Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Jul 2009 07:29 UTC
Opera Software Last week, the European Commission announced that Microsoft is willing to implement a browser ballot screen in Windows so that users can select a browser to install when installing Windows or when setting up their OEM computer. While this makes Opera very happy, Opera would like to see Ubuntu and Apple offer such a ballot screen too.
Order by: Score:
What does Opera want?
by Kwitschibo on Mon 27th Jul 2009 07:48 UTC
Kwitschibo
Member since:
2006-01-17

And with a browser ballot screen on every distro, Opera will still have a market share under 1%. Does they really think that user will switch to Opera when they see there ads? There must be another reason why opera has after 10 years of many commercials and a big community still have a marketshare thats like a waterdrop in the browser market sea.

Edited 2009-07-27 07:49 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: What does Opera want?
by deathshadow on Mon 27th Jul 2009 15:29 UTC in reply to "What does Opera want?"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Does they really think that user will switch to Opera when they see there ads?

What ads? Opera has not had ads for six or so YEARS now... Though that goes with something I said over on the Opera forums, having the free versions prior to 8.x be ad-based gave it such a negative reputation that people will still think it has adverts for a decade or more. I bet five to ten years from now people who've never actually tried it will STILL make statements like that.

Though your statement is made all the funnier by that Opera has shipped with a fairly robust adblock built in since v9, and you've been able to spin your own using things like urlfilter.ini since v8.

But of course like a lot of windows bashing, usually it's done by people who haven't used it in a decade or more making statements that haven't been true since Win9x.

Edited 2009-07-27 15:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What does Opera want?
by jptros on Mon 27th Jul 2009 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE: What does Opera want?"
jptros Member since:
2005-08-26

Either you or I are misunderstanding the comment, but I think the original poster meant ads as in the opera ad on the ballot screen, not ads in the web browser itself.

Reply Score: 4

RE: What does Opera want?
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 21:44 UTC in reply to "What does Opera want?"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Actually, Opera's global market share is 3%, and in Europe it's 8-10%.

Reply Score: 2

a little desperate
by REM2000 on Mon 27th Jul 2009 08:02 UTC
REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

I was willing to give Opera the benefit of the doubt before, however this now smacks of desperation.

We can't compete with the other players so we want to try and advertise when a user gets a computer.

If there is a ballot screen then i think it should be kept minimial, having a million options during the first switch on, will be messy and confusing for the people the ballot is targeting.

Reply Score: 4

v RE: a little desperate
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:21 UTC in reply to "a little desperate"
problem with opera
by Kishe on Mon 27th Jul 2009 08:02 UTC
Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

Opera used to be big player when they were slim and fast browser but they lost lot of users when they desided to incorporate lots of useless bloat.

right now Opera is stuck in "Us too" style of development model, unable to produce anything that would take them above the competition.

Reply Score: 5

RE: problem with opera
by issvb on Mon 27th Jul 2009 09:17 UTC in reply to "problem with opera"
issvb Member since:
2009-01-12

Opera used to be big player when they were slim and fast browser but they lost lot of users when they desided to incorporate lots of useless bloat.


So when did Opera stop being slim and fast? Its install is still small, it's fast and to me personally it still "feels" like one of the more faster browsers. Yes, there is a lot of stuff I don't need (like the mail client, widgets and now Unite), but really, I never had the mail client, some widget or Unite pop up without any reason! It's there, but if you don't use it you won't even notice it. If that is your definition of bloat than just about anything can be called "bloated"

Reply Score: 7

RE: problem with opera
by Laurence on Mon 27th Jul 2009 12:48 UTC in reply to "problem with opera"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Opera used to be big player when they were slim and fast browser but they lost lot of users when they desided to incorporate lots of useless bloat.

right now Opera is stuck in "Us too" style of development model, unable to produce anything that would take them above the competition.


I read comments like this a lot and they bug me for the following reasons:

1/ Opera continually performs excellently in various rendering benchmarks when compared to other leading browsers

2/ Opera continually pushes new ideas which other browsers latter copy (tabs, gestures, dial pad, etc) and promote as their own "competition leading features"

3/ You're whole bloat argument is paradoxical as you then go on to argue about a lack of new features. (after all, one mans bloat is another mans feature - and visa versa)



I think the reality of Opera's problems are the following:

1/ crappy UI (particularly it's lack of native widget support, but also how a lot of settings are tucked away in counter-intuitive locations and it's unpopular default toolbar settings)

2/ lack of publicity:
-> Chrome is a big name thanks to Google's already established web dominance,
-> IE is preinstalled in windows,
-> Safari is preinstalled on OS X plus has windows installs thanks to Apples PR/brand name
-> Firefox had to gain their market share the hard way, but they've now reached "critical mass" where by the computer-illiterate have heard of the application and thus recommend it to their like-minded technophobe friends (after all, the majorety of computer users aren't geeks like us)
-> Opera, however, neither has the backing of a big brand name, nor the critical mass of Firefox.


However, this doesn't mean i particularly agree with Opera's actions. While I sympathise with their situation, I don't think this is the "right" way to go about marketing themselves.

Edited 2009-07-27 12:53 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: problem with opera
by diegocg on Mon 27th Jul 2009 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE: problem with opera"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Opera used to be innovative. But the "new ideas" that they have been adding lately have been that stupid proxy that reduces the quality of images for dialup/phone people. Did I mention that they made the "turbo mode" ("great" name, BTW) button visible in the main UI? Oh, they also released Opera Unite. Which was supposed to revolutionize internet. Except that it didn't.

Opera used to be really fast - but these days, benchmarks show that opera javascript engine is slower than webkit and firefox and chrome. And the Next Big Thing in browsers is what they call "multiprocess". IE8 does it, Chrome does it, Firefox will do it....Opera doesn't.

So where's the innovation? I just don't see it. It has moved elsewhere.

Edited 2009-07-27 15:33 UTC

Reply Score: 3

v RE[3]: problem with opera
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: problem with opera"
RE[2]: problem with opera
by bert64 on Mon 27th Jul 2009 18:24 UTC in reply to "RE: problem with opera"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Firefox had the advantage of being open source, and thus being the preferred choice for users on non windows platforms (except maybe osx)... and also being derived from netscape, which some people had fond memories of.

Firefox has pretty much become the default browser for non windows/osx systems, as netscape was before it.

However the Linux market is far more competitive, firefox does nothing to lock people in, there aren't any linux users stuck with a browser they don't want, it's easy to remove/replace firefox... If a browser that's much better comes along, people will switch... If Chrome becomes good enough then it may well replace firefox as the most popular browser on linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: problem with opera
by Delgarde on Mon 27th Jul 2009 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE: problem with opera"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

I think the reality of Opera's problems are the following:


Personally, I think Opera's problem is that they think they can sell web browsers when no fewer than four larger organisations (Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple, Google) are giving them away for free. That is *not* a good business model...

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: problem with opera
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: problem with opera"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Personally, I think Opera's problem is that they think they can sell web browsers when no fewer than four larger organisations (Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple, Google) are giving them away for free. That is *not* a good business model...

Free clue: Opera is a free download!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: problem with opera
by Johann Chua on Tue 28th Jul 2009 09:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: problem with opera"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

True, for the desktop version...now. For the longest time it was ad-supported unless you paid for a license.

Haven't tried Opera Mobile or Mini so I don't know how good they are, but I gave up on the desktop version's cluttered default UI. Sure, I could customize it, but frankly I had very little incentive for doing so.

Firefox is a RAM hog, but at least the default UI makes sense to me. Wouldn't use Firefox without any extensions, though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: problem with opera
by hangman on Tue 28th Jul 2009 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: problem with opera"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

So what if Opera wasn't free before? It is now. That's the point.

Opera's UI is cluttered? Yeah, before version 8 perhaps. But since then it has basically looked like any other browser.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: problem with opera
by phoenix on Wed 29th Jul 2009 23:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: problem with opera"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Haven't tried Opera Mobile or Mini so I don't know how good they are, but I gave up on the desktop version's cluttered default UI.


Opera Mini is a dream to use on phones with data plans and horrible built-in browsers (like the Sony Ericsson phones). On a screen as small as ~220x160, even sites like Slashdot and OSNews are usable/readable/navigable. The UI is pretty much invisible until you hit one of the phone's menu buttons.

Can't comment on Opera Mobile.

Reply Score: 2

RE: problem with opera
by deathshadow on Mon 27th Jul 2009 16:04 UTC in reply to "problem with opera"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

... and another person who makes a claim about Opera that apparently never used it.

Bloated? Even WITH united Opera 10 beta, the most 'bloated' version has a memory footprint equal to firefox (around 38 megs with only google open), doesn't chew memory as fast (first five articles for OSNews open in Opera, 89 megs, first five articles for OSNews open in FF, 110 megs)... and let's talk distribution size:

FF 3.5

7.7 megs Windows
9.5 megs Linux

Features: Allows you to install extensions

Opera 9.64 -

5.4 megs English Windows
7.2 megs Internationalized Windows
7.5 megs Linux (x64 .deb)

Features: mouse gestures, flip navigation, mail client, bittorrent client, widgets engine, user javascript, adblock, speed dial, custom launch buttons, trash, session saving, dragonfly, "The Wand", etc, etc.

Opera 10 Beta -

6.7 Megs Windows
7.5 megs Linux (x64 .deb)

As above, but add more speed dial options, Opera Unite, improved dragonfly, Opera Turbo, inline spell check (was actually in previous versions all the way back to 7.2 but you had to install ASpell separately to make it work, now it's integrated)

Oh yes, but at a megabyte smaller distribution with more built in features Opera is "Bloated" - RIGHT. Tell me another one Josephine.

Of course Google is smart enough to hide their bloat behind a download manager ;)

Edited 2009-07-27 16:08 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Shove Off Opera
by segedunum on Mon 27th Jul 2009 08:03 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

While Internet Explorer was just one example of the monopoly that we face with desktops today I believe that far more could be done in a lot of more worthwhile areas than trying to fixate on the browser.

It bothers me that a company like Opera thinks that it can just avoid any change, sit on its backside effectively, keep cranking out browsers for a living and have a right to get a shop shelf built for them. The market for web browsers can't just avoid change because of a mandate to suit Opera. Web browsers have been freely available for some time now and freely available software is always going to have a better chance of being distributed into the hands of many people, especially when it comes to Linux distributions. If you're not prepared to open your code, or at least get it distributed more easily, then tough.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Shove Off Opera
by Laurence on Mon 27th Jul 2009 14:10 UTC in reply to "Shove Off Opera"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

While Internet Explorer was just one example of the monopoly that we face with desktops today I believe that far more could be done in a lot of more worthwhile areas than trying to fixate on the browser. It bothers me that a company like Opera thinks that it can just avoid any change, sit on its backside effectively, keep cranking out browsers for a living and have a right to get a shop shelf built for them. The market for web browsers can't just avoid change because of a mandate to suit Opera. Web browsers have been freely available for some time now and freely available software is always going to have a better chance of being distributed into the hands of many people, especially when it comes to Linux distributions. If you're not prepared to open your code, or at least get it distributed more easily, then tough.

Opera is free though and open sourcing it doesn't help the average computer user who just wants a binary blob that executes

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Shove Off Opera
by segedunum on Mon 27th Jul 2009 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Shove Off Opera"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

...it doesn't help the average computer user who just wants a binary blob that executes

It certainly does with regard to Linux distributions and that isn't what Opera seems to be asking. They are are seemingly expecting a free launcher and installer on Ubuntu, as well as OS X, for their own product. It's a pretty cheeky thing to even hint at.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Shove Off Opera
by B12 Simon on Mon 27th Jul 2009 14:39 UTC in reply to "Shove Off Opera"
B12 Simon Member since:
2006-11-08

While Internet Explorer was just one example of the monopoly that we face with desktops today I believe that far more could be done in a lot of more worthwhile areas than trying to fixate on the browser.

It bothers me that a company like Opera thinks that it can just avoid any change, sit on its backside effectively, keep cranking out browsers for a living and have a right to get a shop shelf built for them. The market for web browsers can't just avoid change because of a mandate to suit Opera. Web browsers have been freely available for some time now and freely available software is always going to have a better chance of being distributed into the hands of many people, especially when it comes to Linux distributions. If you're not prepared to open your code, or at least get it distributed more easily, then tough.


I'd say that, as a browser company, Opera are right to fixate on the browser.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Shove Off Opera
by segedunum on Mon 27th Jul 2009 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Shove Off Opera"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd say that, as a browser company, Opera are right to fixate on the browser.

Then they're going to have to make it, and the business model they have around it, relevant rather than trying to shoe-horn their product in front of users.

They say that the battle is really for the enterprise. Well, you do that by looking at the browser as a development platform and a supporting 'ecosystem' around it. If you don't have that then no one wants you, and that's what Opera has today. Who's to say a web browser will look and act the same in five years? You can't just protect Opera and others from that uncertainty by enforcing some browser 'ballot' application that helps users install their product. It's flat out laziness and cheek.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Shove Off Opera
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Shove Off Opera"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Then they're going to have to make it, and the business model they have around it, relevant rather than trying to shoe-horn their product in front of users.

