Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Opera Tells EU That Microsoft's IE Hurts the Web

Posted by Zonk on Fri Dec 14, 2007 02:25 PM
from the ow-right-in-my-infrastructure dept.
kastababy writes "In yet another instance of up-and-coming browser developers fighting back against the Microsoft behemoth, the makers of Opera have filed a complaint with the European Union against Microsoft. In their complaint, they allege that IE's 77% market share abuses its dominant position by tying IE to Windows and its refusal to accept Web standards, causing significant interoperability issues. The complaint also requests that the EU's Antitrust Division force Microsoft to separate IE from Windows and accept several different standards, thereby resolving major interoperability issues and providing consumers more choice in the browser market." Update: 12/14 19:47 GMT by Z : We also discussed this yesterday.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Your Rights Online: Opera Files EU Complaint Against Microsoft 455 comments
A number of readers have sent word about Opera Software ASA's antitrust complaint against Microsoft filed with the EU. Here is Opera's press release on the filing. The company wants the EU to "obligate Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows and/or carry alternative browsers pre-installed on the desktop" and to "require Microsoft to follow fundamental and open Web standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities." The latter request makes this a case to watch. Will the Commissioner take the Acid2 test using IE7?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Dupe? (Score:4, Informative)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Friday December 14 2007, @02:28PM (#21700912) Homepage
    Didn't we see this yesterday here [slashdot.org]???

    This is just sad.
  • by dotpavan (829804) on Friday December 14 2007, @02:28PM (#21700924) Homepage
    EU seems to show signs of hard of hearing [slashdot.org] or is Zonk having hard of seeing?
  • by Recovering Hater (833107) on Friday December 14 2007, @02:28PM (#21700926)
    ...Fire burns and water is wet.
  • about time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pkadd (1203286) on Friday December 14 2007, @02:31PM (#21700960) Homepage
    Microsoft is the one company that comes up with new standards, most of them poor. However, they are also the ones who are the worst at following well established standards, as well as adapting to new commonly accepted ones. For example, when do you think IE will support SVG without any 3rd party plugins?
    • Re:about time (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Friday December 14 2007, @02:41PM (#21701118)

      SVG is almost on the bottom of my wish list. How 'bout meeting the CSS 2.1 spec without having to implement any hacks? I'd be plenty happy with just that!

      Question [slashdot.org]

      Answer [slashdot.org]

      • Re:about time (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dracos (107777) on Friday December 14 2007, @05:45PM (#21703530)

        CSS2.1? How about they start with something simpler to fully implement, like

        • HTML 3.2
        • DOM Level 0
        • HTML 4
        • DOM Level 1
        • CSS 1
        • DOM Level 2
        • HTML 4.01
        • XHTML 1.0
        • CSS 2
        • DOM Level 3

        If there's anything I forgot, it belongs on that list. IE has never fully supported anything.

    • For example, when do you think IE will support SVG without any 3rd party plugins?

      What do you think is taking 3D Realms so long to release Duke 4ever? They really NEED MS to support SVG as the game just won't play well without it.
    • Re:about time (Score:4, Insightful)

      by diskis (221264) on Friday December 14 2007, @02:53PM (#21701298)
      Oh, standards indeed. Would you like me to inform you on how incompatible microsoft is with microsoft?
      Let's limit us to address books for example.

      Outlook express 4 and 5 not compatible:
      http://support.microsoft.com/kb/244459 [microsoft.com]

      MS outlook to MS spam software, not compatible:
      http://support.microsoft.com/kb/179962 [microsoft.com]

      Outlook E supports folders in address book, but not exporting folders:
      http://support.microsoft.com/kb/241875 [microsoft.com]

