despite the fact that they readly install a tonne of other 3rd party SW is a bit suspicious.

Re:Opera

[mdwh2]

yes.. just what i want, all browsers to not just be adware infected, but adware themselves!

Who said anything about adware?

Re:Opera

[ZzzzSleep]

yes.. just what i want, all browsers to not just be adware infected, but adware themselves!

Who said anything about adware? I think they're referring to the ancient past when Opera was free, but had an ad panel up the top.

Re:Opera

[petermgreen]

The last couple of dell machines we got came with firefox as part of the standard install. I'm in the UK though so I don't know if that is a local thing or general dell policy.

Re:Opera

[AlanS2002]

how does Opera expect its consumers to download and install Opera without a web browser?

Ever heard of FTP?

Re:Opera

[the donner party]

IE is not free - Microsoft pays the salaries of its developers from the income it gets from Windows sales. Given the monopoly position of Windows on the OS market, this happens to break anti-trust regulations in both the US and the EU, but it doesn't look like the regulators have the power to do anything about the situation. The ideal is that in a free market, an OEM could make a deal with Microsoft to buy Windows without IE and to buy another browser from another vendor, in order to provide the best total package to the customer. Right now Microsoft has ensured that OEMs do not have that option - they can either pay for Windows and IE, or for Windows, IE and another browser. Not exactly a good position for another browser manufacturer.

Re:Opera

[j_sp_r]

I've seen several computers (in big outlets) sold with Star Office. I suppose I could find a computer with Openoffice.org in retail if I took the time

Re:Opera

[Your.Master]

Why don't they do this right now, anyway?

Re:Opera

[Your.Master]

Then Microsoft is tying a package manager to the OS, using its monopoly power to prevent competitors from doing the same.

I tend to think that a web browser is far more integral to the out-of-box experience than a package manager, and is thus more defensible as a naturally related good, legal to bundle even for monopolies.

Re:Opera

[Your.Master]

This is a question, not an accusation: if the law is followed ideally according to your interpretation, is it in fact the case that being ruled a monopoly means that Microsoft must have a really shitty out-of-box experience for their flagship software (please, withhold jokes about Vista, they got old years ago)? I realize OEMs can put them back on, but I'm talking about off-the-shelf OS. Is it illegal for them to have something that has anything really working at all except the barest bones? Where is the line drawn -- should their window manager be stripped down? Is "minwin" what they should legally ship?

Can they do multiple versions, like in Europe with Windows (without media player edition) and Windows (with basic media functionality included!)? Do they have to have a price difference? How wide? A width defined by development costs, or their competition (which in many of these cases is $0)? Or do they have to sell every piece individually with no bundle editions?

I'm honestly curious about the answers, I'm not trying to make some underhanded point.

Re:Opera

[Your.Master]

I have. I suspect less than 1% of all consumers have. I guarantee less than 10% of all consumers have.

A step further and in the same sense you could ask everybody to program their own damn browsers. A very small fraction of the population is capable of making a browser with enough features to download one of the major browsers. But that's even fewer consumers that could ever do that.

Re:Opera

[Half-pint HAL]

Bundling OO.org is a very scary prospect. Aside from the loss of sales as pointed out by other users, suddenly you're opening your helpdesk to a host of calls due to unfamiliar software. Office software in general has unbelievably complicated interfaces, whereas most browser users only every type addresses or click on links. Anyone who's not capable of working through OpenOffice.org on their own isn't likely to even look at a menu within a browser.

Apples and oranges, mate.

HAL.

Re:Opera

[Two9A]

I often call for a "-1 Idiot" mod option, as you may or may not know. Now in the parent, I have an example I can cite!

Re:Opera

[Stewie241]

I think that for what most people do, OpenOffice isn't that unfamiliar... I setup our office computer for the admin assistant to open files by default with open office instead of Word, and she didn't notice the difference.

Ian

Re:Opera

[hkmwbz]

Then Microsoft is tying a package manager to the OS, using its monopoly power to prevent competitors from doing the same.

Not necessarily. Read Opera's complaint. Bundling something doesn't automatically make it evil. It is bundling combined with other things like lock-in, etc. that causes problems.

Re:Opera

[proselyte_heretic]

Hmm, an initial browser that will not interfere with competition. The only solution is a browser that is obviously less desirable than anything else. I propose lynx [http://lynx.browser.org/]

Re:Opera

[AlanS2002]

Downloading a peice of software via FTP is a very long away from programming your own browser.

Re:Incorrect summary

[jrumney]

Its a 20% increase. 28 - 23.2 / 23.2 is approximately 0.2 (20%).

Diversity might be an issue

[esocid]

I'm glad firefox is doing so well. Probably due to its flexibility and maybe a little as just another alternative to IE. I don't want it to get so popular that it gets deemed the new IE (in terms of security) with just as many exploits. I have firefox, opera, and IE (for those evil sites that won't allow a netscape based browser) and use FF about 99.5% of the time and have had no issue, although I have plugins for added security. Hopefully the flexibility of FF will counter the fact that its popularity might lead to more exploits.

Re:Diversity might be an issue

[SirStiff]

..for those evil sites that won't allow a netscape based browser..

If a web site doesn't support standard web browsing, I don't support the site. There is lots of choice out there now. I lived about 18 years of my life without any web browser, so I know that there aren't any pages out there that are important enough to be bothered with IE. If such a web site provides a feedback form that I can still access, I sometimes even let them know they've lost a customer/viewer due to lack of support for my alternate browser.

continued success

[Joe the Lesser]

If firefox continues to increase it's 'market share' then Microsoft can simply say that clearly users can download alternatives, because it's now proven they do, and thus Microsoft's inclusion of IE is not causing a monopoly in the browser world.