How are they "shoe-horning"? Opera is just one of the companies involved in the complaint. Google, Mozilla, etc. are involved as well.

You can't just protect Opera and others from that uncertainty by enforcing some browser 'ballot' application that helps users install their product. It's flat out laziness and cheek.

What on earth are you talking about? The ballot is meant to restore competition in the browser market. Mozilla and Google are behind this as well.

But all you people seem to do is whine about Opera. The ignorance is astounding.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Shove Off Opera
by segedunum on Tue 28th Jul 2009 10:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Shove Off Opera"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

How are they "shoe-horning"? Opera is just one of the companies involved in the complaint. Google, Mozilla, etc. are involved as well.

It doesn't make any difference who else is involved. Opera are certainly the most vocal however since they rely on the browser as a standalone application and they're the ones who seemingly think that others should write a launcher and installation application for their product on Ubuntu and OS X as well as Windows.

Astounding.

What on earth are you talking about? The ballot is meant to restore competition in the browser market.

What happens in five or ten years' time when it is quite obvious that a browser can never be a stand-alone application, technology moves on and it is amalgamated in different technological areas? Who's to say there will be a 'browser market' in five years? Do we still mandate a daft browser chooser?

But all you people seem to do is whine about Opera. The ignorance is astounding.

Uh, huh. What's even more astounding is Opera's cheek and laziness that others owe them something.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Shove Off Opera
by hangman on Tue 28th Jul 2009 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Shove Off Opera"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

It doesn't make any difference who else is involved.

Of course it matters. If you are going to be whining about Opera, you should be whining about the rest as well.

Opera are certainly the most vocal however since they rely on the browser as a standalone application and they're the ones who seemingly think that others should write a launcher and installation application for their product on Ubuntu and OS X as well as Windows.

Did you even read what the CTO said? He nevfer said that Ubuntu and OS X should include Opera. What he said that it MIGHT be a good idea to do so because the browser is so important.

You seem to get ALL you claims factually wrong.

What happens in five or ten years' time when it is quite obvious that a browser can never be a stand-alone application

That's irrelevant for this case. And besides, Opera is being sold as an application platform as well. Companies like Vodafone and apparently AT&T are apparently standardizing on top of Opera's application platform.

Uh, huh. What's even more astounding is Opera's cheek and laziness that others owe them something.

Who owes them something? Opera never said that anyone owes them anything. And Opera is growing massively already, and doubled its profits last quarter.

This case isn't about owing anyone anything. It's about the fact that MS broke the law, and now Google, Mozilla, Opera and others are helping out in an advisory role to find the best remedy for that.

Again, Opera is just another advisor, like Mozilla, Google and others. And yet Microsoft fans whine about Opera all the time.

Facts are hard to get right, eh?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Shove Off Opera
by segedunum on Tue 28th Jul 2009 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Shove Off Opera"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Did you even read what the CTO said? He nevfer said that Ubuntu and OS X should include Opera. What he said that it MIGHT be a good idea to do so because the browser is so important.

Uh huh. He said exactly what he meant and most around here seem to get why he said it. Emphasising the word 'MIGHT' in order to get around what he said is desperate in the extreme.

Facts are hard to get right, eh?

They are when you're an Opera loon.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Shove Off Opera
by hangman on Tue 28th Jul 2009 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Shove Off Opera"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

"Did you even read what the CTO said? He nevfer said that Ubuntu and OS X should include Opera. What he said that it MIGHT be a good idea to do so because the browser is so important.

Uh huh. He said exactly what he meant and most around here seem to get why he said it. Emphasising the word 'MIGHT' in order to get around what he said is desperate in the extreme.
"
Why are you willfully ignoring the facts? He answered a specific yes/no question. And he added that he only suggested that it MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA, not that he wanted it to happen.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Shove Off Opera
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:21 UTC in reply to "Shove Off Opera"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

It bothers me that a company like Opera thinks that it can just avoid any change

Uh, what makes you think Opera wants to avoid change? Opera has been at the FOREFRONT of change. For example, Opera did mobile browsers before anyone else even considered it!

The market for web browsers can't just avoid change because of a mandate to suit Opera.

Opera isn't trying to avoid change. Opera is trying to BRING ABOUT change.

Web browsers have been freely available for some time now and freely available software is always going to have a better chance of being distributed into the hands of many people

Uh, OPERA IS A FREE DOWNLOAD! Did you seriously not know that?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Shove Off Opera
by segedunum on Tue 28th Jul 2009 10:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Shove Off Opera"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Uh, what makes you think Opera wants to avoid change? Opera has been at the FOREFRONT of change. For example, Opera did mobile browsers before anyone else even considered it!

As I've said elsewhere, a browser is not guaranteed to be a standalone application forever, and that's the status quo that Opera has to maintain. Application types have come and gone in the past, been amalgamated into other applications and the browser should be no different. That's progress.

Opera isn't trying to avoid change. Opera is trying to BRING ABOUT change.

Yep, as long as the browser continues as a nice, standalone application as it is today. That's the thing that can never change with Opera and why they're more anxious about this 'browser chooser' thing than anyone else. It nails down the browser as a standalone entity.

Uh, OPERA IS A FREE DOWNLOAD! Did you seriously not know that?

Yes I did know that, but you failed to read what was written completely. I talked about 'free' browsers with respect to Linux distributions, and if you want to get distributed there then the only avenue you have is source code availability. Hinting at some browser chooser to be shoved on to Ubuntu to get around that is just plain stupid.

Yes, for PCs it's 'freely' available, basically because they have no market share. However, their business still relies completely on selling browsers to the mobile market in particular, set top boxes as well as the direct ad revenue they get from Google. I use Opera on my my mobile N73. The point still stands though. Opera still relies on selling and supporting a browser as a standalone application and they are desperate to avoid any kind of change that might threaten that status quo.

Edited 2009-07-28 10:45 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Shove Off Opera
by hangman on Tue 28th Jul 2009 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Shove Off Opera"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

As I've said elsewhere, a browser is not guaranteed to be a standalone application forever, and that's the status quo that Opera has to maintain.

On the contrary. Opera WANTS the browser to be the main application platform. They will make A LOT MORE MONEY that way. Opera is pushing HEAVILY for change in the market.

You are clearly completely ignorant about the browser market in general, and Opera in particular.

Yep, as long as the browser continues as a nice, standalone application as it is today. That's the thing that can never change with Opera and why they're more anxious about this 'browser chooser' thing than anyone else. It nails down the browser as a standalone entity.

Again, no. Mozilla and Google are as involved as Opera is. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

Yes, for PCs it's 'freely' available, basically because they have no market share.

Wrong. Opera is the #3 browser globally:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-200901-200906-bar

And in Europe Opera is bigger than Safari and Chrome combined!

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-eu-monthly-200901-200906-bar

However, their business still relies completely on selling browsers to the mobile market in particular, set top boxes as well as the direct ad revenue they get from Google.

1/3 of Opera's total revenue is from the desktop version. Opera's desktop browser makes money the same way Firefox does.

Opera still relies on selling and supporting a browser as a standalone application and they are desperate to avoid any kind of change that might threaten that status quo.

Again, this is wrong. They are HEAVILY pushing for the browser as an APPLICATION PLATFORM.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Shove Off Opera
by segedunum on Tue 28th Jul 2009 18:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Shove Off Opera"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

On the contrary. Opera WANTS the browser to be the main application platform.

Note that you're still talking about the browser as a standalone entity. The browser will end up inevitably being part of a wider development platform that will be integrated into desktops more than it is today. You only need to look at Google gadgets as an example of the way things are going.

You are clearly completely ignorant about the browser market in general, and Opera in particular.

You're a loon sunshine and this has obviously hit a very raw nerve.

Wrong. Opera is the #3 browser globally

Hmmmm, so you plucked some statistics off a dodgy site to tell us all that Opera is a very distant third? I can give you stats that tell a different story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#cite_note-...
http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-41580-113.html

Which Opera had to desperately back-peddle on:

http://gigaom.com/2009/03/02/browser-wars-opera-says-its-not-down-o...

Do Mozilla or Google need to do that? That should tell you what side of the bread is buttered.

Again, this is wrong. They are HEAVILY pushing for the browser as an APPLICATION PLATFORM.

Read that over and over again. You're still talking about the browser as an entity when the browser will being consumed by wider development platforms and desktops.

Opera are in a precarious position and their constant whining about the situation that they're in is very annoying.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Shove Off Opera
by hangman on Tue 28th Jul 2009 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Shove Off Opera"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Note that you're still talking about the browser as a standalone entity.

Nope.

Hmmmm, so you plucked some statistics off a dodgy site to tell us all that Opera is a very distant third? I can give you stats that tell a different story:

I didn't pick a dodgy site. I picked the most reliable source. Net Applications is completely useless:

http://tinyurl.com/netapplies

Net Applications managed to claim that Opera had a lower market share than Chrome when Chrome only had 10 million users, and Opera 30 million users! Never mind the fact that NA focuses solely on North America.

StatCounter actually gets Opera's global market share right: Opera had 40 million desktop users a few months ago, and at the same time the Internet World Stats reported about 1.4 billion desktop users online. 40 million is about 3% out of 1.4 billion, which StatCounter correctly reported.


LOL, quoting a source which claims 10% for Safari with no support for that claim, even in their source!

Which Opera had to desperately back-peddle on:

Backpeddle? Opera correctly pointed out that Net Applications is useless.

Opera are in a precarious position and their constant whining about the situation that they're in is very annoying.

What "constant whining"? I see no "whining" what so ever. I do see bigots and racists whining about Opera answering questions from journalists, though.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by me
by pandronic on Mon 27th Jul 2009 08:03 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

I'm starting to dislike Opera. All they really seem to want is to promote their browser for free while pretending to be champions of freedom.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Comment by me
by sbergman27 on Mon 27th Jul 2009 14:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by me"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I'm starting to dislike Opera. All they really seem to want is to promote their browser for free while pretending to be champions of freedom.

Indeed. If they want into Debian, Ubuntu, and Fedora then they need to start acting like good citizens of those communities. Instead, they champion the free beer but closed source approach and then expect to be loved so much as to be granted an exception to those distros' usual policies.

Opera neither talks the talk nor walks the walk. So I'll give them credit for at least avoiding hypocrisy. But it seems like all they ever want is a handout, when what they really need to be doing is *competing* for the markets they want to play in. And that entails giving consumers in those segments of the market what they want. And in general, a big hunk of closed, proprietary code at the heart of their otherwise open OS is not what people in that market are looking for. Those who don't mind are already perfectly free to download and install it themselves, and are much more likely to know about Opera and be capable of doing that than are, in general, Windows users.

Edited 2009-07-27 14:48 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by me
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by me"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

expect to be loved so much as to be granted an exception to those distros' usual policies

Excuse me, but did you actually read what the guy said? He never said that Opera NEEDS to be included, just that it MAY be a good idea to offer alternatives (and he didn't specify which alternatives).

Opera neither talks the talk nor walks the walk.

Huh?

But it seems like all they ever want is a handout,

So Google and Mozilla only ever want a handout as well, since they are part of the complaint?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by me
by sbergman27 on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by me"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Excuse me, but did you actually read what the guy said?

Excuse me, but it is not the policy of most Linux distros to include closed source software except in the case in which it is absolutely required to make the hardware run. And even in that extreme case some distros choose to exclude it.

He never said that Opera NEEDS to be included, just that it MAY be a good idea to offer alternatives

Epiphany, Firefox, Konqueror, Arora, Conkeror, Dillo, Elinks, links, links2, Fennec, Galeon, Midori, Netsurf, Seamonkey, Rekonq... Are those not enough alternatives? Is there some dire need to provide a closed source browser in addition? And do you *really* think that he meant alternatives that didn't include Opera? Really? I wonder what he would say if MS picked the top 4 browsers from the W3Schools statistics to include on the ballot screen. That would be: IE, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari. Top four sounds fair to me. Do you think the Opera folks would be OK with that?

Huh?

Opera is neither open source, nor claims to be. I'd have thought that would be clear enough to you without having to be explained. BTW, there's a little drool on your chin, there.

So Google and Mozilla only ever want a handout as well, since they are part of the complaint?

The current topic is ballot screens in non-monopoly OSes, so your question is entirely irrelevant.

Edit: Wow. The posting history of the guy that I'm reponding to is fascinating. Fifty-four posts logged, and every one of them in defense of Opera! Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Edited 2009-07-27 23:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by me
by hangman on Tue 28th Jul 2009 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by me"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

"Excuse me, but did you actually read what the guy said?

Excuse me, but it is not the policy of most Linux distros to include closed source software except in the case in which it is absolutely required to make the hardware run. And even in that extreme case some distros choose to exclude it.
"
QED.

