Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Opera alerts EU to hidden Windows browser-ballot screen


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 PurplePeopleEater

PurplePeopleEater

    I'm an Android fanboy sue me

  • Member
  • 4,090 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 12:15 AM

Honestly, it doesn't appear that you understand what has fully been going on. Opera lodged a complaint with the EU. After that point, the ball is in the EU's court. The complaint was VERY similar to the one made in 1998/1999 when the US investigated and brought charges against anti-competitive practices for MS's tying of IE to Windows. Opera didn't exactly sue MS. It was the EU who is bringing charges against MS. Opera doesn't stand to gain any money from it.

And I don't suppose you remember, but Mozilla actually stood behind Opera's stance and complaint against MS to the EU.

No company should have to produce an OS in order to compete in another market. It's complete bullshit and it does violate anti-competitive laws. After 10 years after the US vs MS lawsuit, I still feel that the US dropped the ball on the ruling in order to save MS's ass, because the original ruling would have literally split MS up.

Ok, so firefox jumped on the anti tying suit, but what would happen if MS never had it's own browser? Would it be considered tying if Netscape was always included with Windows? After netscape falls it would either be Firefox or Safari preinstalled.

Also since IE is part of the OS (which I think was the problem with tying) it should've been treated as just using Windows Explorer to browser the internet. That seems like a viable solution, MS puts a shortcut on the desktop and has windows explorer open a page. These arguements are pulling us backwards <_<

This is completely laughable. Tying exists to benefit the company doing the tying. It's and anti-competitive practice. MS ties IE to Windows so that PC manufacturers have no incentive to pay other companies the rights to use their browser.

And I don't know how long you've been involved with computers, but I guess you don't seem to recall that Mac users, back in the 90s and up to 2002 didn't have an Apple provided browser. You know what Apple did? They licensed a browser, typically Netscape and IE, and provided them on their computers. My friend in 1995 got a brand new Mac, and on it was Netscape and IE.


I do remember seeing OSX with IE preinstalled, and I think it wasn't until 10.4 was released that Safari was included with the OS.

Nobody is arguing that a PC manufacture can't provide a browser on their PCs, but they should have a choice on who and what to use. I would have no problem if MS provided IE with retail copies of Windows either.


I disagree, MS may include IE with windows, yet you still see a few OEMs including other browsers in the OS. Therefore, the OEM does have a choice. And if they choose to leave IE as the primary browser it could be because it's the most popular and most familiar browser.

Edited by PurplePeopleEater, 07 April 2010 - 12:20 AM.


#22 The Flashing Fish

The Flashing Fish

    om nom nom nom

  • Member
  • 684 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 02:20 AM



Honestly, it doesn't appear that you understand what has fully been going on. Opera lodged a complaint with the EU. After that point, the ball is in the EU's court. The complaint was VERY similar to the one made in 1998/1999 when the US investigated and brought charges against anti-competitive practices for MS's tying of IE to Windows. Opera didn't exactly sue MS. It was the EU who is bringing charges against MS. Opera doesn't stand to gain any money from it.

And I don't suppose you remember, but Mozilla actually stood behind Opera's stance and complaint against MS to the EU.

No company should have to produce an OS in order to compete in another market. It's complete bullshit and it does violate anti-competitive laws. After 10 years after the US vs MS lawsuit, I still feel that the US dropped the ball on the ruling in order to save MS's ass, because the original ruling would have literally split MS up.

Ok, so firefox jumped on the anti tying suit, but what would happen if MS never had it's own browser? Would it be considered tying if Netscape was always included with Windows? After netscape falls it would either be Firefox or Safari preinstalled.


Tying is often illegal when one company does it with 2 of their products. It's not always illegal, but only when the two products aren't naturally related. So Netscape being included with Windows would have been fine.

Also since IE is part of the OS (which I think was the problem with tying) it should've been treated as just using Windows Explorer to browser the internet. That seems like a viable solution, MS puts a shortcut on the desktop and has windows explorer open a page. These arguements are pulling us backwards <_<


First of all, IE hasn't been a part of Explorer since XP. Second of all, IE being a part of Explorer was a large part of what prompted the lawsuit against MS. It was after the lawsuit, that MS promised separate IE from Explorer. However, by that time, XP was well on its development cycle, and we had to wait until Vista.