Re:continued success

[hkmwbz]

That they can download alternatives doesn't mean that you can use them everywhere. Lots of sites still require IE.

Yeah, But That's 28% in *Metric*

[Doc Ruby]

In Imperial measures, that's how many Libraries of Congress?

Re:Yeah, But That's 28% in *Metric*

[corychristison]

That would be: 7/25 :-)

Re:Yeah, But That's 28% in *Metric*

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation 0
    50% Flamebait
    50% Funny

What kind of retard could be inflamed by that innocuous joke?

Re:Yeah, But That's 28% in *Metric*

[Doc Ruby]

There was only one comment that even referenced the metric system, and it didn't make my joke, when I posted.

How many LoC would you need to gain a sense of humor? 110%?

You misinterpreted that.

[pavon]

(28.0-23.2)/23.2 = 20.7%
It's total market share 20.7% in the last year.
Yeah talking about percent increases of something already measured in percent is confusing.

Windows is free...

[EmbeddedJanitor]

... to pirates!

Only a mug would pay for it!

Re:"French web metrics firm," eh?

[Joe the Lesser]

My web browser gained 3.2% rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I like it!

Bundling is bundling. The real question is....

[Joce640k]

What would Firefox's share be if IE WASN'T bundled.

Microsft's bundling definitely killed off the competition. That the competition has come back is proof of how shoddy IE really is, and that it should have been completely unable to compete with Netscape in a fair market.

Re:Bundling is bundling. The real question is....

[__aaqvdr516]

Just because people use a product doesn't mean that their product is better, or that another product is shoddy. Just look at the number of people who buy a new Kia when they clearly should have bought a used Honda. Does that make any sense? Chewbacca was a wookiee living on Endor.

Re:Bundling is bundling. The real question is....

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, all bundling is monopoly abuse. The explorer shell is killing off competition, they shouldn't be able to bundle a shell with windows. The calculator is bundled, thats killing off competition, get rid of it. Paint, Remote Desktop, support for zip files. Yeah, see how long Microsoft can compete if they aren't allowed to put stuff with their operating system.

You forgot ....

[KillerCow]

Finland currently has the highest Firefox market share in Europe with 45.4 percent, followed by Slovenia with 44.6 percent and Poland with 42.4 percent

... oh. Nevermind.

I believe it

[rabun_bike]

I have a freeware application which I host on a web server where most of the users are in europe and Asia. I am no slashdot but my site is reporting 47.97% of users hitting the site with IE and 47.23% using Firefox and 3.69% using Opera. This is with 97% of those users on the windows platform.

You can't compete

[hkmwbz]

I guess users will go out of their way to download other browsers, after all. That undermines Opera's case. Oops!

Not really, since lots of sites still require IE. Also, the UA switching thing for IE8 shows that Microsoft continues to undermine open standards, which was part of Opera's complaint. How silly of Microsoft to do that even after the complaint was made public.

Re:You can't compete

[hkmwbz]

How is it underminging standards?

Read one of the many blog posts on the subject. If you haven't educated yourself by now, I doubt that you ever will. Hovewer, this site gives you a nice overview.

The new switch is a fucking META tag you stupid asshat. Microsoft is using META tags for what they were initially designed to do, add META data to a fucking page. This approach allows existing sites to render as they currently do and new sites can be completely standards compliant.

Except IE8 will default to not being standards compliant.

But I guess dipshits like you think Microsoft should be regulated by Government to do everything in their power to destroy themselves by harming existing customers.

I guess people like you think there should be no rules what so ever? No regulation of food companies? Drug companies? Nothing? Complete anarchy?

Re:You can't compete

[stubear]

You have got to be fucking kidding me...Opera Watch?!? Why not point to Red Hat for news about Vista while you're at it? How 'bout you get a little more educated.

And for the record, I'm for regulation when it's necessary and benefits ALL parties involved. I detest the heavy handed use of government to try to regulate fairness when it's not needed and it's clear that it's designed to harm one party only.

Re:You can't compete

[hkmwbz]

Did you actually read the article at Opera Watch? If you had, you would have noticed that it lists quotes from many different sources, and they explain the problem. It's sad to see that someone as emotionally involved as yourself refuse to educate yourself, and instead insist on being willfully ignorant.

And did you read the actual comments to that A List Apart article? Almost every single one of them rejected the proposal. In fact, both Opera, Mozilla, Apple and Google have rejected it. As well as most web developers who have spoken up.

If you would only educate yourself instead of spouting uneducated nonsense...

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[bwd234]

How could a user download a browser not having one already installed?

Hmm... lemme see... Usenet, Telnet, IRC, FTP... oh, I dunno.

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[hkmwbz]

Does Debian require a browser to use its package manager? Or Ubuntu?

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[Xtifr]

That's right. There are no download tools that could possibly exist besides a browser. Before browsers were created, nobody ever downloaded anything. Furthermore, there's no way that an OEM could possibly bundle their choice of browser with a system. If it isn't created by MS, it can't possibly be installed on a Windows system.

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[bwd234]

Oh damn... I forgot BitTorrent.

Re:Firefox does come bundled, though

[poetmatt]

actually, as much as I don't really care for opera, I can see it doing better if FF gets dominant market share due to people then making websites that aren't IE optimized. When all browsers are created equal its just flavor preference. In those situations I suspect that FF and Safari will be tied for dominant browser (just my own prediction)
Additionally if I remember right early versions of opera had problems rendering things right as well, which would be resolved by IE taking a nosedive into some concrete.

