Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 10th Feb 2010 16:58 UTC
Opera Software As should be common knowledge by now, Apple is very restrictive and sometimes quite arbitrary in managing its App Store. One thing is clear, though: fat chance there's going to be an alternative browser in the App Store (i.e., one that doesn't use WebKit). Mozilla didn't even bother to submit Fennec, but Opera is going head-to-head with Apple: the Norwegian browser maker has announced Opera Mini for the iPhone, but has not yet submitted it for approval.
Thread beginning with comment 408799
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Basis for suit?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 11th Feb 2010 03:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Basis for suit?"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26


It was Microsoft who proposed the browser ballot. Opera, Mozilla and Google merely responded with their thoughts on the proposal.


Microsoft proposed it as a compromise after Opera filed an antitrust complaint. Don't make it sound like it was from anything other than EU pressure.


They are obviously not. When Opera filed the complaint against Microsoft, it was after a decade of trying to combat Microsoft's anti-competitive practices by other means.

The same practices that Firefox was able to combat? There are countries where Firefox is the dominate browser and yet Windows has an even greater share in those countries than the US.

The Opera CEO is pathetic. He was charging 40 DOLLARS for his browser before Firefox came around. It was actually the success of Firefox that forced him to switch to an ad revenue model. For years he kept the price high even though the consensus was that while his browser was clearly better than IE6 it sure wasn't worth 40 bucks.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Basis for suit?
by PresentIt on Thu 11th Feb 2010 09:38 in reply to "RE[3]: Basis for suit?"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Microsoft proposed it as a compromise after Opera filed an antitrust complaint. Don't make it sound like it was from anything other than EU pressure.

Microsoft broke the law, and was reported to the authorities. The authorities looked into it and found that Microsoft was guilty of breaking the law. Microsoft wanted to avoid huge fines and all that, and made a proposal.

The point here is that Kroc lied and claimed that Opera forced Microsoft to add a ballot. They did no such thing. Opera has no power what so ever over the EU or Microsoft.

The same practices that Firefox was able to combat?

Firefox is proof of Microsoft's wrongdoings, as Mozilla explains:

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."

The Opera CEO is pathetic. He was charging 40 DOLLARS for his browser before Firefox came around.
Are you a Communist or something?


Because clearly you think running a company is free.

How was Opera going to survive as a company if they didn't make money? There was no way, unless you are a Commie and think there is such a thing as a free lunch.

According to you, having an income to keep the company alive is "pathetic". Nice one.

It was actually the success of Firefox that forced him to switch to an ad revenue model.

Actually, Opera wasn't forced. They didn't actually WANT to charge, but didn't have a choice since, you know, they had to make their own money and everything, unlike Mozilla.

But then they figured out that they could make money by sending searches to Google, and THAT was when Opera could become a free browser.

Opera could not stop charging until there was an alternative business model in place!

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Basis for suit?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 11th Feb 2010 23:32 in reply to "RE[4]: Basis for suit?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

The authorities looked into it and found that Microsoft was guilty of breaking the law. Microsoft wanted to avoid huge fines and all that, and made a proposal.


Oh and which law would that be? The EU fines have been out of emotional resentment towards Microsoft, not as the result of breaking law. You are aware that Netscape used to be the dominant browser, right? You are aware that there was a massive switch from Netscape to IE5, right? If you go back and take a closer look at the browser wars you'll find that IE became a dominate browser after Netscape became complacent. The browser wars did not start with IE6 as the EU seems to assume.

Firefox is proof of Microsoft's wrongdoings, as Mozilla explains:

How was Firefox able to gain a majority share in Germany? Was Microsoft not committing the same wrongdoings there? The whole issue is that the EU and Opera are upset over consumers not choosing the right browser.


Because clearly you think running a company is free.

How was Opera going to survive as a company if they didn't make money? There was no way, unless you are a Commie and think there is such a thing as a free lunch.

It's called low price / high volume. Opera's CEO should have lowered the price and built a market share. He made poor business decisions, not just keeping the price high but waiting too long to switch to an ad based revenue model. His plan to keep a banner ad displayed in the free version was probably the worst.


Opera could not stop charging until there was an alternative business model in place!


Wrong, search-based revenue models were around as early as 2000. Again that still wouldn't excuse charging $40 for a browser when the competition is free. If he charged $100 would you still defend him? Obviously there is a balance that needs to be found and he certainly didn't reach one. Reviews of Opera from over 10 years ago stated that the price was too high.

Make all the excuses you want but none can explain how Opera has done so poorly compared to Firefox.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-na-monthly-200901-201002

Opera ran and whined to the EU because they are losing. They filed a complaint in 2007 which is after the IE6 lock had been broken. Firefox had 28% share in Europe then:
http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2007/07/firefox-takes-28-market-share-in...

28% is enough to keep web publishers from writing IE only websites. It isn't the fault of Microsoft if consumers don't want to install Opera.

Reply Parent Score: 2