Microsoft should just stick to the EU and not add a damn browser at all over there.
Definitely. OEMs should decide which browser to bundle. Microsoft broke the law, which is why their browser activities are being targeted. Except letting OEMs decide would not "stick to the EU". It would actually be great!
Who wants to buy a PC and have to remember to grab the free cd to install the browser of their choice.
No need. OEMs will install a browser.
And to anyone who thinks apple isn't a monopoly then you are sadly fuckin mistaken. Apple locks down more proprietary shit then MS ever has or will.
Whether they lock down "shit" or not is irrelevant to whether they are a monopoly or not.
The difference in Apple is a monopoly by force, MS is just a market leader.
False. MS is guilty of abusing its monopoly in one market to destroy competition in a different market.
Monopoly - exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
You are either extremely ignorant or a Microsoft shill. You need to look up monopolies, as defined by law. By law, only a 60-70% market share is required to be considered a monopoly.
just bone up and market there product so people know it exist
So everyone should have to spend extraordinary amounts of money because of Microsoft's illegal actions? No thanks.
the problem isn't that MS bundles it. Hell, MS bundles a file manager and a window manager and no one yells foul from say litestep or the 2xplorer fronts.
Correct. Bundling in itself is not a problem. The problem is Microsoft abusing its monopoly in one market to kill the competition in another market. MS knew that the browser as a platform was a threat (ahead of their time perhaps?), which is why they wanted to absolutely destroy Netscape.
To have Opera claim MS "monopoly" excludes them is ludicrous
Actually, Opera's claim is not specifically about Opera. It's about Microsoft breaking the law, which affects everyone, not just Opera.
would never have known of them except because of the lawsuit.
Opera didn't sue anyone. It is not a lawsuit. Opera simply reported Microsoft's violation of the law to the authorities, similar to what you would do if you witnessed a robbery.
We can't succeed on our own
Opera is currently the dominant mobile browser. Opera Software is experiencing massive growth in every single business segment (including the desktop version) every single quarter, is profitable, and has a large pile of cash saved up.
we can force our way onto millions of PC, whether or not people actually want our stuff
So it's OK for Microsoft to illegally force themselves on people, but it is not OK for someone to protest? Opera never made any demands to be forced on anyone. Opera simply wants actual competition.
I know, lets go after iPhones next because its not fair that Apple has a monopoly there.
Your whole comment demonstrates your lack of knowledge and understanding of the matter. You are ignorant, and are spreading FUD about Opera. This last comment of yours shows that you are either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest. Apple/iPhone is not a monopoly, and certainly not an illegal one.
...and did it differently. Doing it differently means that they aren't necessarily trying to be like Wikipedia.
did the same thing (without, in my opinion, understanding it)
But that's your assumption. You are assuming that they are trying to do the same thing, but they are doing it differently. Whether that is on purpose or because they don't understand, you and I don't know, so your post is pointless speculation. You are likely a Wikipedia fanboy who will defend Wikipedia to the death.
It parses for me as "Why do you think they want to be like Wikipedia? Other than that they're trying to be like Wikipedia?"
No, that's not it. That they now accept user contributions doesn't necessarily mean that they are trying to be like Wikipedia. Are you trolling.
I can't see how Britannica is going to regain the lead by weakly mimicking the clear leader.
Again, you are assuming that they are trying to mimick something, and not just using a specific technique. You are basically asserting that this is the case, and when someone tells you that it isn't necessarily that way, you continue with straw men and red herrings.
They must really be on the ropes. They're into full-on me-tooism, but obviously don't get what makes Wikipedia awesome at all.
Why are you assuming that they want to be like Wikipedia, or are trying to be like it? Maybe they just want to save some money by having users write stuff for them instead. I'd imagine that reviewing is easier than writing. Wikipedia showed that user contributions in an encyclopedia are possible, so...
If Opera had their say in a government fiat imposed system, then for sure browsers would be pay-per-[sale|download|whatever].
They would not, but that's besides the point. A free market would have ensured that browsers became free of charge anyway.
The stated goal of the thread was that Microsoft should not supply a browser, so the question is are browsers free at that point but not installed by default, or are they a big-box-store cardboard-box add-on?
Selling browsers to consumers would never have been very profitable in the long run. Even Netscape was free of charge for consumers.
I like Opera, I'm just not an Opera fan myself. The interface doesn't... mesh well with me? Maybe it's been too long since I've looked at it?