Opera is selling a product?

[hkmwbz]

I really don't feel bad for Opera. I mean, they're in a market selling a product where alternatives exist for free - and really good alternatives.

Huh? Opera is a free download for PCs. As for mobile, Firefox isn't even able to compete there (and Opera Mini is free).

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[bunratty]

In the mobile market, Safari is killing the competition by being bundled with the iPhone. When Mozilla 2 comes out, "Mobile Firefox" will compete in the mobile market, too. The competition is tough and getting tougher even in the mobile market where Opera has traditionally done best.

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[hkmwbz]

In the mobile market, Safari is killing the competition by being bundled with the iPhone.

Windows Mobile is tiny compared to Symbian. Nokia's own browser and even Opera Mini have more users than Safari on iPhone.

It's funny that your article quotes Net Applications, since these people first showed Opera Mini completely dominating all other mobile browsers, but then they changed their stats completely overnight. No notification, no nothing. Everything just changed. That's how reliable Net Application is...

When Mozilla 2 comes out, "Mobile Firefox" will compete in the mobile market, too.

Except it won't really compete since it will be slower than all other mobile browsers. It will require an extremely high-end phone, and even then you are better off installing Opera, Netfront or Skyfire.

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[Leonard Fedorov]

But if Safari is being bundled with the iPhone, and is dominant because of this, surely it will just have the same anti-trust charges leveled against it that have plagued IE in the PC market?

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[bunratty]

You're missing one critical but important point: Apple does not hold a monopoly on the mobile market with the iPhone as Microsoft does with Windows in the desktop market.

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[bunratty]

Firefox uses more resources than other browsers? Tell me, how could I see this effect? If you can, I'd be happy to file a performance bug report.

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[ozmanjusri]

Except it won't really compete since it will be slower than all other mobile browsers. It will require an extremely high-end phone

WTF?

Where did that little bit of FUD come from? I'm using Firefox Mobile on my Nokia N800 right now, and it's very responsive. The Nokia only has a 330MHz OMAP processor, which is a slower than most Windows Mobile phones, let alone being "extremely high-end".

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[totally bogus dude]

I was thinking the same, but I think the N800 would be considered an extremely high-end smart phone if it was in fact a phone. It's not; it's more of a PDA, aka "a real computer, only small". I suspect my N73 wouldn't cope with a mobile Mozilla nearly so well as it copes with Opera's browser.

I also found the browsing experience on my N800 better with Opera's browser than with Mozilla, but I'm hoping that it'll improve with time. In particular the text input doesn't work as nicely; the on screen keyboard frequently pops up over the top of the text entry field so I can't see what I've entered, and it doesn't overtype text that you've highlighted (you can just hit backspace to delete it and then start typing, but it's annoying until you work that out).

Also I've found the drag-the-screen-to-scroll thing doesn't work on some pages, and that's really irritating.

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[walshy007]

the nokia n73 has a 300mhz arm processor and 64mb ram, I've had opera and the default phone browser (gecko engine, same used in konqueror) the in-built one kicks it's ass, in terms of speed and usabilty. I can't imagine a mobile firefox not running well.

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[ozmanjusri]

I was thinking the same, but I think the N800 would be considered an extremely high-end smart phone if it was in fact a phone.

I don't think so - my Sony Ericsson M600i is about as slow as smartphones get with a 208MHz ARM. Treo 750s use the Samsung equivalent at 300MHz, while most other Windows Mobile machines seem to be ARM or equivalents at 400-600MHz. The N800 with OS2008 is just deceptively responsive given the middling CPU.

I also found the browsing experience on my N800 better with Opera's browser than with Mozilla, but I'm hoping that it'll improve with time.

Yep, it has a slightly unfinished feel, though I do personally prefer it to the Opera version, but it's not slow. I hadn't noticed a problem with the text entry fields. Probably will now you've brought my attention to it...

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[argiedot]

Gecko is the one used in Firefox, Konqueror uses KHTML (or maybe WebKit now)

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[shutdown -p now]

Opera Mini is a J2ME application installable even on the low-end phones, just as long as they have Java support. I personally used it just fine on Sagem my301x. I don't know any other browser that can compete with Mini in its niche.

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[hkmwbz]

Unfortunately, Mozilla for Nokia's tablet is slower than Opera.

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[hkmwbz]

This is a well known problem. Firefox eats up memory like there's no tomorrow (compared to Opera).

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[hkmwbz]

I'm using Firefox Mobile on my Nokia N800 right now, and it's very responsive.

I guess they removed XUL, then...

Regardless, Opera is faster than Firefox and uses less memory. It was tempting for Nokia to use Mozilla because it's free of charge, but you pay a price: Performance. They were apparently willing to pay that price.

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[SplatMan_DK]

How could a user download a browser not having one already installed? Are you kidding?

- Using an FTP client
- Using a P2P/torrent application
- Using another computer with a browser
- Already having the software in question on a portable media, say a USB memory key or a CD?
- Buying the browser at a computer store, just like many people do with tons of other software?

If it were impossible to install new software on a computer without a working browser and an internet connection, hos would an operating system ever be installed? How would Linux be installed on a computer to begin with, if the requirement to do so was that the computer already had a working OS and a browser?

- Jesper

Re:here's a zinger for you

[hkmwbz]

If Windows didn't come with a web browser at all, how would you go to the site to download Firefox or Opera?

I'll quote myself again: Does Debian require a browser to use its package manager? Or Ubuntu?