You didn't actually READ what he said. He didn't say that OPERA should be on the ballot. He said that it MAY be a good idea to offer it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by me
by segedunum on Tue 28th Jul 2009 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by me"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

He didn't say that OPERA should be on the ballot. He said that it MAY be a good idea to offer it.

Why say it at all then? Hair splitting over what he said is just plain daft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by me
by hangman on Tue 28th Jul 2009 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by me"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Why say it at all then?

Uh, because WAS ASKED A SPECIFIC YES/NO QUESTION ABOUT IT perhaps? Geez.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by me
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:14 UTC in reply to "Comment by me"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Um, did you actually READ the article instead of just swallowing the author's sensationalist BS?

What Opera's CTO actually said: "Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it"

He didn't even specify that it could be Opera!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by me
by Eddyspeeder on Tue 28th Jul 2009 02:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by me"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

Though I agree with Opera that there should be an equal treatment for all OS vendors, Opera definitely does not have the right to make such comments.

Opera is acting like the telltale boy in class here.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by me
by hangman on Tue 28th Jul 2009 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by me"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Um, did you actually READ the article instead of just swallowing the author's sensationalist BS?

What Opera's CTO actually said: "Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it"

He didn't even specify that it could be Opera!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by me
by fretinator on Tue 28th Jul 2009 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by me"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

So, those underlined words and phrases can be clicked on - and they take me to another page with more information about the topic at hand. Interesting, I'll have to give that a try.

Edited 2009-07-28 15:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Why?
by drTRS on Mon 27th Jul 2009 08:04 UTC
drTRS
Member since:
2008-07-29

IMHO:

The reason why Microsoft has to provide alternative browsers in Europe is their non-standard web handling in Internet Explorer. By using non standard features they can "rule" the world.
However Safari and/or Firefox are following standards nicely so there is no need to force alternative browsers on their OS. Especially not a closed sourced one.
Firefox completely opensource, Safari's engine, the webkit also opensource. Opera is not..

If opera wants bigger market share they should work on their software to make it faster, better not crying for "free" help ...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why?
by Deviate_X on Mon 27th Jul 2009 10:42 UTC in reply to "Why?"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

This has nothing to do with standards or any other righteous cause.

The EU have decided that if Microsoft didn't manipulate the market, then Opera would have 30% of the market.

So they have decided to give opera a big chance of getting 30% of the market with a big banner ad right inside windows.

Edited 2009-07-27 10:44 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Why?
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Actually, Google and Mozilla joined the complaint as well, and Opera never asked specifically for the Opera browser to be included. So why are you whining about Opera? This applies to several browsers, not just Opera.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why?
by Lennie on Mon 27th Jul 2009 13:47 UTC in reply to "Why?"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I think the ballot screen was called for because Microsoft abused their monopoly, I don't think Ubuntu and Apple has/had that luxery yet.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Why?
by molnarcs on Mon 27th Jul 2009 15:42 UTC in reply to "Why?"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Well, it's more about control. Microsoft has control (a monopoly) of the desktop OS market, and the problem is that they leveraged that monopoly to create a new one in the browser market. That's what the EU ruling is about.

Opera's demand is as ridiculous as it can get. You can argue for a ballot in case of MS Windows, because you have no control over it. On the other hand, you have full control (and I mean YOU, the user or YOU a company) over any Linux distribution except for some branding stuff. In other words, Opera, if so wishes, can take Ubuntu, strip away trademarks, and release the whole distro as Opera Linux with Opera as the default browser, with no obvious ways of installing other browsers if they really want to limit consumer choice. You can't force Ubuntu to do anything because they already gave you the choice to do anything YOU want (provided you don't violate the GPL).

Once you can legally obtain the source code of MS Windows, rebrand it, and distribute it freely on whatever medium you prefer (including the source code) - then we can talk about demanding the same from Linux distroes and MS Windows. Until then, Opera's request should be properly ridiculed by the internet community ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why?
by Yamin on Mon 27th Jul 2009 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
Yamin Member since:
2006-01-10

I don't get your distinction at all.

Anyone is free to take Windows and install Firefox or Opera on it. Dell, HP, lenovo can do it. You can do it on your own. You don't need source code to do that. nor do you need any kind of rebranding.

I'm not against the anti-trust ruling against MS. I think its 'reasonably' fair as a CORRECTIVE PUNISHMENT due to Microsoft prior actions while in a monopoly position (needlessly tying its browser into the OS, pressuring vendors not to install other browsers by default...).

However, it's not a general principle that can or should be applied to other companies and situations.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why?
by drTRS on Mon 27th Jul 2009 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
drTRS Member since:
2008-07-29

This is not quite true.. If you remove IE, than you cannot install recommended updates easily from Microsoft , due to the problem with compatibility (ActiveX I think). The sec fix will update automatically (if is set)..
So IMHO the Microsoft did not completed the dependency on IE in Vista at least (I don't know the 7) or actually they left a needed usage for IE...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why?
by molnarcs on Tue 28th Jul 2009 06:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Ok, to put it into simple terms - Opera is free to take a linux distro, make any modifications to their liking, and distribute it themselves. They can do what they want - they don't need to request linux vendors (althouh it's a lot more convenient to do so). If they want different defaults for windows, they have to beg Microsoft and/or pressure them via lawsuits. That's a big difference imho.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why?
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Opera's demand is as ridiculous as it can get.


Did you even read beyond the insane and sensationalist BS by the article author?

What Opera's CTO actually said: "Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it"

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why?
by molnarcs on Tue 28th Jul 2009 06:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Ok, you're right, they didn't exactly demand the same treatment. My writeup seems a bit harsh in retrospect, but I maintain that when it comes to understanding how free software in general and linux distributions in particular work, they are rather clueless.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Why?
by hangman on Tue 28th Jul 2009 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Ok, you're right, they didn't exactly demand the same treatment. My writeup seems a bit harsh in retrospect, but I maintain that when it comes to understanding how free software in general and linux distributions in particular work, they are rather clueless.

Actually, Opera fully supported Linux early on, and has been working with multiple Linux distributions to get Opera working as smoothly as possible. Not only that, but the CTO is a Linux freak.

Opera even has its own open-source projects. They definitely know what they are talking about in that respect.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why?
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:13 UTC in reply to "Why?"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

What Opera's CTO actually said: "Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it"

Opera never cried for free help. They reported a crime, and Google and Mozilla joined in. Why are you not accusing them of "crying"?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why?
by Jondice on Tue 28th Jul 2009 06:37 UTC in reply to "Why?"
Jondice Member since:
2006-09-20

making the desktop version open source would go a long way to increase their popularity.

Reply Score: 1

Why stop at browsers?
by PlunderBunny on Mon 27th Jul 2009 08:06 UTC
PlunderBunny
Member since:
2009-02-19

Why stop at browsers? Let's make every kind of application available in a kind of "store" - we could call it the "App Store".
Oh, wait...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why stop at browsers?
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 27th Jul 2009 08:19 UTC in reply to "Why stop at browsers?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Why stop at browsers? Let's make every kind of application available in a kind of "store" - we could call it the "App Store".
Oh, wait...


Why stop there?

Today, I can unveil... BallotOS!

With BallotOs, the power is at the user's fingertips. When you set up BallotOS, you will get a ballot screen for every component of the operating system - from boot screen to the My Computer icon on your desktop. You'll get to choose your taskbar, audio framework, wallpaper, display driver, notepad application, network stack, and so on.

BallotOS is EC-proof and Opera-proof.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Why stop at browsers?
by Sharp Dressed Man on Mon 27th Jul 2009 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Why stop at browsers?"
Sharp Dressed Man Member since:
2009-07-27

But I wanted Star-shaped buttons like the ones that are in StarshapedOS. It seems BallotOS only has Ellipse-shaped, Rectangular-shaped, Cloud-shaped and Triangular-shaped buttons. That's not enough for me...

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Why stop at browsers?
by MamiyaOtaru on Mon 27th Jul 2009 10:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why stop at browsers?"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

better than cashew shaped

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Why stop at browsers?
by wannabe geek on Mon 27th Jul 2009 15:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why stop at browsers?"
wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

Troll(+1)
:D

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why stop at browsers?
by zsejk on Mon 27th Jul 2009 09:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Why stop at browsers?"
zsejk Member since:
2009-01-20

When you set up BallotOS, you will get a ballot screen for every component of the operating system - from boot screen to the My Computer icon on your desktop. You'll get to choose your taskbar, audio framework, wallpaper, display driver, notepad application, network stack, and so on.

BallotOS is EC-proof and Opera-proof.


Kind of like... like... Archlinux! Or... Slackware! Or Gentoo! Or.. or... LFS!

Right?

;)

-zsejk

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why stop at browsers?
by frajo on Mon 27th Jul 2009 09:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Why stop at browsers?"
frajo Member since:
2007-06-29

With BallotOs, the power is at the user's fingertips. When you set up BallotOS, you will get a ballot screen for every component of the operating system - from boot screen to the My Computer icon on your desktop. You'll get to choose your taskbar, audio framework, wallpaper, display driver, notepad application, network stack, and so on.


This is a very neat description of eComStatiom. (Ok, for the network stack there is one option only at the moment. OTOH, you forgot to mention the option for running executables from the worlds of DOS. WIN, *n*x, and OS/2.) Thanks ;)

Reply Score: 1

Ubuntu already has a "ballot box"
by ayeomans on Mon 27th Jul 2009 08:18 UTC
ayeomans
Member since:
2005-11-14

Choose System -> Preferences -> Preferred Applications. A neat GUI chooser for web browser, email, multimedia, etc.

A more pertinent question is why Opera does not appear in the default choices. Perhaps access to source code might have something to do with it ;-)

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Choose System -> Preferences -> Preferred Applications. A neat GUI chooser for web browser, email, multimedia, etc.


So has Windows.

Reply Score: 1

Finchwizard Member since:
2006-02-01

I've had Windows a number of times no obey what it's told.

I can set Thunderbird and Firefox as my default browser, and still have things open in Outlook Express or Internet Explorer.

Used to work in the Windows XP days, but Vista seems to do whatever the hell it wants.

Reply Score: 3

sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

There are some applications that specifically request IE. They don't use browser API, but execute iexplore.exe directly instead. Thus nothing can be done about them.

It is usually when the application embeds the trident web control (like Windows Help, Windows Update, Steam, or similar).

Reply Score: 3

Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

Well install linux.

Reply Score: 2

aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

So do I, Google's desktop application is a perfect example of not paying attention to browser defaults.

Open Google desktop mail, click on a link...Chrome opens. Set default browser to IE, open a link in Google Desktop Mail...chrome opens!

Repeat with all browsers...

Google doesn't pay attention, it just opens chrome. I don't see how you can blame Microsoft for Google not adhering to my choices.

Edited 2009-07-27 17:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

ple_mono Member since:
2005-07-26

Choose System -> Preferences -> Preferred Applications. A neat GUI chooser for web browser, email, multimedia, etc.

Good point. Yes it does. And it's "optional". Which it should be, being a component of a *free* OS, people.
I'm just fine with the idea of a "forced" ballot screen in a commercial product (not too many though), but I really hope thats where it stays.

Reply Score: 2

aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

And where does it stop? A ballot site for your search engines? A ballot site for your news sites? A ballot for RSS readers? IM clients? Audio software? Photo editing?

The small guy is complaining because they are smaller than they want to be...stand in line with everyone else who wants to take advantage of Microsoft's market dominance.

Reply Score: 2

I like the idea...
by mrhasbean on Mon 27th Jul 2009 09:11 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

...of an express install and a fully custom install - ala LInux - on all of these OSes. Frankly there is a bundle of crap on OSX and Windows that I can do without. Express install would just install the whole kit and let the user decide what they want to use later.

Reply Score: 3

Hehe
by Brendan on Mon 27th Jul 2009 09:17 UTC
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

Opera should have an bootable installation CD (for installing the web browser), that includes a ballot screen of its own, so that end-users can choose which OS to install underneath Opera...

-Brendan

Reply Score: 10

Apple & Ubuntu..
by Brunis on Mon 27th Jul 2009 10:19 UTC
Brunis
Member since:
2005-11-01

Apple & Ubuntu already provide standards compliant browsers (atleast much more so than IE).

Reply Score: 5

RE: Apple & Ubuntu..
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:09 UTC in reply to "Apple & Ubuntu.."
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Yeah, but Opera's CTO just said that it MAY be a good idea, not that they should be forced to.

Reply Score: 1

faltiska
Member since:
2007-11-06

This claim is probably the most stupid I have ever heard.

I use Opera since version six if not forced to use FF or IE (at work I have to use them from on a day by day basis). I still like oper better. It has features I didn't find in any of the others.

But asking for a ballot screen or asking for any other kind of free advertising is dumb. Can't Opera hire a marketing manager, for crying out loud?

Reply Score: 2

hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Did you even read beyond the insane and sensationalist BS by the article author?