Depends on when you last looked at it. The interface these days is as clean as anything else, and of course snappier than Firefox because it isn't XUL:)
What is the what? You are asking why Opera did this? That's really completely irrelevant, but the fact is that Opera is just about the browser that's been around for the longest, and they have witnessed Microsoft's blatant violations first-hand. Opera has always put big money into open standards, only to see Microsoft fuck it all up. Yes, Opera isn't just all talk. They spend good money and send excellent people around to work on open standards. They are members of or chair several W3C committees. I think you, too, would be pretty pissed if you spent a lot of money on something and some asshole came along and stole it.
And that's the point. If he's very sick and needs to step down, they have misled the market into thinking that he will keep going. It doesn't matter what "sick" means. All that matters is whether he will step down, contrary to Apple's claims.
Someone else posted: "Problem is they lied and denied his condition. There's a difference between saying nothing - and pushing out misinformation to manipulate stocks. That's a no-no."
First of all, Opera's market share is well above 1%, more like 5-10% if you count the entire world. But browser market share is impossible to measure, and no one has a representative sample. Worse yet, companies like Net Applications have been caught manipulating/editing their own stats several times.
But Opera doesn't even need any market share what so ever to log an antitrust complaint, which is what they did.
Opera isn't forcing Microsoft directly. But by highlighting Microsoft's violations of the law with IE, Microsoft realized that the authorities were watching them, and they issued the statement: "this step clearly removes this question as a potential legal and regulatory issue"
Correct, Opera didn't force the EU to do anything. But Opera's report to the EU scared the bejeezuz out of Microsoft. So, yes, Opera forced Microsoft to reconsider by talking to the EC.
1. Opera didn't sue anyone. They reported to the EU that Microsoft seemed to be breaking the law.
2. Opera's complaint came in late 2007.
Did you even follow the link? It quotes Microsoft's own press release where they admit that they did it due to fear of government fines: "this step clearly removes this question as a potential legal and regulatory issue"
Microsoft said in their own press release after Opera's complaint in 2007: "this step clearly removes this question as a potential legal and regulatory issue"
There is no search engine market. There is, however, an online ad placement market which is driven somewhat by search engine popularity.
Driven somewhat? There is a search engine market. Companies are making money from search engines. There are even analyses of search engine market share. Just like there are analyses of browser market share. Stop deluding yourself.
It's not my fault you have such a short memory.
My memory is fine. It is you who are making false statements based on your irrational hatred of Opera.
I don't even know what you can possibly mean by "desktop revenue".
Opera makes money from their desktop browser by passing on searches to Google. Just like Mozilla does.
There were numerous examples of limited browsers before Opera was even thought of.
Yeah, WAP browsers. And that was my point. Everyone was going for WAP, but Opera realized before everyone else that WAP was a dead end.
Minimo on Linux (say, on Angstrom on iPaq) beats the living shit out of Opera. It's a little slower, but far more successful at actually rendering webpages (the reboot page on dd-wrt, for example, is exciting to watch freak out in Opera Mobile) and in my experience, actually more stable.
I would have to disagree. Not only is Minimo slower and less stable, but it doesn't work correctly on a lot of sites.
Having used Minimo 0.1 WinCE, Minimo 0.2 Linux, and several versions of Opera Mobile, I must say that Minimo has both a superior interface and operation.
The interface is slow and clunky, and the engine is bloated and slow as well. And this is compared to Opera 8. I won't even bother comparing Minimo to Opera 9. Minimo is a joke compared to Opera 9.
There's a reason why they ditched Minimo, you know.
Although Opera's press release does not use the word "lawsuit," plenty of other third-partymedia do. It's a legal action, whether the Oxford dictionary would consider this a "lawsuit" seems like splitting hairs.
It doesn't matter what the media calls it. What matters is the fact that Opera didn't sue anyone. Opera reported a crime. I don't consider reporting a crime to be "legal action".
Opera only released their browser to be completely free (no ads or licensing fee) in September 2005.
Your point being? Is this somehow supposed to negate the fact that it became free of charge several years ago?
Opera, like any other company, does things to make money, including initializing legal action. If Opera would truly "not make a dime" from this action, I'm sure their board would have never approved bringing this complaint.
Your claim was that their business model is "litigation-based", and used this case to support your claim. I explained that it is not a lawsuit, and that Opera is not looking to get money from Microsoft. In other words, your claims about a "litigation-based business model" is clearly bogus.
Whether Opera is a commercial company or not is irrelevant to the fact that Microsoft broke the law. But nice red herring.
I simply glad I am not a stakeholder in Opera.