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[SplatMan_DK]

Forgot one more option:

- Buying a computer magazine from a nearby newsstand or store?

- Jesper

Re:Firefox does come bundled, though

[cbreaker]

Yea, that may be. However, I've found no, zero, nada web sites in recent months that don't work very well in Firefox, and thus in other browsers as well. I think that's why Firefox can be such high market share numbers right now.

Almost nothing requires IE anymore, except internal or corporate web sites that rely on IE-only functions or activeX plug-ins. As soon as those companies finally get off their asses and stop making web appliances for IE-only, it'll be all over.

yet again...

[Bizzeh]

yet again with fake stats made up by someone to get 15 mins on slashdot...
and the only reason this was posted on slashdot is because of the dig at microsoft... seems easier and easier to get on slashdot these days, just aim your hate in a constructive way towards microsoft, and your published... post an actual story, rejected.

Re:yet again...

[BigJClark]

That is to be expected, as 78.3% of people make up statistics as they go along.

Re:yet again...

[Gmooron]

Xiti is a well-known company for web stats in Europe, and they are doing this measurement on a regular basis.

NOTE: Here is the actual report

[SplatMan_DK]

I tried to submit this story to Slashdot some 6-7 hours ago, when it was still not mentioned. So I happen to have the link to the original report :-)

Relaunch of Mozilla Firefox's visit share in the European countries at the end of 2007

For more information about XiTi in general, visit their corp. homepage.

:-)

- Jesper

Re:NOTE: Here is the actual report

[hkmwbz]

It's too bad their stats are useless since they exclude several European countries... Looks like their stats are only valid for sites that use their tracking beacons, and they refuse to let us know who that is... Could be that they only do tech sites, which would boost Firefox a lot compared to the real usage.

Re:NOTE: Here is the actual report

[SplatMan_DK]

True! I agree completely!

But I still think posting the actual source/report was relevant for the debate :-)

- Jesper

Re:NOTE: Here is the actual report

[mikechant]

It's too bad their stats are useless since they exclude several European countries... Looks like their stats are only valid for sites that use their tracking beacons, and they refuse to let us know who that is... Could be that they only do tech sites, which would boost Firefox a lot compared to the real usage.

If your speculations are correct, this does not make the stats useless; the absolute values may be suspect, but the trends are still likely to be a useful indicator.

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[Wildclaw]

"- Using an FTP client
  - Using a P2P/torrent application"

But couldn't those application be seem as abuse of monopoly power towards those in the market of programming those applications. Really, bundling a web browser with an operating system doesn't look as such a dumb idea, considering that web browsing is one of the things that most computer users do.

There is one place where I would consider it abuse of monopoly power, and that is if they prevent/make it difficult for OEM manufacturers to include other browsers with the system. And it wouldn't really surprise me if that were the case.

Percent is a dimensionless ratio

[iamlucky13]

Unfortunately, the Libraries of Congress joke is irrelevant to measures in percent. It's proper use is for measures of data, although sometimes other equivalencies are formulated, like cost or volume, just as pound has similar uses for force, mass, or currency. Of course, you could extend that to the LOC and ratios, but you just end up with LOC's/LOC, which is rather silly compared to more obvious metrics like cubits/annual LOC heating energy (a measure of automotive efficiency commonly used in the pointless obfuscation industry).

The clumsy, oft-used (and almost always incorrectly used*) unit system you're looking for is "times." So 28% is 0.28 times the whole market or 0.72 times less than all of it. It's also approximately 0.8796 times 1/pi'th of the market. I'm sure you can immediately see how useful this unit system is for confusing the heck out of anyone you're talking to.


* The literal meaning of a statement like 20 times less is not 1/20th, but rather, -19. Hence it is nonsensical to say things like "the newest cellphones are 20 times lighter than the first models." You show me a product with a negative weight and I'll make you a rich person (and myself at the sametime, by cornering the entire world-wide space launch industry)! The proper way to say it is that they weigh 1/20th as much, or are 0.95 times or 95% lighter.

Re:Percent is a dimensionless ratio

[Doc Ruby]

Actually, the irrelevancy is the entire point.

But still, what is the dimension of the Library of Congress? It's not just a quantity of books. It's multidimensional. The real joke is reducing the Library of Congress to a quantity of bytes, which is itself inappropriate to a (largely) analog, complex physical object.

Re:here's a zinger for you

[SplatMan_DK]

Okay for all the complainers out there, consider this. If Windows didn't come with a web browser at all, how would you go to the site to download Firefox or Opera?
You are joking, right?

The presence of a working browser and a working internet connection is *NOT* a requirement for installing software.

I have a ton of software (including an FF installer) on my USB key, I have a CD with the typical software I need when I visit friends and family who require help with their computers, and if all else fails I buy a computer magazine from the closest newsstand or store. No problem at all.

If you could not get software (or a browser) at all without internet+browser, where would your OS even come from to begin with? Do you think is it impossible to install Windows/Linux+FF on a machine with a blank harddrive using a CD?

And has downloading software by using another computer become so unfashionable that I am the only one left on the entire planet using that procedure?
:-)

- Jesper

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[RightSaidFred99]

Your sarcasm is dreary. Claiming that Joe Schmoe computer user (there are a lot more of those now than back in the early days) can use FTP, SCP, whatever crackpot scheme you have cooking is just silly.

Second, an OEM can indeed of course bundle their choice of browser with a system. Note, however, that it always includes IE as well. It would be laughably stupid to remove IE anyway since it provides something of a "standard browser" that users can always assume is available on a Windows system.

All in all your heavy handed, unsubtle and boring sarcasm raises exactly Zero real points.

