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.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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
Member since:2007-09-05
Member since:2007-09-22
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 
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.
Member since:2007-09-05
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"
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"?
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 ...