You are glad you are not a stakeholder in Opera because you are ignorant of the facts of the matter. The fact is that Opera is doing extremely well. Their revenues are increasing rapidly in all business segments, including desktop (where the revenues are increasing by 50-100% quarterly), and they are pulling in huge contract after huge contract for their mobile and device business units. Another example is Opera Mini which has increased its user base by 3-400% (yes, four hundred) a couple of years in a row now.
And yeah, I was trolling a bit, but at least I am somewhat better informed than you.
Apparently not, since you weren't aware that Opera for desktop is free of charge, that they didn't sue Microsoft, and that they will not be awarded damages for reporting Microsoft's crimes.
If anyone is "disconnected from reality", as you call it, it is you. Comparing Microsoft to Firefox was just one of many completely stupid errors you made which exposed your ignorance and bigotry.
This might be a backup solution to very few people, since most people either know how to get a browser (some), or will get Windows preinstalled on a new PC with a browser included by the OEM (the vast majority).
When all someone does is to look like they are reading from a script created by Microsoft, spewing out the same old fallacies over and over and over again, something is not quite right. No one can consciously be this ignorant of the facts.
"Convicted monopolist" means that they were found to have violated antitrust law. In several places, actually, such as the US, EU, Korea, etc.
Are you denying the fact that MS broke the law?
If not, are you saying that antitrust laws are wrong, even though every single country in the world, including the US, disagrees with you on that?
But all of what you wrote is a red herring. You didn't address my point, which is that Microsoft, as a monopolist, has to play by different rules than everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Definitely. OEMs should decide which browser to bundle. Microsoft broke the law, which is why their browser activities are being targeted. Except letting OEMs decide would not "stick to the EU". It would actually be great!
No need. OEMs will install a browser.
Whether they lock down "shit" or not is irrelevant to whether they are a monopoly or not.
False. MS is guilty of abusing its monopoly in one market to destroy competition in a different market.
You are either extremely ignorant or a Microsoft shill. You need to look up monopolies, as defined by law. By law, only a 60-70% market share is required to be considered a monopoly.
So everyone should have to spend extraordinary amounts of money because of Microsoft's illegal actions? No thanks.
Correct. Bundling in itself is not a problem. The problem is Microsoft abusing its monopoly in one market to kill the competition in another market. MS knew that the browser as a platform was a threat (ahead of their time perhaps?), which is why they wanted to absolutely destroy Netscape.
Actually, Opera's claim is not specifically about Opera. It's about Microsoft breaking the law, which affects everyone, not just Opera.
Opera didn't sue anyone. It is not a lawsuit. Opera simply reported Microsoft's violation of the law to the authorities, similar to what you would do if you witnessed a robbery.
Opera is currently the dominant mobile browser. Opera Software is experiencing massive growth in every single business segment (including the desktop version) every single quarter, is profitable, and has a large pile of cash saved up.
So it's OK for Microsoft to illegally force themselves on people, but it is not OK for someone to protest? Opera never made any demands to be forced on anyone. Opera simply wants actual competition.
Your whole comment demonstrates your lack of knowledge and understanding of the matter. You are ignorant, and are spreading FUD about Opera. This last comment of yours shows that you are either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest. Apple/iPhone is not a monopoly, and certainly not an illegal one.
What was his "stated reason"? All I remember hearing about is how he said that you don't need a flag pin to be a patriot.
Really? Have you actually observed that cookies are set before you start playing the video?
But that's your assumption. You are assuming that they are trying to do the same thing, but they are doing it differently. Whether that is on purpose or because they don't understand, you and I don't know, so your post is pointless speculation. You are likely a Wikipedia fanboy who will defend Wikipedia to the death.
No, that's not it. That they now accept user contributions doesn't necessarily mean that they are trying to be like Wikipedia. Are you trolling.
Again, you are assuming that they are trying to mimick something, and not just using a specific technique. You are basically asserting that this is the case, and when someone tells you that it isn't necessarily that way, you continue with straw men and red herrings.
Why are you assuming that they want to be like Wikipedia, or are trying to be like it? Maybe they just want to save some money by having users write stuff for them instead. I'd imagine that reviewing is easier than writing. Wikipedia showed that user contributions in an encyclopedia are possible, so...
They would not, but that's besides the point. A free market would have ensured that browsers became free of charge anyway.
Selling browsers to consumers would never have been very profitable in the long run. Even Netscape was free of charge for consumers.
Depends on when you last looked at it. The interface these days is as clean as anything else, and of course snappier than Firefox because it isn't XUL :)
Minimo development is still going on in addition to Fennec? No. Sorry to tell you this, but Fennec replaces Minimo. Minimo died a long time ago.