Re:here's a zinger for you

[RightSaidFred99]

Guh? And this relates to Windows...how, again? Are you saying MS should put other browsers on their update site? That's silly. Otherwise, I'm not sure what your point is. Of course users can FTP a browser, but try explaining that to Grandma.

Re:here's a zinger for you

[BigJClark]

As a side note, I usually turn my computer off, upon doing a freshie, until it is all loaded up with security patches, service packs, and AV software.

I only plug it into the sewer known colloquially as the 'intahrweb' until I'm sure I'm not going to get a fscking virus. But, I'm old skool :)

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[dvice_null]

ftp ftp.mozilla.org

ftp> cd /pub/firefox/releases/2.0.0.11/win32/en-US
250 Directory successfully changed.
ftp> dir
200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV.
150 Here comes the directory listing.
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 6026816 Nov 29 20:49 Firefox Setup 2.0.0.11.exe
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 186 Nov 29 20:53 Firefox Setup 2.0.0.11.exe.asc

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[homer_s]

there's no way that an OEM could possibly bundle their choice of browser with a system.

Yeah. The OEM should be able to bundle a different web browser if they want to. And a different media player too.

And a different text editor. And a different memory manager. And a different window manager. And a different kernel.

According to latest statistics from France..

[Colourspace]

There are 3.7 Billion Firefox users in Societe General alone!

Re:According to latest statistics from France..

[Colourspace]

I think the joke stands without the accents, but thanks for the french lesson!

Freedom ot the browse?

[Teflon_Jeff]

Looks like the EU's treatment of Microsoft is starting to pay off. Other browsers are catching on fire (fox)

Re:Firefox does come bundled, though

[toleraen]

Fail.

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[superyooser]

Right, my browser is the venerable telnet.exe on port 80, conveniently located in the Start Menu by default... If you don't know of any good download sites, Archie to the rescue!... Yes, the tool for downloading files is called FTP. HTTP is for that newfangled hyper-active text. Now get off my lawn!

Re:You flunk expression evaluation test.

[Cairnarvon]

You're right about the order of precedence, but that's infix notation, not reverse Polish. Reverse Polish is postfix.

Keep in mind that FF is a freebie.

[Richard Steiner]

Firefox and Mozilla Seamonkey are both outside the original market (which was web browsers that were created as a profit center).

Just because free software which comes from outside the market exists and is starting to penetrate doesn't imply that the market isn't being dominated. MSIE is effectively destroying any attempts to create and SELL a competing web browser. Even Opera is free now. It didn't used to be.

Re:Keep in mind that FF is a freebie.

[plague3106]

You could say the same about Linux, that its destroying the market to be able to SELL an OS. Hell you can say it about FF. After all, people are leaving IE and moving to FF, maybe FF shouldn't be given away for free either.

Re:Keep in mind that FF is a freebie.

[Richard Steiner]

Absolutely. Linux (and the BSD variants) were developed largely outside the desktop software marketplace because Microsoft's dominance in the desktop space has been it effectively impossible for a for-profit corporations to fund a competing effort by develping their own. Not even IBM could do it back in the 1990's, or Sun in more recent times, and Apple has successful mainly because its desktop fiefdom is still largely contained/protected behind walls made out of proprietary hardware and firmware elements.

In the case of operating systems (and perhaps also in the case of web browsers), you might be able to say that there is a natural tendency towards commoditization in those market segments. That might actually be true. But that does not explain Microsoft's ability to continue to make money hand-over-fist in the OS market, or its ability to snare such a dominant market share in the web browser space even with a largely static and uninnovative browser offering.

Re:Keep in mind that FF is a freebie.

[plague3106]

So should MS now cry foul because Linux is around? FWIW, Linux wasn't created "for free" because no one could sell an OS. It started as a hobbiest project given away as free.

Then you have to wonder why Netscape went free. It was free in 1996 when I started college. I doubt Win95 has gained enough market share in one year to force Netscapes hand. According to this, Netscape leading and it was still free. I believe it started losing not because of IE being bundled, but because people simply liked IE better.

I was a Netscape user; I continued to use it until around 2000 or so, when I moved to the pre-1.0 FF. What's your explaination for why Netscape, even being free, could not compete, yet FF somehow can?

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[ad0gg]

Speaking of which. I think its unfair that windows bundles ftp.exe, how can winftp compete against ftp.exe when it comes bundles on all windows boxes.

firefox globally around 15%

[sentientbrendan]

(depending on who you ask) which is actually up quite a bit over historical standards. Total non-ie usage globally seems to be almost a quarter.

My question is this, why is European adoption so much higher than global adoption? The article doesn't really explain this. Is windows available unbundled in Europe? Does firefox get more press there?

In the US, colleges tend to use firefox, and a lot of more technically oriented people; however IE is still the default for most institutions and home users.

Re:firefox globally around 15%

[Ornedan]

The very high Finnish share is probably explained by the government IT security office making a public recommendation that people switch away from IE a while ago when there was yet another major exploit for it going around. IIRC, Firefox was explicitly mentioned as a good alternative to migrate to.

Re:firefox globally around 15%

[mqduck]

firefox is used in europe because of the iraq war. by waging this war in iraq, america has lost a lot of goodwill, and a lot of people in europe have been trying to avoid supporting american companies. So you're saying that IE is seen as an "American" browser? I actually think there may be some truth to that (but there's a rivalry between the US and Europe that extends deeper than the Iraq issue). But I don't think that's a good (big) enough explanation; there has to be more to it.