Also, by making IE unnecessarily a part of Explorer, it made the case against MS MUCH stronger.


This is completely laughable. Tying exists to benefit the company doing the tying. It's and anti-competitive practice. MS ties IE to Windows so that PC manufacturers have no incentive to pay other companies the rights to use their browser.

And I don't know how long you've been involved with computers, but I guess you don't seem to recall that Mac users, back in the 90s and up to 2002 didn't have an Apple provided browser. You know what Apple did? They licensed a browser, typically Netscape and IE, and provided them on their computers. My friend in 1995 got a brand new Mac, and on it was Netscape and IE.


I do remember seeing OSX with IE preinstalled, and I think it wasn't until 10.4 was released that Safari was included with the OS.


It was included in OS X in 10.3.

And my point was that MS providing IE in Windows was really unnecessary and doesn't justify their actions.


Nobody is arguing that a PC manufacture can't provide a browser on their PCs, but they should have a choice on who and what to use. I would have no problem if MS provided IE with retail copies of Windows either.


I disagree, MS may include IE with windows, yet you still see a few OEMs including other browsers in the OS. Therefore, the OEM does have a choice. And if they choose to leave IE as the primary browser it could be because it's the most popular and most familiar browser.


But the OEMs don't have a choice on whether to include IE or not. There are quite a few reasons why they would not want IE on their machine. For one thing, it's a huge security threat. For their customer's "safety" they may not want IE on the machine they sell. It could hurt income if a company chose to pay an OEM to have their browser pre-installed on a machine. By having the competition already on the machine, other companies may not see it as a viable marketing scheme.

#23 PurplePeopleEater

PurplePeopleEater

    I'm an Android fanboy sue me

  • Member
  • 4,090 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 03:13 AM

The quotes got a little out of hand I'm getting rid of them...

So:

Part 1:

So basically if Windows didn't need IE then it would be ok for MS to include it?

2:
If if made MS stronger why would they remove it?

3:
(Settled)

4:
Well MS offers the choice to remove preinstalled features, so the OEM could disable IE via that menu could they not?
And this seems like a gateway to eveyone picking apart windows. I could see Apple sueing MS for tying Windows Media Player in windows a few years later. :ph34r:

#24 coldemone

coldemone

    Sleeping Winmatrixian

  • Member
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 03:45 AM

Hey, Let's think about another perspective.

Haiti is devastated by earthquakes. This Opera scheme ballot screen has negligible effect on the Haiti situation. EU and Opera should stop arrguing to put the ballot screen and start sending charity to Haiti.

Now Let's think about an Apple fanboy perspective

MS have alot of money, and they're not even gonna share a bit of market share on people? Surely this ballot screen is a great idea, although I'm using Apple. And we are not affected by stupid ballot screen.

#25 The Flashing Fish

The Flashing Fish

    om nom nom nom

  • Member
  • 684 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:09 AM

Part 1:

So basically if Windows didn't need IE then it would be ok for MS to include it?


Huh? No. You don't seem to understand the concept of tying. Whether MS makes IE a part of the core in Windows or not, it's still tying. Windows "dependency" on IE isn't really relevant. It can provide a stronger case against MS if they do make it unnecessarily a part of Windows. The issue is with the inclusion of IE with the OS. The compromise to removing IE from Windows was a ballot screen.

2:
If if made MS stronger why would they remove it?


I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Are you saying that if the inclusion of IE with Windows makes them stronger, then why remove it? That's an easy answer to the question then. To keep from getting brought to court.

4:
Well MS offers the choice to remove preinstalled features, so the OEM could disable IE via that menu could they not?
And this seems like a gateway to eveyone picking apart windows. I could see Apple sueing MS for tying Windows Media Player in windows a few years later. :ph34r:


Remember, all this happened before Windows 7. With Windows 7, MS knew what was coming down the pipeline by the EU, so they made IE "uninstallable." With Vista and before, there really wasn't a way to easily remove IE from Windows. It was easier in Vista, but damn near impossible in older versions (although there was a way to remove it from Windows 98, but it was very complicated).

