How can Microsoft deny anything, when the facts speak for themselves? Opera already has MS thoroughly exposed. Microsoft making Opera look bad, and lying about Opera to the press. I'd say Bob Visse's words in the press is evidence Microsoft can hardly deny.
As for "taking the easy way out", do you really think a tiny company like Opera stands a chance in hell of getting Microsoft convicted of anything? Microsoft has billions of dollars. Opera has a few million. Microsoft would just drag this out and make Opera go bankrupt. Not to mention the fact that Opera is a Norwegian company.
Opera's bringing in more and more money from their browser products. How exactly is this "a questionable business model"?
And based on the fact that revenues are increasing rapidly, how can you even think about claiming that Opera relies on lawsuits for revenue.
Fact: Opera makes enough money just by selling a browser. Anyone who has followed the company and read a few interviews with the CEO knows that you are talking out of your ass.
Also, this has been discussed before. I guess I shouldn't even mention the fact that Microsoft was spreading lies about Opera through the media, should I?
Man, try to inform yourself before shooting your mouth off like that.
"hkmwbz, it is quite well known that you are a slashdot idiot, your karma is a good point to that."
Ooh, the anger! Did I hit a nerve?:)
"Opera has no future in mobile devices. They try to put it into mobile devices, but developers don't care about opera."
I beg to differ. Opera is becoming a powerful mobile brand. Phone companies are actually bragging about having Nokia on their phones. Nokia is running ads showing off Opera, and as you can see, Opera even gets its own branded button!
"In fact, my company specializes on web sites designed for mobile devices primarily target pocketIE, because it is the best."
Pocket IE is not the best. It is a stripped down version of desktop IE, which basically leaves a lot to be desired. To fit it into a phone, they had to remove a lot of stuff, and you'll find plenty of problems surfing with it. Even Microsoft knows this.
"The only reason opera has attraction there is that, pocketIE is working only on windows ce devices, whereas opera is trying to put it into other devices too."
That's one of the reasons. Another is that Opera has small screen rendering, uses the exact same core on the desktop as on devices, unlike IE. And so on.
"Also, as a typical slashdot idiots you are simply pushing an unrelated issue here. PocketIE vs Opera has nothing to do with the news mentioned in this post. Go and read the fucking article first if you didn't get it. Don't make another stupid allegation, we already know you are an idiot."
Ah, but I only responded to the "Opera is no threat to Microsoft" claim, and in mentioning that, pocket IE is indeed relevant. Microsoft does not have a good enough browser, while other mobile platforms have Opera. Opera is growing in the embedded market, and that is why it could be a threat to Microsoft's entry into this market.
"Again, your stupidity shines. You claim it repeats itself over and over, yet you don't show one single proof to support your claim. All you are saying is a lie, it doesn't repeat itself over and over and over. Opera is a shitty browser, we do not support it at all. It is absolutely stupid to support opera. MSN should completely refuse to support it."
Sorry, but the issue here is not that MSN doesn't support Opera. It is that Microsoft have been serving Opera bad code to Opera, breaking sites like MSN.com and MSNBC.com, making Opera look bad. Not only that, but a Mirosoft exec started spreading blatant lies to the media about Opera.
But I already covered that in the post you responded to I guess.
GMail doesn't make Opera look bad on purpose, by serving it a special style sheet designed to break it. It says up-front that Opera might not work. I may not like it (actually, I think it sucks really bad), but it is Google's right to choose to do so. They are being up-front about it, which is a good thing. So GMail cannot be compared to Microsoft's actions at all.
I am sure you, too understand why Microsoft gets crap for making other browsers look bad on purpose. To quote another post of mine:
"You mean apart from the fact that MSN is used by millions upon millions of people, and that when they discover that it works fine in Internet Explorer but not in Opera, it gives the impression that it is Opera which doesn't work properly?"
Your examples aren't quite the same as Microsoft's actions against Opera. Not only is Microsoft serving bad code specifically to Opera, but they are lying about Opera to the press as well.
Opera forces you to choose between targeted ads and generic ads (no URL sent to anyone). You cannot even start browsing unless you have specifically chosen between them, and everything is explained before you make that conscious choice. It is not buried in some huge EULA, but in the actual dialog box where you choose between ads. Gator is secretly installed on PCs and doesn't allow the user to choose at all.
Opera does not change the web page, replace ads on pages with its own or open popups. The ads are kept strictly in one place - in the user interface, outside the page viewing area. Gator replaces ads on web pages with its own and uses popup windows.
Opera's targeted ads are hosted by Google, a company most people trust. And most people trust Opera.
These are significant differences. Opera cannot be compared to Gator at all.