      That was only from the first result page using keywords address book import error... If they can't standardize on a way to store contact information, can you even claim that microsoft makes *standards*? There is nothing standardized in that company. Show me a single nontrivial webpage with CSS that looks the same in IE 5,6 and 7 WITHOUT any nonstandard hacks. Even when following Microsofts own guidelines, or software that is not possible.
      • Re:about time (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CastrTroy (595695) on Friday December 14 2007, @03:02PM (#21701424) Homepage
        And MS has decided to go with the MS Word HTML rendering engine for Outlook 2007. What a terrible piece of crap that is. Just when we thought they were making some headway with IE7, they go and pull this stunt. I'm not the biggest fan of HTML email, but making a move like this is just terrible.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Actually, IE7 is a step backwards. I work in software support for a large computer manufacturer. You would not believe the amount of calls we get from people who downgraded from IE6 to IE7 and IE7 suddenly stops working. Granted it has the reset button which is a step forward, but sometimes that too fails. No amounts of registry edits, or system restore gets it working. It stops. We install Firefox and the customer is happy.

          Now that I think of it, our team should really be getting some ffox swag. A t-shirt
    • by dotancohen (1015143) on Friday December 14 2007, @04:14PM (#21702396) Homepage
      Fuck SVG. I'd like to see IE support HTML.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 14 2007, @02:31PM (#21700974)
    I think it would be great if IE at least tried to follow web standards, but forcing them to adopt them is hard to enforce, as no current browser (that I'm aware of) follows the standards 100%.

    But in IE's case, it seems almost to be a complete disregard for the standards.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      They could at least be in the same ballpark as other browsers...
      And should definitely be required to fix bugs (bugs defined where behaviour differs from the published standard) for free and within a reasonable time frame.
      Perhaps make them implement any standard feature which is implemented by at least 2 other browsers.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          That is the bug for inline-block support.

          Yes. And it's marked as fixed. Firefox 3 will finally have this. You can check out the beta if you want.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 14 2007, @02:37PM (#21701058)
    would make it kind of irritating to get any browser. You can't really tell them they have to provide a browser written by a competitor, so how would people go to websites to download the browser they want?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      You can't really tell them they have to provide a browser written by a competitor, so how would people go to websites to download the browser they want?

      That's where the OEM comes in. Decouple IE from Windows, and the OEM is free to install IE, Firefox, Opera, whatever.

      • Sure, and the beige box builders get a browser how then?

        I, personally, have no qualms with Microsoft shipping IE with Windows. It is their product, after all. BUT they should give OEMs the option to strip it out and replace it with Firefox/Opera/Safari/K-Meleon if they so desire. Which, really, is what this is all about.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          "ftp ftp.mozilla.org". That's how I always download Firefox on my Windows machines. That way I never have to run IE.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            If you run WoW, you've run IE. If you've ever installed any third party programs, you've likely run IE.
            • Or Mac OS. Safari is one thing, but consider webkit. Things like help wouldn't work if you removed it. I don't see opera insisting that they can be shipped on iPhones or Macs. Many websites do not work with safari. Either is strict about standards or they have a buggy browser as well. Similarly, most linux distros and even some BSD systems ship with browsers. Most people consider it part of the OS these days. If it doesn't "do" the Internet, it's not a computer. Will Opera complain that Dells shipping with ubuntu must include Opera? How about freedos?

              What about Opera's dominance on the Nintendo Wii?
  • Really, it all starts with getting rid of the damned thing in the first place--End 6! [end6.org]
    • It's not so much that we care as that they're saying what's on everybody's mind. Suddenoutbreakofcommonsense.
    • There are more Internet users in Europe than in the USA.
      That is why.... Simple isn't it.

      The EU ( not all European Counties are members, Norway, Switzerland, Serbia etc) has a bigger population that the US + Canada.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Opera's chief mission in life seems to be making it slightly more complicated to write HTML, CSS, and JavaScript for cross-browser performance.