What is the what? You are asking why Opera did this? That's really completely irrelevant, but the fact is that Opera is just about the browser that's been around for the longest, and they have witnessed Microsoft's blatant violations first-hand. Opera has always put big money into open standards, only to see Microsoft fuck it all up. Yes, Opera isn't just all talk. They spend good money and send excellent people around to work on open standards. They are members of or chair several W3C committees. I think you, too, would be pretty pissed if you spent a lot of money on something and some asshole came along and stole it.
Someone else posted: "Problem is they lied and denied his condition. There's a difference between saying nothing - and pushing out misinformation to manipulate stocks. That's a no-no."
But Opera doesn't even need any market share what so ever to log an antitrust complaint, which is what they did.
Opera isn't forcing Microsoft directly. But by highlighting Microsoft's violations of the law with IE, Microsoft realized that the authorities were watching them, and they issued the statement: "this step clearly removes this question as a potential legal and regulatory issue"
Correct, Opera didn't force the EU to do anything. But Opera's report to the EU scared the bejeezuz out of Microsoft. So, yes, Opera forced Microsoft to reconsider by talking to the EC.
2. Opera's complaint came in late 2007.
Did you even follow the link? It quotes Microsoft's own press release where they admit that they did it due to fear of government fines: "this step clearly removes this question as a potential legal and regulatory issue"
Did you even read the blog post and follow the link?
Microsoft said in their own press release after Opera's complaint in 2007: "this step clearly removes this question as a potential legal and regulatory issue"
No, people are not using shit, they are using the toilet. Similarly, people are using browsers and search engines.
Driven somewhat? There is a search engine market. Companies are making money from search engines. There are even analyses of search engine market share. Just like there are analyses of browser market share. Stop deluding yourself.
My memory is fine. It is you who are making false statements based on your irrational hatred of Opera.
Opera makes money from their desktop browser by passing on searches to Google. Just like Mozilla does.
Yeah, WAP browsers. And that was my point. Everyone was going for WAP, but Opera realized before everyone else that WAP was a dead end.
I would have to disagree. Not only is Minimo slower and less stable, but it doesn't work correctly on a lot of sites.
The interface is slow and clunky, and the engine is bloated and slow as well. And this is compared to Opera 8. I won't even bother comparing Minimo to Opera 9. Minimo is a joke compared to Opera 9.
There's a reason why they ditched Minimo, you know.
It doesn't matter what the media calls it. What matters is the fact that Opera didn't sue anyone. Opera reported a crime. I don't consider reporting a crime to be "legal action".
Your point being? Is this somehow supposed to negate the fact that it became free of charge several years ago?
Your claim was that their business model is "litigation-based", and used this case to support your claim. I explained that it is not a lawsuit, and that Opera is not looking to get money from Microsoft. In other words, your claims about a "litigation-based business model" is clearly bogus.
Whether Opera is a commercial company or not is irrelevant to the fact that Microsoft broke the law. But nice red herring.
You are glad you are not a stakeholder in Opera because you are ignorant of the facts of the matter. The fact is that Opera is doing extremely well. Their revenues are increasing rapidly in all business segments, including desktop (where the revenues are increasing by 50-100% quarterly), and they are pulling in huge contract after huge contract for their mobile and device business units. Another example is Opera Mini which has increased its user base by 3-400% (yes, four hundred) a couple of years in a row now.
Apparently not, since you weren't aware that Opera for desktop is free of charge, that they didn't sue Microsoft, and that they will not be awarded damages for reporting Microsoft's crimes.
If anyone is "disconnected from reality", as you call it, it is you. Comparing Microsoft to Firefox was just one of many completely stupid errors you made which exposed your ignorance and bigotry.
There's no search engine market?
They did not. And since Opera became free of charge, their desktop revenue has increased by 50-100% quarterly!
This might be a backup solution to very few people, since most people either know how to get a browser (some), or will get Windows preinstalled on a new PC with a browser included by the OEM (the vast majority).
They have been forcing OEMs since the late 90s. MS was indeed convicted, both in the US, EU and Korea.
When all someone does is to look like they are reading from a script created by Microsoft, spewing out the same old fallacies over and over and over again, something is not quite right. No one can consciously be this ignorant of the facts.
Are you denying the fact that MS broke the law?
If not, are you saying that antitrust laws are wrong, even though every single country in the world, including the US, disagrees with you on that?
But all of what you wrote is a red herring. You didn't address my point, which is that Microsoft, as a monopolist, has to play by different rules than everyone else.