The quote: "Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it"

What claim? He said that it MAY be a good idea.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"Should" can indicate a suggestion. It is a PERFECTLY FINE auxiliary verb to use here.

"Maybe I should fly a kite today."

"Yeah, you should do that."

Reply Score: 1

hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

"Should" can indicate a suggestion. It is a PERFECTLY FINE auxiliary verb to use here.

"Maybe I should fly a kite today."

"Yeah, you should do that."

Except he said "MAY be a good idea". Of course tabloid "journalists" who are more concerned with sensationalist stories rather than accurate news don't care about that.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Except he said "MAY be a good idea". Of course tabloid "journalists" who are more concerned with sensationalist stories rather than accurate news don't care about that.


I think you lack basic comprehension skills in the English language. He clearly made a suggestion, which is exactly how I put it in the headline. The fact that you cannot comprehend basic English skills (as evidenced by the fact that you're the only one whining about the headline), is not my problem.

"Still, it may be a good idea to offer it." That's a suggestion. Right there. "Should" is a perfectly fine modal auxiliary verb to convey a suggestion. You'd have a point if I had used "must".

Edited 2009-07-28 15:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

I think you lack basic comprehension skills in the English language. He clearly made a suggestion, which is exactly how I put it in the headline.

Actually, he answered a yes/no question from a journalist. The JOURNALIST was making the suggestion. He merely replied that it MAY be a good idea.

"Still, it may be a good idea to offer it." That's a suggestion.

No, that's a response to a yes/no question.

It isn't my fault you are busier chasing sensationalist headlines than actually doing a minimum of journalistic work with some integrity.

Reply Score: 1

Who's next?
by Chaos_One on Mon 27th Jul 2009 10:49 UTC
Chaos_One
Member since:
2005-07-18

If Opera get its way, who's next?

I don't want to go through numerous "preferred software" selection when installing my operating system. Nor do I want a system with a lot of software I didn't ask for, sounds like those Windows PCs/laptops with all that 30 day crapware.

Let the vendor give you its preferred browser and let the user install anything he wants after that. Windows, OS X and Linux make no fuss about other browsers.

Hell, even if Windows came with Opera you'd need to download the latest version/update anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Who's next?
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:08 UTC in reply to "Who's next?"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Opera 10 has an automatic update system, so that won't be a problem.

Also, did you even read beyond the insane and sensationalist BS by the article author?

"Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it"

Reply Score: 1

ballot screen?
by l3v1 on Mon 27th Jul 2009 10:52 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

WTF? These guys are getting crazier every day. Even new linuxers who just download a distro image and be done with it know that all distros have some kind of app selection possibility, with gazillions of options to install. It's better than any ballot screen. Or, wait, let's make a humongous ballot screen for every possible application listing all possible options and replacements, and start pushing it into the faces of the users. They'd be through with it in a week at most ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: ballot screen?
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:07 UTC in reply to "ballot screen?"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Did you even read beyond the insane and sensationalist BS by the article author?

Opera's CTO: "Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it"

Reply Score: 1

The title is unfair
by jsli on Mon 27th Jul 2009 11:17 UTC
jsli
Member since:
2005-07-11

Thom,

if you read carefully, Lie is just responding to journalist's question. He mentioned monopolies, and he said 'it may be a good idea', not 'should'.

IMHO it is a really dumb and tricky question. Who wouldn't like to see his products appears more?

Reply Score: 8

What's this got to do with Opera?
by jhoo on Mon 27th Jul 2009 11:26 UTC
jhoo
Member since:
2006-03-24

Microsoft have agreed to offer the top five browsers. So basically MS will be giving users the choice of:
Firefox
IE 7
IE 6
IE 8
Chrome

Still it's the first time I have thought about Opera in months, so I suppose Lie has achieved his goal.

Clearly Lie has never used Linux if he thinks that it is necessary to provide a 'ballot screen'. Having one on Apple would be quite nice, but more for the iPhone than anything - but Apple won't even allow alternative browsers to be installed.

BTW, given that Firefox and Chrome are both opensource - what do you reckon the chances are that these will both be slightly bastardised versions?

Reply Score: 1

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

BTW, given that Firefox and Chrome are both opensource - what do you reckon the chances are that these will both be slightly bastardised versions?


Remember, you can't publish a 'bastardised' version of Firefox and still call it that - the code might be open, but the branding isn't. Hence Iceweasel and other such names used by some of the distros.

Reply Score: 3

hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Microsoft have agreed to offer the top five browsers. So basically MS will be giving users the choice of:[/quote]
1. What makes you think MS will get to decide?

2. Considering that Opera is the #3 browser in Europe and has a higher market share than Chrome and Safari combined, it will definitely not be left out.

3. 3 different versions of IE? Are you crazy?

[q]Clearly Lie has never used Linux if he thinks that it is necessary to provide a 'ballot screen'.

Did you even read anything beyond the dishonest sensationalist BS by the article author?

To quote Lie: "Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it"

Reply Score: 1

Well well
by kristianhk on Mon 27th Jul 2009 12:06 UTC
kristianhk
Member since:
2009-06-08

Before Opera starts demanding a ballot in Linux, they may have to look into their browser and make it usable, regarding plugins and whatnot. I like Opera, but it's useless with flash and videoplugins, and incredibly slow and buggy with javascript.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Well well
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:05 UTC in reply to "Well well"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Where did Opera demand a ballot in Linux? Did you even read beyond the insane and sensationalist BS by the article author?

Opera's CTO: "Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it"

Opera's JavaScript is actually very fast and stable. It doesn't have JIT and all those tricks yet, but that is not really relevant for today's sites.

Reply Score: 1

Will not make any difference
by Isolationist on Mon 27th Jul 2009 12:17 UTC
Isolationist
Member since:
2006-05-28

The majority of users will probably just ignore Opera from the ballot box and click on the browser they've heard of (e.g. IE or Firefox). I think it is just wishful thinking on Opera to think this will make a significant difference to the usage of their browser.

If I was in the business of writing my own distro, I wouldn't want the added complexity of providing an option during installation or user setup, and then the extra work to integrate all the different browsers.

Something like this would have a made a difference many years ago when browsers were finding their way in the market, but I think the moment has already passed now as you can easily interchange between them and your favourite website still works (in most cases).

Edited 2009-07-27 12:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Will not make any difference
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:04 UTC in reply to "Will not make any difference"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

I think it is just wishful thinking on Opera to think this will make a significant difference to the usage of their browser.

Actually, Mozilla and Google are part of the complaint as well. Are they just engaging in wishful thinking as well?

Remember, Opera's market share in Europe is higher than Safari and Chrome combined!

Also, Opera will benefit from this because more people will realize that there are alternatives, and even if just a few of them get curious and select Opera, it is still to Opera's benefit.

Reply Score: 1

who decides?
by Adurbe on Mon 27th Jul 2009 12:22 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

Who gets to chose what browsers go in the list

It would give me a warm cuddly/ironic feeling if the list was

IE 8
FF
Chrome
Safari

WITHOUT Opera :-)

I can bet you, if they find it hard now, it will be even harder if they are not on the list...

(dont forget Opera are not the only other browser out there, this system will put the final nail in the coffins of those other projects)

Reply Score: 3

RE: who decides?
by Havin_it on Mon 27th Jul 2009 12:57 UTC in reply to "who decides?"
Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

I saw something in an earlier report to suggest that the list ordering would be ranked by popularity, though where the sample data comes from I'm not sure. I guess the Ballot-o-Tron will report the user's choice, but even so, where do they get the baseline for when they first roll it out?

As for "getting on the list", the same article indicated that inclusion would be open to all. That gives me an additional worry about malware-infested pretend browsers being included, but one hopes there'll be some form of oversight to prevent this.

I don't agree at all with your theory that smaller browsers will suffer from this. If what was mentioned earlier is true and they can automatically get onto the list, then their profile has just been raised (even if they're at the very arse-end of the list). Even if not, then a whole lot of people will be learning for the first time that they have this choice, which can't be bad for anyone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: who decides?
by Adurbe on Mon 27th Jul 2009 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE: who decides?"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think getting on the list can or should be automatic.

At the very least I woul expect it to pass a test of what 'counts' as a browser.

Lynx is a browser but I highly doubt the majority of users would think of this as a suitable webbrowser! (it is very goog though and certainly worth a look)

I do maintain the opinion that people will not activly search out a new browser if they are already presented with a list of 10(?) they will simply swap among them until one 'will do'.

If you are not on 'the list', sadly, you dont exist..

Reply Score: 2

RE: who decides?
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:02 UTC in reply to "who decides?"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Considering that Opera is the #3 browser in Europe and has a higher market share than Chrome and Safari combined, it will definitely not be left out.

Also, why would you include Chrome and Mozilla in that list, considering that both of them joined the complaint? If you want to leave out Opera for being part of the complaint, why leave in Google and Mozilla?

dont forget Opera are not the only other browser out there, this system will put the final nail in the coffins of those other projects

No it won't. It will force sites to write for standards rather than browsers, which benefits all alternative browsers. And the fact that more people will realize that there are options will also benefit everyone else.

Reply Score: 1

Thom - stop this negative spin
by waynej on Mon 27th Jul 2009 12:40 UTC
waynej
Member since:
2007-07-04

From the Article:

Q: In your opinion, should Apple also be expected to offer a ballot box for its computers? Should Ubuntu?

The Microsoft case is based on antitrust law, something that only applies to monopolies. Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it; the browser is the most important tool for most of us, and having access to better browsers is a good thing.


What exactly is wrong with the answer Lie gave?

He is essentially correct. Being up front about the alternatives available would not be a bad thing and in the context of the question asked gave an entirely logical answer. Remember, he answered a question that was asked - this was not a missive issued from Opera Towers that all OS's must have a ballot box.

How exactly should he have answered?

No don't do that, giving the user this kind of option would be a disaster - the end of the world would ensue. Are you mad...

When I read the originating article I was struck by Lie's assertion that having the ballot box would in all likely hood improve IE as Microsoft would, for the first time in years, have to compete in this particular arena as opposed to relying on inertia.

This is starting to become a bit of a theme with Osnews. We know that Kroc and Thom despise the very ground that the Opera guys walk on and they would happily grind up the Opera guys families and blast their ground up remains into the heart of the sun then blow it up with a sun-destructo 9000 gun because of a black part on the release 10 beta, but please, please stop this already. Lie answered the question asked with an entirely understandable response, the negative spin put on this story is way out of line with the actual story.

I actually believe that compelling MS to be standards compliant would be the best approach for all but accusing Opera of being, essentially, contemptible because they want to find some mechanism to improve their market penetration is a bit off.

Reply Score: 16

Custom OS installation
by darrelljon on Mon 27th Jul 2009 12:42 UTC
darrelljon
Member since:
2008-05-29

The answer has been around at least since Windows 95. Custom/advanced install options for operating systems (openSuse has this) where almost everything can be selected and deselected (properly *never* installed) including the web browser (other options via net-install).
Then for beginners an unattended installation with default settings and also optionally customisable settings.

Come to think of it, why isn't everything a default unattended installation?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Custom OS installation
by mesomaan on Mon 27th Jul 2009 15:19 UTC in reply to "Custom OS installation"
mesomaan Member since:
2006-01-04



Come to think of it, why isn't everything a default unattended installation?



One important reason would be to prevent aggressive companies from blowing away or disabling your other OS instalations.

Reply Score: 1

What about Maxthon?
by Havin_it on Mon 27th Jul 2009 13:02 UTC
Havin_it
Member since:
2006-03-10

Just a thought: how do browsers like Maxthon that are "wrappers" for IE's Trident browser engine fit into this masterplan? If IE can really be fully uninstalled, is Trident still there? If not, then you'll have to (re)install it to use Maxthon.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What about Maxthon?
by aesiamun on Mon 27th Jul 2009 18:09 UTC in reply to "What about Maxthon?"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

If trident is fully stripped it would break more than just browsers that wrap it. There are many applications out there that rely on it for one thing or another. Help files are typically chm which the app would then have to provide their own rendering engine just for help functionality.

I think MS should just sell a version of windows without any brower. No ballots, no links that will help download one. If Opera is going to be difficult, MS could just make it more difficult for the user to get ANY browser.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What about Maxthon?
by darknexus on Mon 27th Jul 2009 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE: What about Maxthon?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

If trident is fully stripped it would break more than just browsers that wrap it. There are many applications out there that rely on it for one thing or another. Help files are typically chm which the app would then have to provide their own rendering engine just for help functionality.

I think MS should just sell a version of windows without any brower. No ballots, no links that will help download one. If Opera is going to be difficult, MS could just make it more difficult for the user to get ANY browser.


Microsoft were recently threatening to do just that, and perhaps Windows 7 RTM will be released this way in the EU as I doubt they have time to implement a selection screen for the initial RTM as of now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What about Maxthon?
by sbergman27 on Mon 27th Jul 2009 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about Maxthon?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Microsoft were recently threatening to do just that...

