Opera: Take your time over Microsoft punishment

I've lost respect for Opera over this case (shame because their browser is pretty good).

Their argument is provably nonsense what with Firefox commanding such a large market share.

By Grunthos on 28 Sep 2009

No it isn't

The fact that most people 'chose' to use IE6 (and 7 to a lesser degree) while there were much, much better and free browser alternatives available, clearly shows Opera's argument isn't nonsense. It's been some time since Microsoft had the best browser product, and yet it still owns the largest marker share.

Honestly, you can agree or disagree with the action being taken against Microsoft, but it is outrageous to deny that Microsoft has a big market advantage over other browser manufacturers. How could it not? Most people simply click the blue e-icon and never look back.

By Woudenberg on 28 Sep 2009

Yes it is!

@Woudenberg
Grunthos has a good point. Opera can't even compete effectively against the other non MS browsers.
The whole case is a waste of time and taxpayers money. Firefox has demonstrated its possible to compete with IE.
And why is it that the EU is not taking Apple to task for bundling Safari with OSX? Or for that matter, Google for the way it uses its search momopoly to push its own browser on the Google search page. There's just no consistency.

By rjp2000 on 28 Sep 2009

I agree. I don't care how much market share OSX has. If you're going to punish Microsoft for bundling it's own browser then you should apply it to all. How can you say it's ok for one company to do it because they aren't as successful? it's ridiculous

By TimoGunt on 28 Sep 2009

EU interferance boffins

All the EU has done so far is push up the price if Win7 as microsoft will as normal recover their costs from the customers as all businesses do.
I have always been able to choose whatever browser I want only have to type in 'firefox' 'opera' or any other browser name in the search bar and hey presto you go to that browsers web site for download.
MS have never stopped anyone from doing it so it unfair that they are punished.

By curiousclive on 28 Sep 2009

Not quite so simple

Opera has no issues with Mozilla, it has an issue with Microsoft. And so have Mozilla, Apple and Google because, let's not forget that, they joined the charge.

I wrote about this on my blog:
http://www.polyplural.com/microsofts-monopoly/

By Woudenberg on 29 Sep 2009

"while there were much, much better and free browser alternatives available"

Isn't IE free then?

Despite having IE on all my PCs, I use it about 1% of the time, the rest of the time I use Firefox.

I hope the EU and the team at Opera won't be too shocked by this, but I do have a mind of my own y'know.

By Lacrobat on 29 Sep 2009

Its Very Simple

@Woudenberg
Opera has failed in its fight with the other non MS browsers. It only appears to be able to compete by complaining to the naive beaucrats at the EU.
PS I am not going to read your blog - the title tells me all I need to know on where you're coming from :-)

By rjp2000 on 29 Sep 2009

From the moment Opera thought it could charge for its browser, it was never a level playing field - Opera had immediately disadvantaged themselves.

I actually really hope that the EU tells them all to get stuffed and lets Microsoft carry on as normal. Why SHOULDN'T they continue to bundle their browser as part of their product? If I was to decide to write a calculator application, in what way could I conceivably request Microsoft removes theirs from Windows?

By halsteadk on 29 Sep 2009

@Woudenberg
"The fact that most people 'chose' to use IE6 (and 7 to a lesser degree) while there were much, much better and free browser alternatives available, clearly shows Opera's argument isn't nonsense"

No - what it actually shows is that most people aren't propeller heads and really couldn't give a stuff that AN-OTHER's browser is more standards compliant or x% faster.

Those of us who care about these things - me for one - are perfectly capable of making our own minds up. The rest of the world is quite happy to amble along and frankly I object to those sorts of propeller heads who wish to mandate their own view of the world on everyone else.

By AdrianB on 29 Sep 2009

I agree

"No - what it actually shows is that most people aren't propeller heads and really couldn't give a stuff that AN-OTHER's browser is more standards compliant or x% faster."

I completely agree with this statement. All these people that don't know / care to know better default to Microsofts browser, clearly, that gives the company an unfair advantage.

We, who read this site aren't the problem, we make up our own mind as you said, so here the market works fine. But we are a minority, the majority of the browser-users don't choose for a specific browser at all and allow Microsoft to choose for them. This might be a minor convenience for the user, but is at the same time clearly an anti-competitive practice, because it effectively removes these people from the pool of users that other browsers can compete for.

By Woudenberg on 29 Sep 2009

Would they?

@Woudenburg

Agreed, we are a minority group and need to remember that. But I don't honestly believe that most of the rest of the majority actually want to have to think about this. A browser is a browser, and they aren't interested in whether it complies with one of the many perma-draft web standards. Yes, they have a right to a choice, but they also have a right not to be faffed around and end up paying more because of the faffing around MS have to do.