Also, MS has already been brought to court by the EU for the inclusion of WMP. In European versions of Windows, it is WMP-less (as well as Korea too, IIRC).

You have to realize that the investigation took place for about 8 years IIRC (maybe it was 5). So even if MS corrected the "problem" in the future, it doesn't absolve them of previous offenses. I think last year, Intel was brought to court for anti-competitive practices (I think it was basically them giving discounts to manufacturers who don't use AMD chips). In 2009, Intel no longer did this, but they were doing it in 2005. They were punished for something they did 4 years ago. You can think of it like criminal law. Yeah, you may have killed someone 5 years ago, but you are no longer killing people, you're still going to get punished for that crime.

#26 InlineSkate

InlineSkate

    WinMatrix Addict

  • Member
  • 3,182 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:14 AM

Where is the lawsuit against Apple for iPod iTunes tying?

I think anyone can agree they are using their iPod marketshare dominance to unfairly push their media player.



#27 Borix

Borix

    Active WinMatrixian

  • Member
  • 823 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 12:35 PM

Where is the lawsuit against Apple for iPod iTunes tying?

I think anyone can agree they are using their iPod marketshare dominance to unfairly push their media player.


Check if apple broke the law then make a formal protest (like Opera did). Dont whine in this forum, take action! (I will support you)

Edited by Borix, 07 April 2010 - 12:53 PM.


#28 Preath

Preath

    Elite WinMatrixian.

  • Member
  • 2,352 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 12:38 PM

Where is the lawsuit against Apple for iPod iTunes tying?

I think anyone can agree they are using their iPod marketshare dominance to unfairly push their media player.


Where is the lawsuit against Safari? =(




#29 Borix

Borix

    Active WinMatrixian

  • Member
  • 823 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 12:41 PM


Where is the lawsuit against Apple for iPod iTunes tying?

I think anyone can agree they are using their iPod marketshare dominance to unfairly push their media player.


Where is the lawsuit against Safari? =(


Maybe you should read up on the facts first and then post? But if you think it can be a success why not sue Apple yourself?

Edited by Borix, 07 April 2010 - 12:52 PM.


#30 PurplePeopleEater

PurplePeopleEater

    I'm an Android fanboy sue me

  • Member
  • 4,090 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 01:28 PM

@FF

If there a reason why just having IE removable isn't good enough?

What is MS drops IE entirly and decises to have Firefox (for example) bundled with windows from now on, is there something illegal about that?

#31 PurplePeopleEater

PurplePeopleEater

    I'm an Android fanboy sue me

  • Member
  • 4,090 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 01:28 PM

@FF

If there a reason why just having IE removable isn't good enough?

What is MS drops IE entirly and decises to have Firefox (for example) bundled with windows from now on, is there something illegal about that?

#32 Preath

Preath

    Elite WinMatrixian.

  • Member
  • 2,352 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 03:43 PM



Where is the lawsuit against Apple for iPod iTunes tying?

I think anyone can agree they are using their iPod marketshare dominance to unfairly push their media player.


Where is the lawsuit against Safari? =(


Maybe you should read up on the facts first and then post? But if you think it can be a success why not sue Apple yourself?


No, i asked you :P


Why should this forum just have statements and such.. no questions?



#33 The Flashing Fish

The Flashing Fish

    om nom nom nom

  • Member
  • 684 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 03:47 PM

[quote name='PurplePeopleEater' date='07 April 2010 - 09:28 AM' timestamp='1270646904' post='269156']
@FF

If there a reason why just having IE removable isn't good enough?[/quote]

It being removed would fix the issue. I don't know all the details of it's removable, whether it's possible to do an install image with IE removed or not. And again, the ballot screen is a compromise to allowing MS to continue to ship IE with Windows.