"Threatening", of course, being a very appropriate choice of term. The intent, of course, being to "demonstrate" that regulating MS's anti-competitive behavior is bad for the consumer. Of course, there are much better ways to deal with this case of their using their OS monopoly to leverage their Internet Explorer browser product (so that they can then continue to use that to leverage yet other products). And the best way that I've seen so far, and the one that has seemed pretty obvious from the start, is this ballot screen idea.

Of course, as things stand, MS still has plenty of wiggle room for "stuffing the ballot" in favor of IE. I threw out a few ideas off the top of my head the other day: http://www.osnews.com/permalink?375120

While I do like the general idea, it needs to be executed properly or it's worse than nothing. And I'll believe that MS is going to do that... when I see it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What about Maxthon?
by MollyC on Tue 28th Jul 2009 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What about Maxthon?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I think Microsoft should have stayed with their original plan. It's totally legal. Well, antitrust law in the EU is even more vague than it is in the US; trials aren't even required, simply decrees by the EC which are rubberstamped by the appeals court. But would even the EU appeals court rubberstamp an EC decree saying that Microsoft not shipping a browser was illegal? The EU appeals court would lose whatever credibility it had left and become a laughing stock around the globe.

Here are some problems with the ballot scheme:

Right now the EU is saying that the top 5 usage share browsers should appear first, each accompanied by a product pitch, while the rest of the browsers are simply listed below. So the EU is in effect freezing the market into these top 5 browsers. How is a new browser supposed to break into the top 5 when those are getting preferable ballot placement based on their share, which increases (or maintains) their share, which keeps them in the top 5 on the ballot, which maintains their share, which keeps them in the top 5, etc, etc...

The ballot scheme deprives the OEM of making deals with the browser companies. Google is (or was) paying Dell to bundle Google Desktop with their computers (which is why I stopped considering Dells). Google would be more than happy to pay Dell to bundle Chrome as the default browser. But this ballot scheme precludes any such deals like that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: What about Maxthon?
by sbergman27 on Tue 28th Jul 2009 01:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about Maxthon?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I think Microsoft should have stayed with their original plan. It's totally legal.

And the worst possible arrangement for the user. Or do you not care about the user?

Right now the EU is saying that the top 5 usage share browsers should appear first, each accompanied by a product pitch, while the rest of the browsers are simply listed below. So the EU is in effect freezing the market into these top 5 browsers. How is a new browser supposed to break into the top 5 when

The goal is to ensure healthy competition, not to make it easy for small-fry competitors. Keep that in mind. The goal is to ensure healthy competition which benefits the citizens of the EU, not to help out underdog browser makers. (A point which Opera has consistently missed, BTW.) The ballot scheme, implemented properly, could achieve that goal. I'm not sure that more than five major browser players would even be beneficial to the people. There's monoculture, there's choice, and then there's anarchy. While I believe deeply in choice, too much can be detrimental. I guess it all depends on how well industry standards are really able to keep things glued together on the web.

If a new browser did come along which was so compelling that people really wanted to use it... well, we already have a precedent for a browser being able to achieve significant share against even greater unfairness. Not a majority share. Not even close to an even share. But surely enough to have gotten it into the top five should this ballot plan be used. I don't see that being a problem with the ballot plan.

Regarding deals with OEMs... I would as soon see that come to an end. Make it a meritocracy. Deals with OEMs are what has given the (Windows) world the gift of crapplets.

Edited 2009-07-28 01:12 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: What about Maxthon?
by hangman on Tue 28th Jul 2009 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: What about Maxthon?"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

The goal is to ensure healthy competition, not to make it easy for small-fry competitors. Keep that in mind. The goal is to ensure healthy competition which benefits the citizens of the EU, not to help out underdog browser makers. (A point which Opera has consistently missed, BTW.)

What on earth are you going on about? Opera is the #3 browser globally:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-200901-200906-bar

And in Europe Opera is bigger than Safari and Chrome combined!

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-eu-monthly-200901-200906-bar

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: What about Maxthon?
by sbergman27 on Tue 28th Jul 2009 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: What about Maxthon?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

What on earth are you going on about? Opera is the #3 browser globally


No. #7 and falling:

http://tinyurl.com/56kp

By the way, I mentioned, yesterday that of the total of 54 posts you have made to OSNews, every last one of them has been cheerleading for Opera, which somewhat compromises your credibility on the topic. However, I should probably update that figure to 65 posts, every last one of them cheerleading for Opera. That as of the time of this post. You seem to be in the middle of another posting binge, Opera fanboy.

Edited 2009-07-28 16:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What about Maxthon?
by hangman on Tue 28th Jul 2009 15:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about Maxthon?"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

I think Microsoft should have stayed with their original plan. It's totally legal.

No, it was not totally legal as long as the EU said it wasn't.

But would even the EU appeals court rubberstamp an EC decree saying that Microsoft not shipping a browser was illegal?

The question is not if it was illegal. The question is if it was sufficient to restore competition in the market. And it wasn't. If you rob a bank and get caught, do you think that YOU will be able to dictate what your own punishment should be? That's just laughable.

So the EU is in effect freezing the market into these top 5 browsers.

Which is much better than freezing it to just one. Also, this will make the barrier to enter the market for new browsers much lower.

The ballot scheme deprives the OEM of making deals with the browser companies.

No it doesn't, but your Google comment raises an interesting problem. Google has a dominant position in the search market. They can offer revenue sharing with a 50/50 split, while Opera, Mozilla and others could only achieve a 33/33/33 split (browser vendor/OEM/search provider).

This could quickly get into anti-competitive territory.

But this ballot scheme precludes any such deals like that.

No it does not.

Reply Score: 1

While we're at it...
by leech on Mon 27th Jul 2009 13:03 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

Let's also have choices of text editors too, vi or nano or emacs!

All craziness aside, while I tend to agree with the fact that IE pretty much sucks because it's not standards compliant, and that MS purposefully made it as such, then bundled it with the OS to try to rule the Web.

What I don't agree with is the EU sticking their nose into it because Opera is being a cry baby.

The reason it'll never happen with Linux distributions is because Opera is closed source. The end. No other arguments could make any Linux Distro provide an option for it.

What MS should do is just set up a web page that is set to the default HOME page for IE when you first install. This page should say 'If you think our product sucks, you can also try any of these Web Browsers.' Or something like that. IE itself has too many APIs and libraries embedded deep within Windows to fully pull all of it out.

I wonder how well it would work for those programs that directly run iexplore.exe if you made that some sort of short cut to point to firefox.exe ;)

Anyhow, just some random thoughts I chose to share.

Reply Score: 2

RE: While we're at it...
by bert64 on Mon 27th Jul 2009 18:33 UTC in reply to "While we're at it..."
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Users should have a choice of text editor, tho the choice should really be made by the OEM... The OS should just be a basic set of libraries that follow a published standard, and then applications can be written according to that standard to run on it.
Multiple vendors can write an implementation of the standard (OS) and a wide variety of applications can be run on it.

Before you say this won't happen, consider that it works for pretty much everything except software... You can buy a cpu from Intel, AMD, VIA and maybe some others and they all implement the same standard (x86).. You can buy a TV from hundreds of different suppliers, and they all implement the same standards (PAL, NTSC, 720p, 1080i etc).

People are not clones, we are all individuals and all have our own preferences, everyone using the same software is even more ridiculous than the idea of everyone driving the same type of car or living in the same kind of house... More ridiculous because computers are complex machines, almost like organisms, and a monoculture is extremely dangerous.

Reply Score: 1

How about memory managers?
by MollyC on Tue 28th Jul 2009 00:40 UTC in reply to "RE: While we're at it..."
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I remember in the DOS world, that 16-bit memory managers was an independent market, a market destroyed by Windows 3.0. Thank God the EC didn't interfere in that. We'd have a ballot for memory managers if the EC of today were in place back then. Same goes for file systems, Explorer/Finder shells, and other things for which there is or have been independent markets yet have now become understood to be standard parts of an OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: How about memory managers?
by sbergman27 on Tue 28th Jul 2009 01:25 UTC in reply to "How about memory managers?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I remember in the DOS world, that 16-bit memory managers was an independent market,

But it never should have been. Clearly memory management is an OS function. And it was clear back then. We had real operating systems like Unix and VMS for comparison. (Not to mention my old college CS textbooks.) And we all knew that the lack of mm in DOS was a deficiency.

You really cannot compare that with a web browser, which is clearly an application, not an OS function. At least outside of the fantasies of certain MS execs. And even they seem to have backed off from that fiction in recent times. Last I heard, Gates had even learned the meaning of the word "browser".

Edited 2009-07-28 01:28 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Dear Opera
by systyrant on Mon 27th Jul 2009 13:24 UTC
systyrant
Member since:
2007-01-18

I like the Opera browsers, but they need to learn to market their browser. Firefox climbed the ranks without resorting to forcing Microsoft to include it as an option. Opera can do the same.

I don't think the option panel should be included in any OS. I say this because crap like this has a tendency to become viral. Before long when you install an OS or even a program you are going to be flooded with these stupid panels asking you what you want.

I'm all for a smack down on Microsoft, but not this way.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Dear Opera
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:00 UTC in reply to "Dear Opera"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Actually, Firefox is an anomaly:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2009/01/competition_is....

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser."

Also, Mozilla joined the complaint against Microsoft, so...

Reply Score: 1

EU needs to push IT shops, not MS
by google_ninja on Mon 27th Jul 2009 14:06 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

The vast majority of people on IE6 are people who either don't have admin on their machine, or people who work in places where it is the only allowed browser.

http://ajaxian.com/archives/digg-takes-the-time-to-study-the-pain-o...

If you included the other versions of the browser, I would not be surprised if the numbers are somewhat similar, especially considering how IE usage tends to plummet on weekends.

If that is the case, this will have zero positive impact.

Reply Score: 2

Linux is all about choice...
by raffraffraff on Mon 27th Jul 2009 14:11 UTC
raffraffraff
Member since:
2009-04-02

...the choice of the distribution team. Aside from the package manager, the major difference between one Linux and the next is the selection of applications that are installed by default. What's Ubuntu, but Canonical's own choice of software plonked on top of a Debian base? Those choices include a desktop environment, an email client, an office suite, an instant messenger and, yes, a browser. If, one day, Opera becomes a better choice, then I'm sure Canonical will consider it.

Most users pick a Linux distro based on the distribution team's software choices. And some, like me, just install Ubuntu's latest server and apt-get install the bits they need, keeping things simple and offering the ultimate in choice.

The Opera guys do sound a little desperate.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux is all about choice...
by sj87 on Mon 27th Jul 2009 14:34 UTC in reply to "Linux is all about choice..."
sj87 Member since:
2007-12-16

...the choice of the distribution team. Aside from the package manager, the major difference between one Linux and the next is the selection of applications that are installed by default. What's Ubuntu, but Canonical's own choice of software plonked on top of a Debian base? Those choices include a desktop environment, an email client, an office suite, an instant messenger and, yes, a browser. If, one day, Opera becomes a better choice, then I'm sure Canonical will consider it.


Opera in it's current form will never be good enough to be even considered for Ubuntu. First of all Ubuntu's philosophy bans non-free (closed source) software. Secondly Opera is not a GTK app and even more importantly it does not support even the native Qt theming. Those are also the reasons why Opera stands no chance in the UNIX world.

Edited 2009-07-27 14:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Isolationist Member since:
2006-05-28

Secondly Opera is not a GTK app and even more importantly it does not support even the native Qt theming.


OpenOffice is not a GTK app, yet it is included in Ubuntu ... and Firefox is hardly a GTK app.

Reply Score: 3

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

and Firefox is hardly a GTK app.


Eh, it's close enough. True, it's built with Xul, rather than standard Gtk+, but it does a pretty good job of faking it. Uses standard File Open and Print dialogs, native-looking widgets, handles Gtk themes...

Reply Score: 2

Isolationist Member since:
2006-05-28

"and Firefox is hardly a GTK app.


Eh, it's close enough. True, it's built with Xul, rather than standard Gtk+, but it does a pretty good job of faking it. Uses standard File Open and Print dialogs, native-looking widgets, handles Gtk themes...
"

That is why I said "hardly", as it is not a native GTK application.

Reply Score: 3

Ubuntu, Apple Feeling the Heat??
by rakamaka on Mon 27th Jul 2009 14:38 UTC
rakamaka
Member since:
2005-08-12

Everyone here is bashing Opera. Opera is not evil..like uninstallable google updater...
ubuntu and apple are scared to death that they also have to include ballast on netbooks or iphones to include other browser choices than their own choice....
Welcome to cruel world of business.....

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

ubuntu and apple are scared to death that they also have to include ballast on netbooks or iphones to include other browser choices than their own choice....