"I don't honestly see that it's worth it when you compare Opera to near-as-competent free software browsers like Firefox or Konqueror"
Opera is a small download packed with features. It has a browser, email, chat, news, newsfeeds, and, well, generally more features than you can shake a stick at.
Why Opera? Because all these features are available immediately, and they are all integrated in a way which makes it convenient to use Opera. One might not want to spend a lot of time finding Firefox extensions to emulate Opera's feature set when it's all there already when you install Opera.
Not to mention the mail client M2, which totally rethinks the way mail is handled. It uses a database and "queries" rather than folders. Searches tens of thousands of mails takes less than a second... And so on.
Opera's features are all created with a common goal, unlike most Firefox extensions. They are created by different people with different goals, so they may not integrate well together.
"Opera is getting money, but that's all they're gettting"
Not exactly. Opera gets a lot of press (free PR) from this one. And they all but said that it was Microsoft. It was not a partner or customer, and the settlement wouldn't affect future revenue sources at all. It was not a trademark or patent issue... They gave a lot of details what it was not about. So clearly, that limits the possibilities.
It sounds like it is a competitor, and Microsoft matches that, at least in the mobile market. And who else would be willing to pay just like that to make a problem go away? Who could afford it?
So Opera is getting away just fine. It gets lots of press, and everyone assumes that it's Microsoft, even though, strictly speaking, Opera stuck to the deal and didn't reveal the company.
The rumor that it is Microsoft has not been officially confirmed, but if you put two and two together, MS is the most likely candidate.
You mean apart from the fact that MSN is used by millions upon millions of people, and that when they discover that it works fine in Internet Explorer but not in Opera, it gives the impression that it is Opera which doesn't work properly?
"We do identify the string from the browser, and the only issue that we have is that the Opera browser doesn't support the latest XHTML standard," said Visse. "So we do suggest to those users that they go download a browser that does support the latest standards."
Opera obviously does support XHTML, and issued a press release in XHTML which points out Microsoft's lie.
Right. But a lot of people prefer having everything integrated and working together towards a common goal. Firefox extensions are developed by different people, so they may not always fit so nicely together.
"A little Norwegian company which poses no threat to Microsoft"
Except the fact that Pocket IE is a very bad browser, and Opera is getting big on mobile devices, a market Microsoft is trying to gain a stronger foothold in.
As for your comments about conspiracy theories, this isn't just something which has happened once. Opera has been specifically detected and served broken code on several occasions on MSN.com, and lately on MSNBC.com. In addition to this, a Microsoft spokesperson lied about Opera to the media.
You are criticizing others for assuming too much, yet you don't even bother to inform yourself on the matter.
This isn't just one case of a bad style sheet on MSN. This is something which has repeated itself over and over.
Wrong. Look for "inline find". That was in November 2001.
As cool as Mozilla is, Opera often drives the innovation. I don't understand your "3rd parties" comment either. Can anyone submit code to change things in Firefox? Or are you saying that "3rd party innovation" somehow nullifies Opera's innovations?
This is not about blackmail, but about a series of conflicts between Microsoft and Opera, as well as direct lies from a Microsoft spokesperson in the media. Yes, it is fine to block browsers if you want to. But that isn't what Microsoft does. Microsoft keeps detecting that you are using Opera (even when identified as something else) and sending broken code to it. This hasn't happened just once, but several times. A few times with MSN.com, and now lately, MSNBC.com looked bad in Opera because Opera got broken code, while all other browsers got code that actually worked.
What MS is doing is not fine. They are detecting that you are using Opera and making Opera look bad by serving it bad code. It is not "perfectly legit" at all.
I am not impressed by the quality of CNET's journalism. Here's what they have to say about why they state this as fact, instead of using language like "it looks like" or "we have reason to believe":
"a source indicated that the payment came from Microsoft in order to close the books on a clash over obscure interoperability problems"
I couldn't find any information about who this "source" is supposed to be in the article. So they are basically portraying someone's assumptions as fact. Bad journalism.
But this is not the only case of bad journalism. Another example:
"Opera is looking to move past the PC to distribute its Web browser on devices such as cell phones and personal digital assistants
This is just wrong. Opera isn't just "looking to move past the PC". They have been doing this for years. Just a quick look on opera.com shows press releases about this back in 2000. In 2001, the Sharp Zaurus had Opera on it.
Now, I am not saying that it cannot possibly be Microsoft. It probably is. But this is pure speculation, and CNET is portraying it as fact. And they seem to focus on one single site, rather than the on-going problems with Opera and Microsoft sites due to browser sniffing and singling out Opera, and Microsoft's blatant lies about Opera in the press.
You forget to mention that this isn't just one episode. This is something which has happened several times, and one Microsoft exec even started talking about "Opera's lack of standards compliance", claiming that it didn't support XHTML, CSS, and so on.