What is MS drops IE entirly and decises to have Firefox (for example) bundled with windows from now on, is there something illegal about that?
[/quote]

To requote what I had said earlier:

[quote]Tying is often illegal when one company does it with 2 of their products. It's not always illegal, but only when the two products aren't naturally related. So Netscape being included with Windows would have been fine.[/quote]

#34 InlineSkate

InlineSkate

    WinMatrix Addict

  • Member
  • 3,182 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:05 PM

[quote name='The Flashing Fish' date='07 April 2010 - 11:47 AM' timestamp='1270655222' post='269162']
[quote name='PurplePeopleEater' date='07 April 2010 - 09:28 AM' timestamp='1270646904' post='269156']
@FF

If there a reason why just having IE removable isn't good enough?[/quote]

It being removed would fix the issue. I don't know all the details of it's removable, whether it's possible to do an install image with IE removed or not. And again, the ballot screen is a compromise to allowing MS to continue to ship IE with Windows.

What is MS drops IE entirly and decises to have Firefox (for example) bundled with windows from now on, is there something illegal about that?
[/quote]

To requote what I had said earlier:

[quote]Tying is often illegal when one company does it with 2 of their products. It's not always illegal, but only when the two products aren't naturally related. So Netscape being included with Windows would have been fine.[/quote]
[/quote]

Why should MS have to drop out completely? As you said before why do you care? Do you profit from Opera or any of the other browsers?

The fact of the matter is that this is a rare occurence requiring someone to set IE as the default browser but not go through the configuration screen.

Microsoft made huge strides towards standards compliance before this lawsuit and is continuing to do so.

They have continued to make huge strides in IE 9 even though they may not be the first ones to have the feature by time the other browsers released it they laid out the groundwork for it.

All i'm saying is that this would of been justified before IE6 or 7 were released but it isn't anymore and the issue is fading into irrelevance.

Sorry Opera is too lazy to pay for as much as a banner ad to spread the work around.

Edited by InlineSkate, 07 April 2010 - 04:07 PM.


#35 The Flashing Fish

The Flashing Fish

    om nom nom nom

  • Member
  • 684 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 07:37 PM

Why should MS have to drop out completely? As you said before why do you care? Do you profit from Opera or any of the other browsers?


They don't have to drop out. It was actually MS who wanted to remove IE from Windows, much like they did with WMP in the European versions of IE. The compromise was the ballot screen.

And yes, I do care about IE's dominance, and we all have a vested interest in other people using it. Why? Because it does assist in the spread of malware, as it's one of the most common way of being infected. I also don't want to see another company drop out of the browser market, as it just reduces choice for myself. Sometimes, I don't think people actually realize what Opera has contributed to browsers.

The fact of the matter is that this is a rare occurence requiring someone to set IE as the default browser but not go through the configuration screen.


I haven't even given my opinion regarding Opera filing a complaint against the ballot screen.

Microsoft made huge strides towards standards compliance before this lawsuit and is continuing to do so.


And? The lawsuit has nothing to do with standards compliance.

All i'm saying is that this would of been justified before IE6 or 7 were released but it isn't anymore and the issue is fading into irrelevance.


This has nothing to do with who has the best browser. It's about having a fair market for it, where the companies are on relatively equal ground. I doubt that you can sit here and tell me that MS did not have an advantage against other companies by tying IE to Windows. And this advantage was deemed unfair. No company should have to create an OS in order to have their browser compete on equal footing. Nobody is trying squash IE or MS, and nobody said that MS tied IE to Windows with a malicious intent. Nobody is trying to stop anyone from using IE.

Sorry Opera is too lazy to pay for as much as a banner ad to spread the work around.


Mozilla, which does have the funds for banners, still can't really compete with IE. Yes, they have been making ground, but they're still in the minority. IE has well over twice the marketshare as Firefox (depending on what statistics you use). You'll agree with me that Firefox does do marketing of its browser, and that Firefox is, for the most part, superior to IE. So why isn't it closer to IE? It's a better browser than IE, it's on par with IE as far as speed goes, it's cross-platform, it's free, and it's completely customizable. So why is it so far behind, in spite of their advertising efforts? Not only that, how much advertising does MS do for IE? What? A few banners on some MS sites? Face it. MS has used Windows to gain marketshare for IE.

#36 Borix

Borix

    Active WinMatrixian

  • Member
  • 823 posts

Posted 08 April 2010 - 10:55 AM




Where is the lawsuit against Apple for iPod iTunes tying?

I think anyone can agree they are using their iPod marketshare dominance to unfairly push their media player.


Where is the lawsuit against Safari? =(


Maybe you should read up on the facts first and then post? But if you think it can be a success why not sue Apple yourself?