What kind of crack are you on? The need for the ballot screen is directly related to the fact of MS using its undeniable monopoly in desktop operating systems to leverage the Internet Explorer *application*. When Ubuntu (or any other distro) gains a monopoly in desktop operating systems, then and only then would it be appropriate to worry about forcing them to do anything. Furthermore, Ubuntu already makes Konqueror available by default, via Kubuntu, and offers Firefox, Epiphany, Konqueror, Midori, Dillo, Lynx, elinks, links, Aurora, Galeon, Netsurf, links2, rekonq, seamonkey, and no doubt others which I am forgetting via click, click, click, in Synaptics... and even in the simplified Add/Remove apps utility. (Arguably a lot of these *shouldn't* be in the simplified utility.) Opera's not there because it does not meet the clearly stated criteria for inclusion. If it did it would be there.

Edit: I just finished reviewing a few of your previous posts on similar topics, and I must say that the magnitude of your disconnection with reality is notable.

Edited 2009-07-27 15:07 UTC

Reply Score: 5

rakamaka Member since:
2005-08-12

Ubuntu donot give me choice to "install" browser. All browsers you mentioned are "bundled" with what ubuntu offers. "bundling" of browser is what EU don't like. Now if ubuntu/kubuntu offers me to "install" and not "uninstall" choice I will be happy.
Dont give me line that linux is only kernel, you have choices etc etc. For end user Ubuntu, Mint or any other distribution itself is "entire OS"
BTW try apt-get remove konqueror and see what happend (on kubuntu). Your KDE will be half-dead...Wasn't it the case that you cannot remove IE completely from MS windows??

Edited 2009-07-27 15:18 UTC

Reply Score: 0

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Ubuntu donot give me choice to "install" browser.

Let me start off by saying that I have allocated only a limited amount of time to address your foolishness, and so will jump to the heart of the matter and be concise. EU (and US, for that matter) antitrust policies have nothing at all against bundling, per se. What they do forbid is using one monopoly, in this case a monopoly in the desktop OS space, to leverage another product, in this case the IE web browser. Your constant moaning about bundling in general is misguided at best. And totally insincere, at worst. (Can an OSNews reader really be so misinformed?)

As I'm keeping this brief, if you would like more detail, see one of my previous posts on a related topic: http://www.osnews.com/thread?375280

Edited 2009-07-27 15:28 UTC

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Choose a different distrobution then if you don't like how Cononical's distributions do it. Your data is not locked into one distribution and there are many very good ones to look at. Check out a full install distribution like Mandriva 2008.1 or PCLinuxOS. If you need to stick with the apt/deb based distributions, Debian is very nice and not much more complex than Ubuntu so it may cover all your needs.

The difference here is that if you don't like Windows, you don't have a different distributor or different version of Windows without a particular browser. If you don't like Ubuntu, you can easily look at other distributions; some even provide better hardware support than Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 3

rakamaka Member since:
2005-08-12

The difference here is that if you don't like Windows, you don't have a different distributor or different version of Windows without a particular browser.
If you dont like IE bundlded with windows, you have choice to install FF, Opera, chrome(which are free).
I always use FF but dont cry about having IE residing on my system.
One more gripe, when installing FF or opera, I dont get ballot box to install default search engine. FF installs google as default search engine at top right hand box.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Your point was that Kubuntu includes konqueror and ubuntu imposes a default browser which you must uninstall and replace after the liveCD image is stamped out. You then support this point by suggesting that Windows allows multiple browsers to be installed although you can't actually uninstall IE.

Nice.. I see you've thought your argument through in great detail.

My point was that if you don't like the defaults in Ubuntu, you can change them completely; as in, the browser you choose not to use wont' be opened by default constantly. If you don't like KDE, change it. Your not locked into that choice by the OS platform. Don't want to be mucking about with alternative desktop environments; no problem, look at distributions that default to your preferred desktop environment. Your not bound to a single software vendor or imposed choice selection.

Your complaint, meant to support IE bundling, is that Linux distributions include default software selections; by the design of the distribution and by anti-trust law, these are not the same thing.

(Edit): I missed your mention of default search engines. On Mandriva with Firefox, I see the search field in the upper right corner. I also see a dropdown menu arrow beside the [G] which provides easy access to other search engines. On Debian Lenny with Iceweasel, I see the search field in the upper right corner. I also see a dropdown menu arrow beside the [G] which provides easy access to other search engines.

To be honest, on Windows with Internet Explorer, the page it stops you at on first run is a pain. On the rare occasion that I have to use it (Windows Update, MSN decided to open it or some badly written website requires it) and it's a first time run, I just want the page I'm going to not a question and answer period. I click through it's defaults and go back later to change anything I care about.

I also see a difference between a browser's default of a third party search engine both of which are not subject to anti-trust laws versus an imposed non-removable browser selection chosen for me by a company which is subject to anti-trust laws.

Edited 2009-07-28 01:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

KDE uses konqueror (or more specifically khtml) heavily, and therefore won't run correctly without it, on the other hand the whole of KDE is optional and can easily be replaced with something else.

Ubuntu give you choice of several browsers, none of which are written by ubuntu themselves. They have no reason to promote one browser over another.

Reply Score: 1

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

I agree, but there is no point in talking to him/her.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by gregf
by gregf on Mon 27th Jul 2009 15:01 UTC
gregf
Member since:
2006-06-23

Yeah, Opera you can have a ballot option, right after you open source your browser.

Reply Score: 1

It's only fair.
by Tuishimi on Mon 27th Jul 2009 15:18 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Everyone wants to force one company to do this, then any other company that sells an OS should too. Altho' last I looked Ubuntu was free - so no dice there.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's only fair. - it has options also
by jabbotts on Mon 27th Jul 2009 19:32 UTC in reply to "It's only fair."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu - they all have different defaults that actually add value to the intended target use. They all also allow one to uninstall firefox and install many other browsers from the repositories.

For me, it'll always be a full install disk that trumps a liveCD stamp due to my own install and selection methods but I can't fault Canonical's liveCD distros for not providing real choice to the end user.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's only fair.
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 21:59 UTC in reply to "It's only fair."
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

If you actually bothered to pay attention, you would have noticed that Opera's CTO didn't talk about forcing anyone. He specifically said:

"Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it"

Reply Score: 1

I don't get it
by reduz on Mon 27th Jul 2009 15:29 UTC
reduz
Member since:
2006-02-25

I just don't get all this ballot screen stuff, even for microsoft. Shouldn't the same be done with internet explorer as for all the rest of the applications bundled like:

-Microsoft MSN Messenger
-Windows Media Player
-Windows DVD/CD Burning
-Windows Movie Maker
etc?

Reply Score: 1

RE: I don't get it - those would be nice options
by jabbotts on Mon 27th Jul 2009 19:30 UTC in reply to "I don't get it"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Actually, those would be nice optional components rather than embedded defaults. None are required for the proper functioning of the OS.

MSN Messenger - I don't want it installed by default or trying to run in the background constantly. I have better IM software that support MSN networks.

Media Player - easily outdone by other options. I'd like it to be an optional app I can choose not to install.

DVD/DC Burning - we'll see how the ISO burner in Win7 does but so far, I have better tools for that also.

Windows Movie Maker - haven't ever seen it installed and won't likely any time soon. It doesn't make my games run better and that's really all Windows is used for outside of my work environment.

Granted, there is definately a line where optional software to include is rational. When you get down to arguing that notepad should not be bundled, it's just gone way to far.

In this specific case, Opera had better have a heck of an argument because it's looking like they are well past the "notepad should not be bundled" side of the line.

Reply Score: 2

The problem as I see it
by deathshadow on Mon 27th Jul 2009 15:42 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Is who makes the list and who doesn't? K-Meleon, Flock, SeaMonkey, Amaya, Maxthon, Avante, Phaseout, Flashpeak Slim... Where's that magical line going to be drawn...

... and my biggest problem is the use of the courts to bypass law or even the sense of law, a common affliction when suddenly people want 'special treatment' to hobble someone else's success. For any law to be fair it must apply equally to all parties... in that way I think that if Microsoft is going to have this shoved down their throat, then it should be shoved down EVERY OS makers throat - but I've been saying that since back when the EU went after them for bundling media player.

I don't see *nix distros dragged into court or pissed on with sour grapes for bundling totem and firefox, nor do we see Apple being similarly pursued for bundling iTunes and Safari... To this complaint you'll get the classic "Oh but they're a monopoly so they have to be treated special"

Oh, so any group or even individual should get special treatment under the law for being successful? To hell with that kind of thinking. They break the law, fine, go after them, and go after everyone else doing it to. If they didn't break the law and they are the only ones being singled out for a behavior everyone else in the same field does, then the claims are bullshit and little more than the competition being a whiny bunch of little wussies.

Anyone who thinks that singling out any group or individual for unique and special consideration under the law should do the world a favor and go read Mr. Paine's "Common Sense", as it's obvious they have none.

... and that's coming from someone who likes Opera and uses it as his primary browser - but the way they run their company is a ******* joke.

Of course Opera's problem has little to do with the browser - the browser is fine and more capable than anything else on the market (unless you count firefox after adding 20-40 megs of extensions)... Complaints about things like the UI are nitpicking, complaints about it's "lack of features" or lack of extensions is bull since 90% of what people use extensions for in FF is BUILT IN, no, their problem is more subtle, but obvious if you know ANYTHING about business.

The problem is one of promotion, which is to say they have spent next to nothing on advertising. **** sake the non-profit mozilla foundation is able to spring for TV spots and spots in the glossies... Opera's biggest advertising expenditure (ok, their only expenditure) of the past decade was some crappy billboard on the road to Redmond... Gimme a ******* break.

Edited 2009-07-27 15:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: The problem as I see it
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 21:59 UTC in reply to "The problem as I see it"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Is who makes the list and who doesn't?

The announcement clearly says the top 5 browsers, meaning IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Chrome in that order. Opera has a higher market share than Safari and Chrome combined in Europe.

... and my biggest problem is the use of the courts to bypass law or even the sense of law, a common affliction when suddenly people want 'special treatment' to hobble someone else's success.

Actually, this isn't about bypassing the law. It's about Microsoft breaking the law, and the law will now be enforced.

For any law to be fair it must apply equally to all parties...

It is. Microsoft is treated like any other monopolist.

in that way I think that if Microsoft is going to have this shoved down their throat, then it should be shoved down EVERY OS makers throat

No, because not all OSes are monopolists.

Oh, so any group or even individual should get special treatment under the law for being successful?

No. Monopolies get special treatment because all their moves have a huge impact on the market. That's the way it is across the world. Even Microsoft agrees with that.

If they didn't break the law and they are the only ones being singled out for a behavior everyone else in the same field does

They DID break the law.

... and that's coming from someone who likes Opera and uses it as his primary browser - but the way they run their company is a ******* joke.

How so? The company is wildly successful, with profits more than doubling the last quarter, and constantly pulling in huge business deals.

they have spent next to nothing on advertising

That is completely wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

Opera's biggest advertising expenditure (ok, their only expenditure) of the past decade was some crappy billboard on the road to Redmond... Gimme a ******* break.

Wrong. You have been misled.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The problem as I see it
by deathshadow on Fri 31st Jul 2009 03:46 UTC in reply to "RE: The problem as I see it"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

The announcement clearly says the top 5 browsers, meaning IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Chrome in that order. Opera has a higher market share than Safari and Chrome combined in Europe.[/quote]
Which means unfair favoritism of those five, and from your answer shows you didn't understand the INTENT of the question. You might want to put some time aside to take an ethics course.

[q]Actually, this isn't about bypassing the law. It's about Microsoft breaking the law, and the law will now be enforced.

Really, and what law would that be, the law that says a company is unable to do the exact same business practices even other companies in the same field are allowed to practice? Even anti-trust laws don't go that far into noodle-doodle absurdities unless you're living in a totalitarianism.

It is. Microsoft is treated like any other monopolist.

Which is singling out a group not for breaking the law, but for being successful - MIND YOU, Microsoft has certainly broken lots of anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws in it's relationship with vendors and clients - see that whole apple/ms contracts issue - but it's complete and utter bullshit to go after them for something everyone else is allowed to do without penalty - I don't care how big or how small a company is, that's bullshit and certainly has nothing to do with anti-trust law.

No, because not all OSes are monopolists.

So the more successful you are the more restrictive things will be, great arguement for not becoming actually successful - maybe that's why Apple keeps shooting themselves in the foot every couple years? That starts to border on pinko commie rheotoric with a hint of socialism.

No. Monopolies get special treatment because all their moves have a huge impact on the market. That's the way it is across the world. Even Microsoft agrees with that.

People say **** like that, and I've always found it to be more FUD than fact - But then maybe I just remember what a complete ***** TRAIN WRECK the phone system became after the forced Ma Bell Breakup...

In any case, go after them for LEGITIMATE stuff, not this whiney little wussy cry baby sour grapes "Our browser sucks" bullshit. This "Oh, well those others aren't monopolies" BULL is some of the most annoying nonsensical CRAP this side of Obama calling credit the life blood of the economy. (I'm with

How so? The company is wildly successful, with profits more than doubling the last quarter, and constantly pulling in huge business deals. That is completely wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.[q]
OH, how's it going GoJoeGo? Sorry, bad joke from the Opera forums. Even their own staff admits they've spent little to nothing on advertising to date.