If this is really Microsoft, why does everyone assume that this is about a single episode with a single site, rather than a pattern, when MS has been doing this for a long time? Or just the fact that a Microsoft spokesperson used the media to spread several blatant lies about Opera (the alleged lack of XHTML support, as well as other things)?
The comment you are linking to isn't really relevant since Microsoft haven't done this kind of thing against Opera only once. They have done it several times, and have also been spreading lies about Opera.
Maybe you should keep that in mind before jumping to conclusions.
What exactly do they mean by that? The quote doesn't make sense. Opera has better standards compliance in areas than Gecko. And what is "lack of browser content"?
Unless they have something better than that, I'd say they are full of FUD, and trying to justify the difficulties they are having getting Minimo below 64 M.
Re:As long as developers can make their pages fit
on
Mozilla's Mini-Me
·
· Score: 1
I call bullshit.
How can NetFront eliminate horizontal scrolling without dropping content or reducing its size? And on a normal small PDA screen?
Opera is the default/main browser for Symbian OS, which is used by all the major mobile players, such as Nokia, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola, Siemens, and so on. In addition, it's on Linux based devices, such as the Sharp Zaurus. There are some phones where Opera is branded, and some where it is not identified as Opera. Recenty, a phone was announced in Japan, where Opera's logo is featured on the phone's keypad. Also, Nokia recently bragged about having Opera in a recent run of ads. Kind of shows how Opera is building itself up in the mobile market.
NetFront is a Japanese mobile-only browser. Obviously, it can't measure up to desktop browsers like Opera and Mozilla, so the company relies on FUD and lies to make people choose their garbage over Opera. But that's a different story I guess.
My point was kind of that "fastest" is not only about rendering speed. Opera's UI makes it the fastest browser, at least for my use. There is no other browser I can work as efficiently with as Opera.
Opera's embedded browsers are full-featured. They use the exact same core as the desktop versions. So you get a full browser - the same you would use on the desktop - for your device. If Opera is available for it, that is.
People like Access with their NetFront browser have tried to keep up with Opera, but frankly, everything else sucks. Mozilla's embedded browser project might be interesting to follow, but until it is further in development, Opera beats everything else, including wannabe crap like NetFront.
Opera might not be competing on the desktop, but they certainly are on the embedded side. Microsoft's embedded browser is crap, a stripped down version of desktop IE.
IE has won the desktop war long ago. But Opera is still a thread on devices.
One of the management guys bought stock long after the press release, and when the stock price had stabilized for the day. He didn't buy it on today's lowest, but when it reached its peak.
If he has bought before the press release, it would have been insider trading, and illegal. Check your facts before you spew out nonsense willya.
Slashdot Mirror
How can Microsoft deny anything, when the facts speak for themselves? Opera already has MS thoroughly exposed. Microsoft making Opera look bad, and lying about Opera to the press. I'd say Bob Visse's words in the press is evidence Microsoft can hardly deny.
As for "taking the easy way out", do you really think a tiny company like Opera stands a chance in hell of getting Microsoft convicted of anything? Microsoft has billions of dollars. Opera has a few million. Microsoft would just drag this out and make Opera go bankrupt. Not to mention the fact that Opera is a Norwegian company.
Oh yeah, and Opera has all but confirmed that it was Microsoft. But still, until MS or Opera actually states this officially, we can only speculate.
And you start speculating, drawing your own misguided conclusions, and start talking about Mozilla?! Geez.
And based on the fact that revenues are increasing rapidly, how can you even think about claiming that Opera relies on lawsuits for revenue.
Fact: Opera makes enough money just by selling a browser. Anyone who has followed the company and read a few interviews with the CEO knows that you are talking out of your ass.
Also, this has been discussed before. I guess I shouldn't even mention the fact that Microsoft was spreading lies about Opera through the media, should I?
Man, try to inform yourself before shooting your mouth off like that.
I do use both Opera and Firefox, but I definitely find myself using Opera more, as I don't have to worry about extensions and such.
But I already covered that in the post you responded to I guess.
Anyway, AC. Sorry, but YUO LOSE!!!!1 :)
Thanks for playing, try again.
I am sure you, too understand why Microsoft gets crap for making other browsers look bad on purpose. To quote another post of mine:
Your examples aren't quite the same as Microsoft's actions against Opera. Not only is Microsoft serving bad code specifically to Opera, but they are lying about Opera to the press as well.- Opera forces you to choose between targeted ads and generic ads (no URL sent to anyone). You cannot even start browsing unless you have specifically chosen between them, and everything is explained before you make that conscious choice. It is not buried in some huge EULA, but in the actual dialog box where you choose between ads. Gator is secretly installed on PCs and doesn't allow the user to choose at all.