Re:firefox globally around 15%

[tiffany98121]

Did Silicon Valley secede? Mozilla Foundation 1981 Landings Drive Building K Mountain View, CA 94043-0801 USA

Re:firefox globally around 15%

[howlingmadhowie]

firefox is free software and therefore belongs to the world. this also fits right into the european mindset, but that's not the reason why firefox is becoming popular.

okay, you also have to mention that it is almost impossible to buy a magazine without getting a cd with firefox on it. firefox is seen as the default browser and the reasons mentioned tend to be things like:

• it's a lot safer than ie and it protects you from viruses and malware and stuff
• it's faster than ie
• it's not as primitive as ie

apart from the first reason, these reasons are debatable (this just goes to show that a lot of people will believe anything they're told--see apple).

however, look at the moment when firefox took off. microsoft is regarded as a very american company which is doing to the world pretty much what america is doing to iraq. it's not just web browsers. look at the sales figures for something like afri-cola (german version of coca-cola), which have increased, what, 500% since the iraq war.

europe is not as wantonly pro america as it used to be. slowly a concept like "being proud of being a european" is emerging. for example, the first flight of the A380 was a moment when this feeling became clear for a lot of us. the result is a huge swing towards free software (see france).

Re:firefox globally around 15%

[marcosdumay]

"My question is this, why is European adoption so much higher than global adoption?"

Because the hight usage of IE at the United States push the average down.

Now, my question is, why is US adoptions so low?

Re:here's a zinger for you

[mqduck]

Are you saying MS should put other browsers on their update site? Yes!

People pay for office software

[jonasj]

Because people are willing to pay money for Microsoft Office. If they bundle a free OpenOffice, they lose MS Office sales. Therefore they don't.

That issue doesn't exist with browsers, because it's not something the OEMs make money selling, so they wouldn't lose any profits by bundling Firefox or Opera, since web browsers are free.

Pointless Pissing contest

[EraserMouseMan]

Hey guys and gals, Is it just me or is this browser war pointless? If MS pre-installed FireFox and stopped pouring money into IE what how would FireFox even benefit? How would a complete lack of competition either way benefit the users?

Back in the IE vs Netscape days all the rage was about how "Portals" and "browsers" were the big cash cows of the web. Popularity of your browser or portal was a yardstick of how successful you will become in the new .com age. Now the money is in search engines. Companies give their portals and browsers away as loss-leaders to get people to use their search engine.

For MS, pre-installing IE only has value when un-educated users use the default MSN home page. That's it! As soon as somebody changes it to Gooogle or Yahoo, Microsoft has lost all value of having that broswer pre-installed. To MS, I'd bet they view maintaining IE a necessary evil. What does MS stand to lose if it just quit the browser race?

Re:Pointless Pissing contest

[bunratty]

By making IE more popular than other browsers and keeping it loaded with quirks and proprietary features, they encourage some web sites require IE to browse them. This is particularly true of corporate intranet sites. To use IE legally, you must buy a Windows license. If MS lets all users choose whatever browser they want, they are also free to move to other operating systems besides Windows, and MS loses money.

Re:You flunk expression evaluation test.

[TheThiefMaster]

As in:
28 23.2 - 23.2 /

I had a programmable calculator that you had to program in RPN. eg:
3 2 - 'A' STORE
is
A = 3 - 2
Anything vaguely complex became a horrific mess, especially as it compacted the program by removing all new lines and replacing them with spaces when you saved...

On the other hand that same calculator could integrate and differentiate algebraic expressions ('y=x*x' becoming 'dy/dx=2x'), and solve simultaneous equations, among other things.

"standard browser"? pfeh!

[mstahl]

You're obviously not a web developer. I would love it if instead of IE, windows computers came bundled with Opera or Firefox. That would be the best thing ever! Though IE is a browser you can always bet a PC user will have on-hand, it is NOT a standard browser in the real sense of the word, and the need to know it's always available is only there because a lot of web developers are jackasses who don't bother testing in a real browser before deploying. I have to test on IE6, IE7, Safari, and Firefox all the time. Do you have any idea how freaking annoying it is when a web site I'm working on looks flawless in Safari, beautiful in Firefox, and like a steaming pile of shit in IE?

The existence of this "standard" browser you're so enamored with easily increases the length of time I have to work on any project by 15% minimum, and I pass the savings onto my clientele. That's real, actual money out there that is wasted because of IE, and I'm not the only one who feels that way.

So no. It would not be laughably stupid to remove IE, since IE shouldn't be tied so closely to the operating system to begin with.

Quick Question . . .

[EraserMouseMan]

If all OS makers got out of the browser business how would that hurt them?

And Oceania at 31%

[NotZed]

Has a map of the whole world, not just a small part of it:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23136815-5014239,00.html

Re:"French web metrics firm," eh?

[patio11]

While I won't tell you what you shouldn't be looking at on your computer, I sincerely hope you run anti-virus and AdAware on a regular basis.

Re:here's a zinger for you

[MSojka]

> If you could not get software (or a browser) at all without internet+browser, where would your OS even come from to begin with?

A second computer cross-linked to the first, running a dhcpd+tftpd and providing the required installation PXE image and installation files via the most convenient method for the given target OS.

We do the same with internet (but still without any browser, CD, or other removable media) all the time where I work.

Phhht

[Iron Condor]

Twenty eight percent.

Firefox is as popular in Europe as GW Bush is in the US.

And they both think that gives them some kind of mandate...

Re:Phhht

[wizardforce]

Firefox is as popular in Europe as GW Bush is in the US.

the vast majority of support for Bush comes from one specific group of people, not the nation as a whole, the rest of us want him the fuck out of here.