By halsteadk on 29 Sep 2009

It's not just standards, though one of the results of Microsofts hold on the market is the slow adaption rate of new standards. Other browsers can also offer additional speed, security or usability, the latter factor, where Chrome does a good job, should appeal to those that currently don't choose a browser at all.

Personally, I'm convinced that more competition on the browser market will benefit the customer in the end, but if we just put the customer interest aside for a moment and look at this from a business perspective: It cannot be denied that Microsoft has an unfair advantage over the other browsermakers here.

And that's what bothers me most in this discussion: the hate towards Opera is completely injustified, because Microsoft clearly does have an unfair advantage, so if I were Opera I'd bring it to the attention of the EC as well.

By Woudenberg on 29 Sep 2009

It's not just standards, though one of the results of Microsofts hold on the market is the slow adaption rate of new standards. Other browsers can also offer additional speed, security or usability, the latter factor, where Chrome does a good job, should appeal to those that currently don't choose a browser at all.

Personally, I'm convinced that more competition on the browser market will benefit the customer in the end, but if we just put the customer interest aside for a moment and look at this from a business perspective: It cannot be denied that Microsoft has an unfair advantage over the other browsermakers here.

And that's what bothers me most in this discussion: the hate towards Opera is completely injustified, because Microsoft clearly does have an unfair advantage, so if I were Opera I'd bring it to the attention of the EC as well.

By Woudenberg on 29 Sep 2009

"look at this from a business perspective"
Hang on - what business?

Since the companies do not sell their browsers - what _business_? The browser "market" is in fact surely about advertising. We don't buy IE from Microsoft, we don't buy FF from Mozilla - what we do is give them a free platform on which to advertise. Therefore, rules about market monopolies are not applicable since there's NO market.

And as for hating Opera - I don't hate them at all. I simply have contempt for a software company that is putting all its efforts into innovating legal processes, not technical ones. Their comment "Take your time EU" is not about ensuring we get justice but about maximising damage to MS via the courts not the code.

(I've even got worried about Mozilla saying that their potential users are so thick they might not be able to cope with a ballot screen. Was that their Rafa Benitez moment? Is Ballmer really Fergie in disguise?)

By AdrianB on 29 Sep 2009

Nonsense, clearly there is money to be made on browsers, even if users don't pay you directly, so there is a market and competition.

Furthermore Opera is usually on the forefront of browser innovation. The legal innovation you are talking about is European Competition Law. Opera didn't create the law and also doesn't enforce it, that's the EC's job.

By Woudenberg on 29 Sep 2009

"Nonsense, clearly there is money to be made on browsers, even if users don't pay you directly"

Well where then?

By chapelgarth on 29 Sep 2009

So tell me please how much money Google makes by selling each copy of Chrome? It doesn't - what Chrome gives them is market presence in software that will stand them in good stead for their operating system. Google makes its money from adverts in the search business. No doubt other companies make their money from technical consultancy.
Very possibly there are good and proper laws about access to advertising, but they don't seem to be involved here.

By AdrianB on 29 Sep 2009

So the money from browsers is made by advertising, pushing web products, tech help or other methods. How does this change anything? Why should competition law only apply to products where the customers pay you in cash?

You have a product, if more people use this product you make money (indirectly or not), you'll have to compete with others to convince people to use your product. That's all there is to it.

By Woudenberg on 30 Sep 2009

What would be appropriate action then?

@Woudenberg,

It's pretty clear no one here is going to change your mind. I'm curious though what you think would be a suitable course of action for the EU to take. Consider that the aforementioned propeller-heads don't care what browser they use. At what point should a browser be installed? Which one should it be? How is that determination made? The problem I see is that you have this huge problem with the system, but no idea how to change it. Plenty of things in life could work better, the NHS, schools, whatever, but we all know there are no simple solutions and that's never going to change.

The way I see this is, if we assume all propeller users are 'off the table' so to speak, then it doesn't matter what browser they use, they won't be switching. Of the remainder, are these not by and large the same people who already go out and seek out a replacement browser anyway? Tell me if you think I have this wrong, because I don't think I do. I think anyone with a knowledge of which to choose would only go out and download their choice anyway.

As far as i'm concerned, the current system works best. Those who don't care get a browser that MS certify. It might not be very good but that doesn't matter, it's their choice. Those who do care make their choice and then everyone is happy. Everyone except Opera and the EU it seems, but I think it's telling that Opera are quick to dismiss these solutions MS are providing but have yet to suggest any of their own

By Smartguy1 on 30 Sep 2009

@Woudenberg
"And that's what bothers me most in this discussion: the hate towards Opera is completely injustified, because Microsoft clearly does have an unfair advantage..."
No I think you're missing the point. I don't think most people hate Opera (but perhaps you're an MS hater?), its just that the central tenant of the case i.e that bundling of IE with Windows kills competition is patently not the case, IE has lots of competition as its dwindling market share attests. The other point that often annoys people is the inconsistency. Why just pick on MS for bundling its browser with its OS when Apple do the same, and Google are trying to push Chrome on the back of their search dominance. And where does this unbundling stop, will MS next be taken to task for including Notepad with Windows? It’s all a great waste of time and money.