No, i asked you :P


Why should this forum just have statements and such.. no questions?


@Preath
The problem with MS and IE was that MS used their dominant market position in OS to get IE's market share. In the EU this was deemed a violation of competition law.

So in order for a successful "lawsuit" you need.
1 dominant market position
2 violation of an existing law

(1+2 = abuse of dominant market position)

Ask yourself if Safari falls in this category and you know the answer.

Edited by Borix, 08 April 2010 - 10:57 AM.


#37 Preath

Preath

    Elite WinMatrixian.

  • Member
  • 2,352 posts

Posted 08 April 2010 - 12:26 PM





Where is the lawsuit against Apple for iPod iTunes tying?

I think anyone can agree they are using their iPod marketshare dominance to unfairly push their media player.


Where is the lawsuit against Safari? =(


Maybe you should read up on the facts first and then post? But if you think it can be a success why not sue Apple yourself?


No, i asked you :P


Why should this forum just have statements and such.. no questions?


@Preath
The problem with MS and IE was that MS used their dominant market position in OS to get IE's market share. In the EU this was deemed a violation of competition law.

So in order for a successful "lawsuit" you need.
1 dominant market position
2 violation of an existing law

(1+2 = abuse of dominant market position)

Ask yourself if Safari falls in this category and you know the answer.

hmm, ok. But everyone is talking about it as if it was wrong to include the browser in their OS. So if it is wrong then Apple would have to be forced to do the same thing as MS. But in closer description about the situation makes it clearer that MS granted the IE to gain marketshare and so on.. while Apple didnt? Hm, yeah well i have read and heard about IE so much through all my Windows usage and no Safari.  :P

Am i right? Im unsure about what i said but i thought it sound good xD



#38 Laguna

Laguna

    Active WinMatrixian

  • Member
  • 830 posts

Posted 08 April 2010 - 08:01 PM

What a shame on opera. I'll never use again any piece of soft from them. Childish squealers


This type of answers are my laugh of the day.

"Oh Microsoft removed Opera from the browser bollot. I'll never use Windows again".
"Oh Opera changed it's name to Jazz. I'll never use their software again".

GOSH! :lol:

#39 Afzal

Afzal

    Super WinMatrixian

  • Member
  • 1,668 posts

Posted 08 April 2010 - 08:52 PM





Where is the lawsuit against Apple for iPod iTunes tying?

I think anyone can agree they are using their iPod marketshare dominance to unfairly push their media player.


Where is the lawsuit against Safari? =(


Maybe you should read up on the facts first and then post? But if you think it can be a success why not sue Apple yourself?


No, i asked you :P


Why should this forum just have statements and such.. no questions?


@Preath
The problem with MS and IE was that MS used their dominant market position in OS to get IE's market share. In the EU this was deemed a violation of competition law.

So in order for a successful "lawsuit" you need.
1 dominant market position
2 violation of an existing law

(1+2 = abuse of dominant market position)

Ask yourself if Safari falls in this category and you know the answer.


Can still sue Apple for tying iTunes with iPod :D

iPod= Dominant market position

Also, Appstore doesn't have ANY other browser than Safari ... that's also violation of competition law IMO

#40 InlineSkate

InlineSkate

    WinMatrix Addict

  • Member
  • 3,182 posts

Posted 08 April 2010 - 09:11 PM





Where is the lawsuit against Apple for iPod iTunes tying?

I think anyone can agree they are using their iPod marketshare dominance to unfairly push their media player.


Where is the lawsuit against Safari? =(


Maybe you should read up on the facts first and then post? But if you think it can be a success why not sue Apple yourself?


No, i asked you Posted Image


Why should this forum just have statements and such.. no questions?


@Preath
The problem with MS and IE was that MS used their dominant market position in OS to get IE's market share. In the EU this was deemed a violation of competition law.

So in order for a successful "lawsuit" you need.
1 dominant market position
2 violation of an existing law

(1+2 = abuse of dominant market position)

Ask yourself if Safari falls in this category and you know the answer.


1. Dominant market position in iTunes
2. Bundling of quicktime and safari

Want to comment?

Register or Sign In to go completely ad-free!