And they both think that gives them some kind of mandate...

considering firefox has at least 10x what anyone else has I'd say that they're doing alright considering IE is "just there" and people need to actively seek out firefox to have it installed. that's the part you're missing, that people actually went out of their way to download firefox rather than use the browser that was already there.

Re:Phhht

[Grishnakh]

the vast majority of support for Bush comes from one specific group of people, not the nation as a whole, the rest of us want him the fuck out of here.

I disagree. Around half the population likes Bush; after all, they voted for him. Some of those half aren't completely happy with him, and that's showing in the approval polls, but that doesn't equate to wanting him "the fuck out of here" like the other half who actively hate Bush. Just look at how neocons Romney and McCain are doing in the polls and primaries right now: they're doing quite well, despite the fact that they're basically clones of Bush in policy. They both support the Iraq War, and all the other major things Bush has done. There's a lot of people voting for Ron Paul, too, but many/most of those are probably people who wouldn't have registered Republican in the first place, since he's not a neo-con at all, and wants to end the war.

Re:Phhht

[wizardforce]

I disagree. Around half the population likes Bush; after all, they voted for him.

go take a look at the stats again- it's all split by political party and even a lot of the republicans are abandoning him.

Just look at how neocons Romney and McCain are doing in the polls and primaries right now: they're doing quite well, despite the fact that they're basically clones of Bush in policy.

like I said, it's all split on party lines, it's devolved into a battle between "us" and "them" and as long as the canidates are technically in line with the majority of party voting/policy people are more than willing to vote for them. then there's the fact that the party throws most of its support behind a single canidate who most often ends up being one of two major contenders making everyone else "irrelevant" in the eyes of most voters. the most anyone one the republican side wants now is to get someone else from their side to be POTUS no matter how much they actually are like Bush. there's blind mindless devotion to a party for you.

Re:Mod parent up

[MojoStan]

Mod parent up

WTF with the -1? Some MS fanboi attempting censorship?

The comment started with a score of "-1" because it was posted by known anti-MS troll Erris, aka twitter (he might have other sock puppet accounts). Yes, Erris/twitter's comment would have been more visible if he posted anonymously. I think Erris/twitter's reputation on Slashdot is so bad that moderators are reluctant to mod up even good comments by him because they think he doesn't deserve "visibility" now or in the future.

BTW, "MS fanbois attempting censorship" sounds a bit paranoid, but I'll assume you're new here, Anonymous Coward. ;->

More info available from the FAQs "My Karma: How low can it go?" and "What is karma Good For?".

Coke comparison

[pizzach]

Let's say that suddenly Coke was restricted from having sugar put into it by the government. What are the alternatives? Well, maybe premixing corn syrup...nutrisweet...or selling packets of sugar separately. Most stores would have enough common sense to include SOMETHING so you don't have to go without. The "how would I get a web browser if I don't have a web browser!?!" argument is moot. I personally would put all three in...as that would be sweet indeed.

Re:Coke comparison

[Your.Master]

I would say that sugar is an inherent part of coca-cola classic and it cannot realistically be removed from the product, and thus the tying there is not illegal. For it is ridiculous to single out a soft-drink company, even in a monopoly position, to sell their product without a key ingredient.

Whoa...is that the point you intended?

Re:Coke comparison

[pizzach]

I think do my dismay, my point turned out that I like sugar. ;P

MS killed the browser market.

[jotaeleemeese]

Opera and Netscape used to be paid for products, but MS's monopolistic dominance in the OS field allowed them to give the browser away for free.

Microsofties will go all wobbly on their knees reminding us that IE was better than Netscape, but when your knees are wobbling you are most likely to miss the point: MS killed the incentive to produce a browser, the only way to "compete" was to give the browser away for free, the cost of producing such software was swallowed by MS, making it impossible for anybody else to compete in a level playing field, unless they worked gratis.

In an alternative universe where MS is ethical and the US's DOJ is fair, MS would have priced the browser realistically, Netscape would have died because it was shit and a multitude of companies would have entered the business providing innovation and reinvigorating the browser market.

The only way to re-establish some degree of advancement in the browser arena was for other people to give their work away for free. Any market that relies on handouts is no market at all. Thanks to MS for the favour... not.

Re:MS killed the browser market.

[bunratty]

MS killed the incentive to produce a browser, the only way to "compete" was to give the browser away for free, the cost of producing such software was swallowed by MS, making it impossible for anybody else to compete in a level playing field, unless they worked gratis.

Mozilla makes tens of millions of dollars per year giving Firefox away for free. Opera makes a similar amount of money selling its mobile browser and also giving away its desktop browser. Apple makes money selling Safari with Macs and iPhones. You can bet their developers are well paid.

Re:MS killed the browser market.

[pin0chet]

Wait, you're arguing that browsers shouldn't be free? I thought lower prices are supposed to be a good thing. Nowadays we have great browsers like Firefox and Opera that are free, and Microsoft deserves some credit for setting a precedent that browsers should not have a price tag.

Also, if Microsoft can't bundle IE with Windows, then everybody who buys Windows will have to download an internet browser before browsing the web. No big deal for a savvy user, but plenty of people like how Windows has Internet built-in. In fact, I personally would rather Windows include more free programs, not fewer ones. I like having a basic browser, media player, word processor, and even solitaire all built in to Windows. Sure you could argue that if Windows didn't have any of these programs, then the market for them would be more thriving. So should we force MS to dismantle Windows to a shell of what it currently is?

