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 408996
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Basis for suit?
by PresentIt on Fri 12th Feb 2010 06:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Basis for suit?"
PresentIt
Member since:
2010-02-10

Oh and which law would that be?

European competition law.

The EU fines have been out of emotional resentment towards Microsoft, not as the result of breaking law.

No, this is just you being emotional and trying to make up some major conspiracy because of your ignorance.

The browser wars did not start with IE6 as the EU seems to assume.

The EU assumes no such thing. How about educating yourself before making silly statements like that?

How was Firefox able to gain a majority share in Germany? Was Microsoft not committing the same wrongdoings there?

Read the quote from Mozilla again. Thanks.

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.

It's called "making money". There was no other viable business model. Maybe not having to make money works in Commie-land. It does not work in the real world.

Wrong, search-based revenue models were around as early as 2000.

Not available to browsers like Opera.

Make all the excuses you want but none can explain how Opera has done so poorly compared to Firefox.

Poorly? Since Opera removed the ads, the user base has more than doubled every 2 years. That's pretty good for a company which has had to stand on its own, unlike, say, Firefox! Read Mozilla's statement again, and realize that Firefox was also pushed by Google's online advertising monpoly. The same thing Google is using to push Chrome today. Notice a pattern?

Opera ran and whined to the EU because they are losing.

Opera's user base on the desktop was groing quickly in 2007 (and still is), and they were and are the dominant mobile browser. They were also making money and growing fast in all areas. How was Opera "losing" exactly?

All Opera did was to report Microsoft's crimes to the authorities. You are the one whining here.

They filed a complaint in 2007 which is after the IE6 lock had been broken.

And yet Microsoft continued to violate the law by bullying OEMs, blocking open standards, etc.

It isn't the fault of Microsoft if consumers don't want to install Opera.

Considering that Opera's user base has only grown, consumers do want to install Opera.

But what you are also failing to address in your amazing ignorance is that Mozilla and Google joined the complaint as well. They wholeheartedly supported the case against Microsoft. But I guess you think they were losing and consumers didn't want to use their products too, eh? LOL.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Basis for suit?
by nt_jerkface on Fri 12th Feb 2010 22:56 in reply to "RE[6]: Basis for suit?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


European competition law.

Not a specific law regarding bundling then, just the arbitrary ruling of a judge.


It's called "making money". There was no other viable business model. Maybe not having to make money works in Commie-land. It does not work in the real world.


You still don't get it.

Instead of selling x number of copies at $40 he should have sold (n)x copies at $20. In this case n likely would have been more than 2. It's called adopting a high volume / low price strategy. Lower the price to increase sales and make up for the lower profit margin on volume. In the case of a browser you're much better off doing this to increase your install base.


Not available to browsers like Opera.

No there were search affiliate programs open to anyone. There were also a myriad of ways they could have accrued advertising revenue. They only later went with an ad-supported free version and did it in the worst possible method which was to add an additional banner ad to the browsing window. Just terrible.

Since Opera removed the ads, the user base has more than doubled every 2 years. That's pretty good for a company which has had to stand on its own, unlike, say, Firefox!

That just shows that they were employing a poor business strategy. Opera has been around since 1996. They've done a poor job on the desktop. Globally they have about 2%
http://gs.statcounter.com/


How was Opera "losing" exactly?

They have been losing and in 2007 they could see the competition was just going to get tougher.


All Opera did was to report Microsoft's crimes to the authorities. You are the one whining here.

Which crime would that be exactly? Including a browser with an OS? That isn't against the law. Having a monopoly isn't against the law either. As I pointed out Firefox had a majority share in Germany which shows that people have choice when it comes to a browser. It isn't as if Microsoft has acted differently in Germany. Opera and the EU are just upset over consumers not choosing correctly.


And yet Microsoft continued to violate the law by bullying OEMs, blocking open standards, etc.

Microsoft was bullying OEMs and blocking open standards in 2007? I don't think so, and the complaint was related to the browser.


Considering that Opera's user base has only grown, consumers do want to install Opera.

Their share has risen and fallen, in the last year it has lost:
http://gs.statcounter.com/


But what you are also failing to address in your amazing ignorance is that Mozilla and Google joined the complaint as well.

Amazing ignorance? They joined the complaint to make sure their interests were served. They didn't want a decision to favor Opera. Anyways it was still shameful on the parts of both.