[q]Wrong. You have been misled.

Not at all, though I suspect you know little to nothing about the company itself.

... and apparantly you know nothing about Opera, the company.
http://www.moconews.net/entry/419-opera-plans-marketing-blitz-in-u....
That one is where Rod Hamlin says
Over our history, we've spent zero [on advertising], so it's a huge shift." If that still doesn't convince you that they have it out for Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT), then maybe the message on the billboard that was near the software giant's Redmond campus will: "Be a Real Internet explorer?Opera.com." (Hamlin says his one regret was that he couldn't capitalize the "e" in explorer because it was copyrighted.)


and a blurb about the billboard
http://operawatch.com/news/2009/02/targeting-microsoft-on-mobile.ht...

Here's a tip, don't post until you understand a subject - especially when saying things like "You've been misled" or "completely and utterly wrong" - Just how many glossy magazine spots have you seen for Opera? TV Spots? Click through ads through adbrite or adsense? Articles in magazines with their mention APART from the whiny little bitch litigation?

Now answer the same question for Firefox. 'nuff said.

HELL, they don't even get branding on the boxes of phones that SHIP with it, they barely get mention on the DS or Wii (white text on a cyan background is NOT good marketing) - anything involving them and a promotional plan has been a total joke, with the only way they get in the news being "Our browser sucks so bad we have to use the courts to promote it" - for shame.

Especially when the browser doesn't actually suck. Hell, that billboard was a laugh since it probably cost as much as a spot in a national glossy, had a horrid marketing slogan upon it that frankly, makes it look like their marketing department is run by the dirty hippies from South Park. "Oh man, wait until those little Eichmanns' get hold of this crunchy groove, it'll really show 'em"

Not that one can expect much in terms of marketing from the company that thought an avante-guard art *** makeover for Opera 9.0 featuring a homeless lady, a insulting oriental caricature, a cross dresser and a bunch of other wierdos was going to have mass appeal. All they needed was a priest with a young boy, a black man with a watermelon, mohammad, and a hasedic coveting a pile of gold to have the superfecta of offensive.

http://battletech.hopto.org/images/opera_wierdness.jpg

Yeah, some GREAT marketing there.

Edited 2009-07-31 03:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The problem as I see it
by deathshadow on Fri 31st Jul 2009 04:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The problem as I see it"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Addendum, god bless (or damn in this case) the Wayback Machine.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060702022116/http://www.opera.com/

Because when I think eurotrash art ***'s, I think Opera. It was such a happy day when they trashed that crowd and brought in the jailbait instead.

Reply Score: 2

philipsw
Member since:
2009-07-27

If the EU wants to regualate browser inclusion it should be prepared to step up and host a site which they believe to be valuable in ensuring that users have a browser choice. Call it browserchoice.eu.gov, or any other domain which makes sense. This site should exist for the lifespan of the OS it is intended to "police". The OS, when asked by the user to do so (either automatically during install) after their network setup has completed successfully or after install is completed, should query this site for all EU suggested browsers. It should present the user with a description of each, along with information about the developer, (objective) compliance information, size of download, etc... The site should then either serve the most current, stable version of the browser to the user or redirect the *OS*, not the user, to the appropriate site to download the browser. There should be no gratuitous advertisements for any browser during download. The OS should present the browser in the same manner on its application start menu in the same manner (I'm thinking a generic "Browse the Internet" application). User's should be able to repeat this process as many times as they would like until they arrive on a browser choice which suits their needs.

Reply Score: 1

Uninstalling Opera....
by rrife on Mon 27th Jul 2009 16:47 UTC
rrife
Member since:
2006-12-12

Unfortunately I cannot support a company who relies on politicians for market share. So I'm going to have to remove their products from my desktop and cell phones....which is sad, because they were pretty good.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Uninstalling Opera....
by righard on Mon 27th Jul 2009 19:34 UTC in reply to "Uninstalling Opera...."
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Well done!, you certainly hurt Opera more with that more then you hurt your self with it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Uninstalling Opera....
by hangman on Mon 27th Jul 2009 21:52 UTC in reply to "Uninstalling Opera...."
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

So are you going to uninstall Chrome and Firefox too, since both Google and Mozilla joined the complaint?

Also, if you pay attention, Lie answered a specific question, and did not demand anything. He merely suggested it MAY be a good idea:

"Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it"

Reply Score: 2

Kinda stupid
by FunkyELF on Mon 27th Jul 2009 16:57 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

Once you get ballot screens for everything you might as well be running Gentoo. Ballot screen for your logger, your JRE, your cron, your default editor, your mail client, your PDF viewer, your dvd burner.

This is ridiculous.
If you want a different browser install it or use a different distro.
Should Kubuntu show a ballot screen for a DVD burner so you can choose Xfburn over K3B?... NO!, you already chose K3B when you chose Kubuntu. But nothing is stopping you from installing it after the fact.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Kinda stupid - waht about GUI
by jabbotts on Mon 27th Jul 2009 19:24 UTC in reply to "Kinda stupid"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Kubuntu needs to show a ballot selection for type of desktop environment. This KDE default for Kubuntu is unacceptable.

(end sarcasm. ;) )

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

A browser ballot for Ubuntu.. it has default selections or you can uninstall and choose what browser you want instead. The default browser uninstalls completely rather than being required by the rest of the system to function. Safari also deletes from osX rather easily though I'll admit that every update after that will try to stuff it back in.

Oh well, Opera throws more fuel at the fire. I'm going to sit back and watch the show.

Reply Score: 1

hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Seriously, is no one paying attention at all?

Lie answered a specific question, and did not demand anything. He merely suggested it MAY be a good idea:

"Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it"

Reply Score: 4

Wow, they just don't give up.
by UltraZelda64 on Mon 27th Jul 2009 22:42 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

They might have had a point in wanting this "solved." Now Microsoft "solves" this problem, and Opera STILL wants more, and is going after Microsoft's competitors next. Seriously, Opera... your "include us too" spree is really looking like a joke, and has lost all credibility for sure now. Now Opera is sounding more like a baby wanting attention for nothing.

As mentioned in the article... if Opera was open-source, I'm sure not only Ubuntu, but virtually *all* Linux distros would be happy to make it a single command away (ie. "sudo apt-get install opera" or "yum install opera"). As is, currently people are forced to go through the trouble of adding Opera's repos in Ubuntu manually if they want it.

Ironically, ever since earlier today, a triangle with an exclamation point has been in my system tray, informing me that there are problems trying to update all the repositories' local database. The problem?

Failed to fetch http://deb.opera.com/opera/dists/stable/non-free/binary-i386/Packag... 404 Not Found
Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old ones used instead.


This news and this error couldn't have come with worse timing. I'm about to remove Opera's repository to get rid of this damn "error" system tray icon... it's annoying. Meanwhile... Opera, you got what you wanted. Just GIVE UP ALREADY.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wow, they just don't give up.
by hangman on Tue 28th Jul 2009 15:45 UTC in reply to "Wow, they just don't give up."
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Now Microsoft "solves" this problem, and Opera STILL wants more, and is going after Microsoft's competitors next. Seriously, Opera... your "include us too" spree is really looking like a joke, and has lost all credibility for sure now.

The only joke here is people like you not bothering to read what he actually said. He never went after anyone. In fact, he specifically pointed out that Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies, and said MAY BE A GOOD IDEA:

Quote: "Apple and Ubuntu are not monopolies as per the legal definition of a monopoly. Still, it may be a good idea to offer it"

Ironically, ever since earlier today, a triangle with an exclamation point has been in my system tray, informing me that there are problems trying to update all the repositories' local database. The problem?

Failed to fetch http://deb.opera.com/opera/dists/stable/non-free/binary-i386/Packag... 404 Not Found
Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old ones used instead.

Works fine here:

Package: opera
Version: 9.64.2480.gcc4.qt3

This news and this error couldn't have come with worse timing. I'm about to remove Opera's repository to get rid of this damn "error" system tray icon... it's annoying. Meanwhile... Opera, you got what you wanted. Just GIVE UP ALREADY.
[/q]
You need to stop it with the silly knee-jerk reactions.

Reply Score: 1

0.5% share threshold
by MollyC on Mon 27th Jul 2009 23:58 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

I read that the EC is demanding that all browsers with at least a 0.5% usage share be on the ballot. Notice how they specified the maximum "round(ish) number" share that still allows Opera to just barely make the ballot. Go any higher, and Opera doesn't make the cut. Go any lower, and hundreds would make the ballot. Neither of these scenarios is desireable to the EC, so they pick the "Opera threshold". What a joke.

Reply Score: 2

RE: 0.5% share threshold
by Johann Chua on Tue 28th Jul 2009 10:13 UTC in reply to "0.5% share threshold"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

You mean like IE?

Reply Score: 2

RE: 0.5% share threshold
by hangman on Tue 28th Jul 2009 15:41 UTC in reply to "0.5% share threshold"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Notice how they specified the maximum "round(ish) number" share that still allows Opera to just barely make the ballot. Go any higher, and Opera doesn't make the cut. Go any lower, and hundreds would make the ballot. Neither of these scenarios is desireable to the EC, so they pick the "Opera threshold". What a joke.

Wrong. Opera is the #3 browser globally:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-200901-200906-bar

And in Europe Opera is bigger than Safari and Chrome combined!

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-eu-monthly-200901-200906-bar

The Europe stats are what really count, and Opera is nearly 10% there.

Does anyone even bother checking the facts before spouting nonsense these days? Clearly not.

Reply Score: 2

RE: 0.5% share threshold
by sbergman27 on Tue 28th Jul 2009 15:53 UTC in reply to "0.5% share threshold"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Neither of these scenarios is desireable to the EC, so they pick the "Opera threshold". What a joke.

Molly, I'm beginning to wonder if you are pro-consumer, or just anti-EC. Your vendetta is showing, and it looks suspiciously similar to that of the rabid MS hating bile-spewers around here. (As opposed to those who simply disapprove and speak out when it is appropriate.)

I'd have expected better from you.

Where to set the bar is a judgement call, and as such people are going to disagree. Personally, I'd go for the top four, which would be IE, FF, Chrome, and Safari. That seems a natural break point, as Opera is in a badly trailing 5th place. (And I'll admit that the highly annoying nature of both its execs and its user-base might contribute to my inclination to leave them out.)

But the ballot screen strategy is, in itself, pretty sound, and is, in my opinion, far and away the best solution. It gives regular users choice... but choice of the "point and click" nature that they can deal with. (Nothing messy like having to know anything or anything hard like that.)

Thom has an idea that forcing MS to make IE more standards compliant is the answer. Not a bad thought. But I put that in the same category as "forcing world peace". How do you do it? What does it mean? How do you measure it? How do you keep them from breaking the web in a way that your tests don't register? I just don't see how that could be executed successfully.

Edited 2009-07-28 15:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 0.5% share threshold
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 28th Jul 2009 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE: 0.5% share threshold"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thom has an idea that forcing MS to make IE more standards compliant is the answer. Not a bad thought. But I put that in the same category as "forcing world peace". How do you do it? What does it mean? How do you measure it? How do you keep them from breaking the web in a way that your tests don't register? I just don't see how that could successfully be executed.


True. I haven't thought about that very deeply - it's more of a general desire than an implementable plan or something.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: 0.5% share threshold
by sbergman27 on Tue 28th Jul 2009 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 0.5% share threshold"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

True. I haven't thought about that very deeply - it's more of a general desire than an implementable plan or something.

Unfortunately, a monopoly situation is a perfectly valid corner for a free market to get into. Thus it is an unfortunate fact of life that regulation is sometimes going to be necessary to either prop up market competition, or to restore it. Of the two, restoring it is by far the best option, when possible.

If you just prop it up, it means that ongoing regulation is going to be necessary. And in a landscape which changes like computing (and not to mention working with an uncooperative player like MS), it means that new tests and tactics are going to be necessary as the web evolves, and as the regulated entity finds ways around your previous tests. And all those new tests and requirements are going to have to be right. And on and on forever. Honestly, (and no offense intended) that's the way I see your otherwise appealing idea going.

On the other hand, executed properly, I could see the browser ballot strategy actually restoring true competition. And once restored, MS would have every incentive to act in a truly competitive way. So with a minimum of regulation, you get the market back on its feet and the free market forces restored back to health and full vigor, which is, I think, what most of us would like to see. Even those who see the need for regulation generally prefer to rely on dynamic free market forces where practicable. (Right?)

To be sure, there are details to the ballot screen plan that need to be gotten right. As Molly points out, setting the height of the bar is a question without a completely obvious answer. But at least this strategy minimizes the details that have to be gotten right, and if the plan is successful, even that bit of regulation may be able to go away, someday.