If MS actually prevented Windows users from switching to Firefox, that would be monopoly abuse. But Microsoft does nothing to stop you from replacing or augmenting their built-in programs with other third-party software. People who don't want to deal with finding an OS can just browse the web, and those who want something better can grab Firefox or Opera.

Re:MS killed the browser market.

[bytesex]

Ehm, I don't know how old you are, but both Netscape and Opera were always 'free'; that is, Opera had an ad-supported free version, and Netscape was already free before IE was even a reasonable product. Netscape used to make their money by bundling their browser on internet-cds of providers and by selling the Netscape web-server (I forget what its name was). Netscape was the only gui-browser (if you discounted mosaic and/or arena) for Linux for a while. Had to put up with the butt-ugly Motif widgets though, against which it had been statically linked.

Re:MS killed the browser market.

[Weedlekin]

"Ehm, I don't know how old you are, but both Netscape and Opera were always 'free'"

The first releases of Netscape had both evaluation and commercial versions. Evaluation versions were identified by an "N" suffix (e.g. 1.1N), and were only supposed to be used for trial purposes, after which one was expected to pay for a commercial license.

But what about Australia!

[FoolsGold]

We're the highest at 31.1%. Isn't that worth a mention?

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23136815-5014239,00.html

Re:Firefox does come bundled, though

[gmack]

These all browser lock.

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[Le_Papet]

The parent brings up an important point. To many people the internet starts and ends with their web browser. While people are listing things like torrents and FTP to get the browser, I doubt Joe Consumer has any idea what those are. The best option would be to bundle a barebones browser.

Re:Firefox does come bundled, though

[Almahtar]

It's also worth pointing out that bundling in and of itsself is not a problem unless it benefits from a monopoly. Bundle a minority product with another minority product and you have no problems. Bundle any product with a monopoly product and you have lawsuits on hand - it's too much power. The product will succeed without question because the monopoly product has such high market share.

FF reaches 83% saturation in...

[qcs-rf.com]

... my network. Twelve machines. Ten running Win XP Pro. One running FreeBSD 6.2 is a server with no GUI. One running Win XP Home with only IE (my mother-in-law's PC).

Statistics are great, but should never be trusted.

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[Your.Master]

Nothing stops OEMs from bundling Linux, with a different text editor, memory manager, window manager, kernel, web browser, and media player ;).

Re:Firefox does come bundled, though

[Bert64]

Actually, quite a lot of the sites i see advertised in spam require IE!

Re:here's a zinger for you

[FooBarWidget]

Are you too young to remember the late 90s? Back then, before IE was bundled with Windows, ISPs would *give you a CD/floppy* with Netscape on it. There, problem solved. There are plenty of ways to provide a browser without the end user having to worry about it.

Accents

[marcosdumay]

I don't know if you are serious about that, but the GP's accents aren't wuite right.

Re:here's a zinger for you

[houghi]

If your product is really better, it will catch on.

Betamax

FUD

[Nicolay77]

Both Opera and Firefox get their desktop profit from google.

I don't have to pay a dime to use Opera.

STOP YOUR FUD.

Don't see a case

[Mr. Underbridge]

The key here is they can't compete... not that they can't get some business. Yes, people may have shown they go out of their way to download a different browser, but if the market is still severely skewed (IMO it is) because of a monopoly abuse, there is a case for a remedy.

But the OP's point is still valid - if there's about a 2x difference between MS and Firefox, but about a 10x difference between Firefox and Opera, Opera's primary problem can't be MS. When another competitor proves it is possible to compete, you're going to have a real tough time making a case.

Additionally, they'll have to prove that MS used it's monopoly power on the desktop improperly. The answer to that is, are they preventing OEMs from installing Firefox? If they're not strongarming against it, then Opera probably has no case.

So with the exchange rate...

[cryptor3]

From Euro to US, that's like, what, 14% American?

Firefox and Flash

[Eccles]

Any suggestions on what can be done regarding Firefox running slowly due to slow Flash? I know it's mainly Adobe code, but it affects the perception of Firefox. I'd love to just ask the right folks nicely if they can figure out why something can run so much slower with Firefox than IE, when it's usually pretty trivial.

I don't think that's right

[C18H21NO3]

I went back to check, because I remember cracking Opera back in the day, long before there were ad supported versions. I did that because I didn't want to pay for it, at least, that's how I remember it happening, but it was college...

Anywho, I was right, you weren't. Opera wasn't ad supported until version 5, before that it was shareware with a trial period.

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

"December 6, 2000: Opera 5 was the first version which was ad-sponsored instead of having a trial period."

Opera was not "always free".

Firefox and George Bush support

[edxwelch]

Did anyone notice that the lowest ranking Firefox countries (UK, Spain, Holland and Italy) are also the countries that supported Bush in the Iraq war?
Always said there was something evil about IE, now we have proof ;)

Re:What about notepad

[Grishnakh]

So should MS remove notepad from windows because it makes competition harder for vim/gedit/whatever?
Should it remove it's graphical interface because it breaks competition with Xorg?

Yes. MS should also remove the Windows kernel, and all the other parts of Windows too.

Consumers are better informed

[jotaeleemeese]

I have many friends in different EU countries, who are not computer specialists, who are informed and are prepared to try new stuff.

Re:What about notepad

[hkmwbz]

So should MS remove notepad from windows because it makes competition harder for vim/gedit/whatever?

Only if it can be shown that MS has used anti-competitive tactics in this particular case.

And what about Ubuntu. It comes with Firefox preinstalled, so it also makes it harder for Opera to compete

But is it anti-competitive? No. Ubuntu is not dominant in any market.