But I guess you think they were losing and consumers didn't want to use their products too, eh? LOL.

That doesn't make any sense. The EU acted out of resentment towards Microsoft and in favor of a European company. It was never in the interest of consumers. Consumers are free to install and download any browser.

Very few software markets are as competitive as the browser sphere. All the products are free and have billion dollar companies constantly trying to improve their offerings.

Running to the EU is a hail-mary attempt to gain share in the face of tough competitors. There was a time when their only competition was IE6 and they blew their opportunity. Now they not only have to compete with MS and Firefox but also Google and Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Basis for suit?
by PresentIt on Sat 13th Feb 2010 11:21 in reply to "RE[7]: Basis for suit?"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Not a specific law regarding bundling then, just the arbitrary ruling of a judge.

Bundling is not illegal in itself. It becomes illegal if it's used by a dominant player in the market to prevent competition. And there's nothing arbitrary about competition law. The Microsoft case was a clear example of anti-competitive practices (= illegal).

Instead of selling x number of copies at $40 he should have sold (n)x copies at $20.

The moving the goalpost fallacy. Your original argument was how they were greedy or something because they didn't drop their business model, go free, and go out of business.

No there were search affiliate programs open to anyone.

Again, there was no affiliate program available to companies like Opera.

There were also a myriad of ways they could have accrued advertising revenue. They only later went with an ad-supported free version and did it in the worst possible method which was to add an additional banner ad to the browsing window. Just terrible.

Really! And what should they have done, exactly?

That just shows that they were employing a poor business strategy. Opera has been around since 1996.

I have already explained that they didn't have a choice until Google were willing to pay them for searches. And Opera didn't become free without ads until late 2005, which is just four years ago. All those years before that are irrelevant because they didn't aim for the mass-market. They didn't aim for volume.

They only started aiming for volume after 2005, and that has been a success. The desktop version has shown a yearly revenue growth of 50-100% for a long time.

They have been losing and in 2007 they could see the competition was just going to get tougher.

You didn't answer the question. How were they "losing"? They were rapidly increasing their user base, their desktop revenue went up by 50-100% yearly, and so on. Sounds like a pretty successful business to me!

Which crime would that be exactly? Including a browser with an OS? That isn't against the law. Having a monopoly isn't against the law either.

Maybe you should read up on the hundreds of articles on the matter?

No, bundling a browser with an OS is not illegal, and neither is having a monopoly. But using your monopoly and bundling to prevent competition is.

Microsoft was bullying OEMs and blocking open standards in 2007?

Yes indeed. They killed ECMAScript 4, and were caught undermining the CSS Working Group in W3C.

"Considering that Opera's user base has only grown, consumers do want to install Opera.

Their share has risen and fallen, in the last year it has lost:
"
Pay attention instead of trying to change the subject. I pointed out the fact that Opera's user base has grown, and quickly.

And these stats sites are nonsense anyway. They claimed that Chrome had a higher market share than Opera when Opera reported 30 million users and Chrome reported just 10 million users. How on earth is that possible?

Amazing ignorance? They joined the complaint to make sure their interests were served.

If Opera does something: BAD!

If Mozilla and Google do the same thing: GOOD!

They didn't want a decision to favor Opera.

Your ignorance is astounding. Opera had no power in the EU case. All they did was to report Microsoft's crimes, and that was it.

That doesn't make any sense. The EU acted out of resentment towards Microsoft and in favor of a European company.

Typical xenophobic, racist nonsense.

Opera is based in Norway, which is NOT part of the EU. And the EC takes action against far more EU companies than it does foreign companies.

Your insane conspiracy theory just shows how bigoted you are.

And you failed to address the fact that Google has filed antitrust complaints against Microsoft, and vice versa. Facts suck when you are ignorant, eh?

Running to the EU is a hail-mary attempt to gain share in the face of tough competitors. There was a time when their only competition was IE6 and they blew their opportunity. Now they not only have to compete with MS and Firefox but also Google and Apple.

Your ignorance, bigotry and hypocrisy is truly astounding. You keep ignoring the fact that Microsoft and Google have filed antitrust complaints against each other in the EU (and US).

And Opera was doing very well indeed when the complaint was filed. They were profitable, the growth was amazing, and they were pulling in major contracts all over the place.

But Microsoft kept breaking the law, and were busted for that.

Reply Parent Score: 1