- Opera does not change the web page, replace ads on pages with its own or open popups. The ads are kept strictly in one place - in the user interface, outside the page viewing area. Gator replaces ads on web pages with its own and uses popup windows.
- Opera's targeted ads are hosted by Google, a company most people trust. And most people trust Opera.
These are significant differences. Opera cannot be compared to Gator at all.Why Opera? Because all these features are available immediately, and they are all integrated in a way which makes it convenient to use Opera. One might not want to spend a lot of time finding Firefox extensions to emulate Opera's feature set when it's all there already when you install Opera.
Not to mention the mail client M2, which totally rethinks the way mail is handled. It uses a database and "queries" rather than folders. Searches tens of thousands of mails takes less than a second... And so on.
Opera's features are all created with a common goal, unlike most Firefox extensions. They are created by different people with different goals, so they may not integrate well together.
It sounds like it is a competitor, and Microsoft matches that, at least in the mobile market. And who else would be willing to pay just like that to make a problem go away? Who could afford it?
So Opera is getting away just fine. It gets lots of press, and everyone assumes that it's Microsoft, even though, strictly speaking, Opera stuck to the deal and didn't reveal the company.
The rumor that it is Microsoft has not been officially confirmed, but if you put two and two together, MS is the most likely candidate.
You mean apart from the fact that MSN is used by millions upon millions of people, and that when they discover that it works fine in Internet Explorer but not in Opera, it gives the impression that it is Opera which doesn't work properly?
Microsoft's lies are covered in this press release from Opera.
Opera obviously does support XHTML, and issued a press release in XHTML which points out Microsoft's lie.
This and other lies from Microsoft are exposed in an Opera press release.
But extensions are a nice idea when done right.
As for your comments about conspiracy theories, this isn't just something which has happened once. Opera has been specifically detected and served broken code on several occasions on MSN.com, and lately on MSNBC.com. In addition to this, a Microsoft spokesperson lied about Opera to the media.
You are criticizing others for assuming too much, yet you don't even bother to inform yourself on the matter.
This isn't just one case of a bad style sheet on MSN. This is something which has repeated itself over and over.
Please don't fall for this troll. The fact is that Opera 6 worked just fine with the page sent to MSIE.
As cool as Mozilla is, Opera often drives the innovation. I don't understand your "3rd parties" comment either. Can anyone submit code to change things in Firefox? Or are you saying that "3rd party innovation" somehow nullifies Opera's innovations?
What MS is doing is not fine. They are detecting that you are using Opera and making Opera look bad by serving it bad code. It is not "perfectly legit" at all.
But this is not the only case of bad journalism. Another example:
This is just wrong. Opera isn't just "looking to move past the PC". They have been doing this for years. Just a quick look on opera.com shows press releases about this back in 2000. In 2001, the Sharp Zaurus had Opera on it.Now, I am not saying that it cannot possibly be Microsoft. It probably is. But this is pure speculation, and CNET is portraying it as fact. And they seem to focus on one single site, rather than the on-going problems with Opera and Microsoft sites due to browser sniffing and singling out Opera, and Microsoft's blatant lies about Opera in the press.
If this is really Microsoft, why does everyone assume that this is about a single episode with a single site, rather than a pattern, when MS has been doing this for a long time? Or just the fact that a Microsoft spokesperson used the media to spread several blatant lies about Opera (the alleged lack of XHTML support, as well as other things)?
The comment you are linking to isn't really relevant since Microsoft haven't done this kind of thing against Opera only once. They have done it several times, and have also been spreading lies about Opera.
Maybe you should keep that in mind before jumping to conclusions.
Unless they have something better than that, I'd say they are full of FUD, and trying to justify the difficulties they are having getting Minimo below 64 M.
How can NetFront eliminate horizontal scrolling without dropping content or reducing its size? And on a normal small PDA screen?
NetFront is a Japanese mobile-only browser. Obviously, it can't measure up to desktop browsers like Opera and Mozilla, so the company relies on FUD and lies to make people choose their garbage over Opera. But that's a different story I guess.
My point was kind of that "fastest" is not only about rendering speed. Opera's UI makes it the fastest browser, at least for my use. There is no other browser I can work as efficiently with as Opera.
People like Access with their NetFront browser have tried to keep up with Opera, but frankly, everything else sucks. Mozilla's embedded browser project might be interesting to follow, but until it is further in development, Opera beats everything else, including wannabe crap like NetFront.
IE has won the desktop war long ago. But Opera is still a thread on devices.
If he has bought before the press release, it would have been insider trading, and illegal. Check your facts before you spew out nonsense willya.