Sure, it's yet another annoying thing Windows users have to do after unboxing their computers. (Which frankly gets a big boo-hoo from me.) But choice of browser is an important part of installation. Certainly more important than clicking through license agreements for the crapplets so thoughtfully installed for users by the OEM.

Edited 2009-07-28 16:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: 0.5% share threshold
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 28th Jul 2009 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 0.5% share threshold"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Sure, it's yet another annoying thing Windows users have to do after unboxing their computers. But choice of browser is an important part of installation. Certainly more important than clicking through license agreements for the crapplets so thoughtfully installed for users by the OEM.


In the end, over 95% of people buy OEM machines - those won't have the ballot. OEMs will preselect a browser for them. I'm pretty sure when I say that the ballot will not change a darn thing, because all it does is move the responsibility from Microsoft down to the OEMs - who will pick whoever delivers the biggest sack of money: Google or Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: 0.5% share threshold
by sbergman27 on Tue 28th Jul 2009 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 0.5% share threshold"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

In the end, over 95% of people buy OEM machines - those won't have the ballot. OEMs will preselect a browser for them.

I'm still unclear on that point. Molly seems to feel that OEM boxes *would* have the ballot screen, as she seems to have information indicating that the ballot plan would preclude browser makers paying OEMs for inclusion of their product.

Indeed, that is a make or break condition.

Edited 2009-07-28 17:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: 0.5% share threshold
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 28th Jul 2009 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: 0.5% share threshold"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"In the end, over 95% of people buy OEM machines - those won't have the ballot. OEMs will preselect a browser for them.

I'm still unclear on that point. Molly seems to feel that OEM boxes *would* have the ballot screen, as she seems to have information indicating that the ballot plan would preclude browser makers paying OEMs for inclusion.
"

Well, all I can go on now is this, from the EC announcement:

"In addition OEMs would be able to install competing web browsers, set those as default and disable Internet Explorer should they so wish."


This indicates they can circumvent the ballot screen.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: 0.5% share threshold
by sbergman27 on Tue 28th Jul 2009 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: 0.5% share threshold"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"In addition OEMs would be able to install competing web browsers, set those as default and disable Internet Explorer should they so wish."

This indicates they can circumvent the ballot screen.

Taken literally, it means that they can pre-select a non-IE browser. But I'm not sure we can reliably extract such detail from that quote.

Edited 2009-07-28 17:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 0.5% share threshold
by MollyC on Wed 29th Jul 2009 05:40 UTC in reply to "RE: 0.5% share threshold"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

sbergman, I'm sorry to disappoint you, that you "expected better" of me. ;)

But you're right. I don't like the EC. Because I don't think they are a just organization. I think they abuse their power. And I think that among the most dangerous things is a government law enforcement agency that is unchecked (the EU appeals courts are a joke, just rubberstamping whatever the EC does) and is on a power/ego trip (we'll show everyone who's boss!). Their decrees are based on whim and predispositions. They provide no due process to reach their verdicts of guilt. The accused is not provided a chance to face their accusers, cross examine accusers, or cross examine evidence. Indeed, the accused doesn't even have the right to know the evidence and accusers against it if the EC doesn't want them to know, let alone cross examine them. It's straight out of a Kafka novel.

And the EU Appeals courts are like most nations' appeals courts, in that they don't allow for examination of evidence either, merely examination of procedure. So the accused can't cross examine evidence at the appeals court either.

So the EC decrees are made without due process, without real trials. So whatever entity the EC is mad at or predisposed to rule against, they do, and nobody can stop them. Then, once the guitly verdict is decreed, the punishment is arbitrary. The fines have no rhyme or reason. The solutions are dumb too, like Windows XP N.

Then there's the double/triple/quadruple jeopardy. How many times is Microsoft to be fined for the same offense? Seems that the EC has fined Microsoft multiple times for bundling IE in the 1990s.

And this latest incident where the EC decreed that it is illegal for Microsoft to not ship a browser at all? There's absolutely nothing in EU antitrust law that would indicate such, but EU antitrust law is so vague that it basically boils down to "Whatever the EC says". So if they say that it's illegal for Windows to not have a browser, then that's the way it is. Like Pharoah's decrees or something.

I think the EC is out of control. I think the 1.5 billion dollar fine against Intel was absurd. I thinks Windows XP N was absurd. I think the notion that Windows MUST bundle a browser is absurd. And, to the point I made in my GP post, I think the EU's decision to choose a ballot browser share threshold that's so tiny, but required to be tiny in order to let Opera sneak in is absurd. And I think this ballot screws over any new browsers that may come along. The ballot presents a barrier of entry, but not by Microsoft, but rather government mandated, which is an order of magnitude more troublesome.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: 0.5% share threshold
by hangman on Wed 29th Jul 2009 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 0.5% share threshold"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

I don't like the EC.

Good for you. Now stop derailing the discussion with off-topic whining. There is no doubt that Microsoft has broken the law.

Then there's the double/triple/quadruple jeopardy. How many times is Microsoft to be fined for the same offense? Seems that the EC has fined Microsoft multiple times for bundling IE in the 1990s.

Microsoft isn't being taken to task for BUNDLING IE as such. It's being taken to task for abusing its monopoly in one market to destroy the competition in a different market.

And even if the EU had fined Microsoft for breaking the same law in the past, that does NOT prevent them from finining Microsoft again if the crime continues to be committed! And clearly, Microsoft has continued its predatory practices.

But you are probably recalling incorrectly. They were busted in the U.S.

And this latest incident where the EC decreed that it is illegal for Microsoft to not ship a browser at all?

When did the EC decree that this is illegal? They didn't. They said that simply removing IE was not a sufficient remedy to restore the market. That's not the same as removing IE being "illegal". Jesus Christ, where do you get your nonsense from?

So if they say that it's illegal for Windows to not have a browser, then that's the way it is.

They did not. Stop lying already.

I think the EC is out of control.

Clearly not, since they bust monopolists that break the law.

I think the notion that Windows MUST bundle a browser is absurd.

It isn't. Microsoft BROKE THE LAW, remember?

And, to the point I made in my GP post, I think the EU's decision to choose a ballot browser share threshold that's so tiny, but required to be tiny in order to let Opera sneak in is absurd.

Stop blatantly lying already. The browser share was set to 5%. Opera has nearly 10% in Europe, and is bigger than Chrome and Safari combined.

And I think this ballot screws over any new browsers that may come along. The ballot presents a barrier of entry, but not by Microsoft, but rather government mandated, which is an order of magnitude more troublesome.

WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The ballot will force web designers to code for standards instead of browsers. This means that the barrier to entry is LOWER than it used to be because new browsers will have to waste less time being bug-compatible with other browsers.

In conclusion: You seem to be either extremely dishonest or extremely ignorant. I don't know which. Either way, your straw men, constant repetition of the same old lies from MS HQ show that there is something fishy going on here.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: 0.5% share threshold
by MollyC on Wed 29th Jul 2009 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 0.5% share threshold"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Wow, you truly are deluded.
I'll just take one of your foolish statements as an example:



"And this latest incident where the EC decreed that it is illegal for Microsoft to not ship a browser at all?

When did the EC decree that this is illegal? They didn't. They said that simply removing IE was not a sufficient remedy to restore the market. That's not the same as removing IE being "illegal". Jesus Christ, where do you get your nonsense from?
"

Clearly you don't understand how the EC works. When the EC says, "That's not sufficient to restore competition", they mean, "That's not sufficient to be within the law as we see it.", meaning, prepare to be fined if you do that.

I'll deal with one more of your comments. You keep saying "Microsoft broke the law" (and you suggest that therefore, any "punishment", no matter how extreme or stupid, is just, which goes against any modern sense of proper jurisprudence). Microsoft "broke the law", only as determined by the EC, not by an actual trial. Whatever the EC says, goes. THAT's what EU law essentially says.

Here's the difference: In the US, the DOJ filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft in court, and went through an actual judicial procedure. Microsoft was found liable, and the judge ordered a particular remedy. Microsoft appealed, the appeals court saw that the judge was an idiot, dismissed him from the case, dismissed his remedy, narrowed the scope of the case, then tossed the case back down to the lower court to be retry the remedy phase under the new narrow guidelines before a new and competent judge. MS and the DOJ then reached settlement that the new judge approved. And, while parts of that settlement have expired, other parts have been extended twice, at the behest of both the DOJ and Microsoft. (Microsoft likes the settlement because it provides guidelines as to what's kosher, and implements a compliance committee that Microsoft run new designs by and get an OK or not-OK before actually implementing the design).

Now let's look at the way the EU works:
The EC announces that they will investigate a company. The EC gathers "evidence" and "witnesses", but is not required to disclose either to the accused for cross examination. The EC then declares guilt, levels an arbitrary fine (the maximum fine is specified by law to be N% of the company's previous year's profits or revenue, but the amount levied below that is arbitrary). The company then appeals the verdit to the EU appeals court. But that court doesn't afford cross examination of evidence either, so it's really a waste of time. The only thing the EU appeals court is concerned with is procedure (like making sure the fine is within the lawful limits). So the EU appeals court rubberstamps the EC verdict, and the company has to live with being "convicted" without due process, without cross examining witnesses, without even a decent appeals process.

Then, people like you declare, "Microsoft broke the law, remember?", without bothering to examine how that verdict was arrived at.


Here's a great quote I found at arstechnica by a user named "Edzo", on the topic of this browser ballot:
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-caves-to-eu...

Of course Microsoft caved, what's surprising is that it has taken them this long to realize these are show trials. Once the EU competition commissioner starts investigating, you've already been found guilty.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: 0.5% share threshold
by hangman on Thu 30th Jul 2009 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 0.5% share threshold"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

When the EC says, "That's not sufficient to restore competition", they mean, "That's not sufficient to be within the law as we see it.", meaning, prepare to be fined if you do that.

When the EC says that it's not sufficient to restore competition, that's because they don't find it to be sufficient to restore competition. Even a dishonest Microsoft shill would understand that.

Of course Microsoft will be fined if it ignores the EC verdict!

The bottom line is that the EC did not think removing IE was an appropriate remedy. Simple as that.

The VIOLATOR doesn't get to decide his own punishment, you know.

You keep saying "Microsoft broke the law" (and you suggest that therefore, any "punishment", no matter how extreme or stupid, is just, which goes against any modern sense of proper jurisprudence).

Now you are getting all confused again. Microsoft did break the law, as is clear from the facts. And the proposed measures are neither extreme nor stupid. Only a brainwashed MS shill would claim otherwise.

Now let's look at the way the EU works:

The EC actually does something, unlike the fascists who turned the case on its head in the US because a new president inserted fascists who preferred to reward anti-competitive behavior.

The EC does it properly. It looks at the facts, and comes to a verdict. You are just dishonestly trying to spread FUD about the EU because of your fascist leanings.

Then, people like you declare, "Microsoft broke the law, remember?", without bothering to examine how that verdict was arrived at.

It is clear that Microsoft broke the law. Unless you are a dishonest or ignorant MS shill, of course.

Edited 2009-07-30 17:21 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Opera has some good things too
by Dr-ROX on Tue 28th Jul 2009 14:15 UTC
Dr-ROX
Member since:
2006-01-03

Opera has some good features too. Personally I like the Turbo mode, where images and contents of websites gets compressed and sent to browser. This is just perfect, when browsing using mobile internet where must charge for transferred data.

Reply Score: 1

Offensive attitude
by abdavidson on Tue 28th Jul 2009 16:08 UTC
abdavidson
Member since:
2005-07-06

Really your posts on Opera show a thoroughly offensive attitude you have Thom.

I think you need to get over yourself and your continuing bitchy girl commentary about Opera.

It can hardly be called reporting news when you're adding snide rubbish like Opera wanting "a free ride", and stuff about making "a browser that people actually want to install". Plenty install it, plenty use it and given Opera's commitments to open standards and pushing them hard for everyone, your free ride stuff is inappropriate, incorrect crass rubbish.

You're letting your biases interfere and leaving us with a very poor standard of reportage that is more OSBlog than OSNews.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by FAC73
by FAC73 on Tue 28th Jul 2009 20:19 UTC
FAC73
Member since:
2007-07-09

I'm slightly disturbed by the amount of Opera hating thats going on here.
I can understand if people don't like Opera or simply prefer a different browser (I use a mixture of Opera and Firefox) but the amount of fury and venom thats being directed towards Opera baffles me.
Its another choice of browser as far as I'm concerned, yet I get the impression that some people here want to see it obliterated from the market.

Seriously, why all the hate?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by FAC73
by abdavidson on Wed 29th Jul 2009 01:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by FAC73"
abdavidson Member since:
2005-07-06

It's because Opera is bloated or adware or spyware or the CTO doesn't know what he's talking about or because they're trying to get a free ride or... who the hell knows what is going on here but it certainly seems there's just an outright BAD vibe towards Opera on this site even moreso recently than in times past.

Reply Score: 2