By rjp2000 on 30 Sep 2009

Nail on head

Agreed, rjp2000 has hit several nails squarely on the head. However, although IE's market share has dwindled, I think some of the others (notably Mozilla) are realising that IE8 has made up a lot of ground technically, and Chrome is a serious challenger thanks to its robust and lightweight nature. If Chrome had been out before Firefox 1, Chrome would have had most of Firefox's market share.

By halsteadk on 30 Sep 2009

Searches

Woudenburg argues that consumers will use IE by default. His argument is completely shot by the fact that Google rather than the default MS search engines are overwhelmingly the most popular. If a user can change search engine they can change their browser. Just remember if it was not for MS for all their faults, creating the PC market, IT would be far more expensive being spread over countless platforms

By chrisadams5 on 1 Oct 2009

My response

@Smartguy1; Thanks for your thoughfull reply. I agree that those who care already choose their own browser, but I don't agree that the 'propeller users' belong to Microsoft. Yes, they to can choose what browser they want to use, but they don't choose, they simply use whatever icon on the desktop is labeled 'internet', that is the problem. I'm not convinced these users don't choose because they don't care, I believe they don't choose because they don't know there there is something to choose. So any solution to this problem should make clear to people that they have a choice, and should ensure that installing any browser is as easy as installing Internet Explorer.
Furthermore, it's certainly not only Opera and the EC that care about this issue, as I stated previously both Mozilla and Google joined this case against Microsoft.
@rjp2000; I never claimed Microsoft killed all it's competition in this market, though at one point it did come pretty close. It does however have an unfair advantage over other manufacturers, considering that most browser-users default to Internet Explorer simply because it comes preinstalled. Competing for these users is, phrased positively, extremely hard. That Firefox does well with the other, smaller part of the browser-users is great, more power to them, but does not change the fact that most of its potential users are still unreachable.
A lot of people make the Apple parallel, but it just doesn't fly. The competition law Microsoft is supposedly breaking, states that a company shouldn't enter one market using a dominant position in another. In short: If you have a dominant market position, additional rules apply to make sure you don't abuse it. Mac isn't a dominant operating system, but Windows is. Regarding Google: it doesn't bundle Chrome with Google search, it advertises for it. Lastly, as far as I know Microsoft never crushed the 'spartan text editing market' by bundling notepad.
@halsteadk; And if Internet Explorer had never been bundled with Windows, Firefox might well have had an eighty percent market share.
@chrisadams5; I'm pretty sure Google was there before browsers came equiped with a 'default search engine'. So users are better educated when it comes to search engines, they know there is several to choose from, and when faced with a browser that doesn't pick their favourite search engine, a lot of users figure out how to change that.
And I don't share your optimism. I don't believe a monopoly owned by a private party is ever good for its customers.

By Woudenberg on 1 Oct 2009

My response to your response

I think we're going to end up agreeing to disagree here. The fundamental problem I see is that MS has to allow some sort of browser on the system. I think to strip out all browsers is not an option.

If we assume this much, and we assume a choice must be made, how do we allow that choice? A basic, propeller user, by their very definition, aren't very tech-savvy; I hope we can agree on that too. Much like a music lover is likely to factor in the sound-system in a car as part of their choice of motor, so tech-user will tweak their system with the browser of their choice.

However, those users are very much the minority. Most people don't care what stereo is in their car, any more than what browser is on their PC and what government is in power. If you give people a choice, for most people it will end up being of the eeny-meeny-miney-moe variety. Any selection will be arbitrary, surely not what Opera or anyone else wants, to be a random pick rather than on their own strengths.

Ultimately I just don't see whatever ends up happening having an impact. I think instead we'll end up with a fragmented user base, where most people just see a list of programs they've never heard of (and in fact, that raises the question of who should be on the list? lets not forget there are all sorts of niche browsers out there) and pick one at random to move on. Much as I dislike IE and avoid it wherever possible, I think one defined choice, with the easy potential to change if you're so inclined, is better than throwing a choice at the user they have likely have no concept of and them choosing a browser that perhaps isn't best suited to them.

This also raises another interesting point, that if a basic user has a problem, they tend to ask their basic user friends how to do something. If everyone is on different browsers, I can see the internet experience becoming more difficult to master rather than easier, as it should be.

By Smartguy1 on 1 Oct 2009