      s/Opera/Internet Explorer/ and I'll agree with you.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Opera's chief mission is mobile platforms. There's nothing even in the ballpark on Symbian or Windows Mobile.
    • Re:Opera (Score:5, Informative)

      by nick.ian.k (987094) on Friday December 14 2007, @02:46PM (#21701184)
      Are you using an insanely old version of Opera, or are you of the delusional "IE dictates the standards, screw everything else" crowd? I ask because I can't see any other reasons why you'd suggest that it makes cross-browser testing painful. The last few versions of Opera have been wonderful in terms of adhering to W3C standards. I'm not an Opera fan by a longshot -I find the name annoying, I have a fairly severe loathing for people who tout it as the second coming, and it doesn't have Firebug- but testing in it is part of my QA cycle, and generally speaking, if markup validates, things tend to render as expected in Opera.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I am against adding hacks to my web site to make my site work with IE6 or 7 or any browser for that matter. I strongly feel that if you follow well established web standards your site will work on any browser.

          Well once you're in the real world and your job depends on the site you're building working in IE you'll change your tune.. or find other employment. If it doesn't look right in IE, you can't ignore it, like it or not.
    • That's okay, I've installed Opera on two additional computers and a mobile device to make up for it. I'm also going to give my brother in law some Wii points so he can get Opera for his console.
      • Congratulations, you win the world award for spite; not only are you going to spite someone you've never met, you're going to spend money to spite them too! Fantastic. You should get a trophy.

        Also; OT, but "spite" is definitely one of those words which sounds weird when you say it loads of times.
        • No applause necessary for my masterful display of spite! :D

          In all seriousness I already AM an Opera user. Deploying it to my two new workstations and new BlackBerry 8830 would have been part of my standard "end user kit" anyway.

          The Wii browser, well, my Bro-In-Law wants it and Xmas is coming up so why the heck not?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      If there is a finer mobile browser on the market I have yet to experience it. Additionally, can you name another browser with supported releases that run on any web enabled device from game consoles to personal computers?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I think it's more a case of Opera being pissed that it's not funded with Google money like Mozilla Firefox is.

      Wait, so Opera is pissed at Google and Firefox, so their solution is to sue Microsoft? Oh, yeah, and who said Opera doesn't take money from Google?

      If "developers" are going to "fight", how about developing something the market cares about instead, eh?

      Maybe they'll appeal to the market once the market is actually choosing the best browser instead of having IE forced on it?

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              You're just pissed that few people care which browser they use.

              No, I'm pissed that because of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, web developers have to spend 5x more time and effort than they should because they can't code to the W3C standards for HTML and CSS. I'm pissed that because of this, many lazy web developers have chosen to only support the one major browser that doesn't conform to standards, which means I can't necessarily use the browser I want.

              I'm pissed because Microsoft is purposefull

    • Re:Waaambulance (Score:4, Interesting)

      by lwsimon (724555) <lyndsy@lyndsysimon.com> on Friday December 14 2007, @02:49PM (#21701242) Homepage Journal
      Wrong. MSIE has always been a driving force behind and an early adopter of web standards - they just don't seem to be able to finish, and never go back and fix their old stuff. IE isn't a money-maker for MS, so they dont' throw money at it. IMHO, they should open the code and let the community have at it, with them for oversight. MSIE is a very visible part of Windows, and leveraging the community like that to polish their image would be a brilliant move.
      • they should open the code...would be a brilliant move.
        And would also shake the very foundations of hell...
      • Re:Waaambulance (Score:5, Informative)

        by tbannist (230135) on Friday December 14 2007, @05:06PM (#21703072)
        They won't. The whole point of IE was to build a browser that would be incompatible with standards and tied to Microsoft's OS. They didn't go through all that trouble to kill Netscape just because they thought it'd be fun. They did it to stall the growth of the Web. Microsoft was seriously worried that Netscape's vision of thin-client linux-like boxes running just a web browser becoming the new standard for computers. But more importantly they were worried that they would get 95% of the marketshare in this new world.

        Microsoft will fight tooth and nail to keep IE closed source so that they can continue to use it strategically to throw a wrench into the standards. As long as stuff doesn't quite work right on IE and IE is the majority browser Microsoft can continue to stall and delay anything that challenges their dominance.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          It's depressing that this paranoid fantasy won you positive mod points.

          On and off over the years I've had occasion to work with Microsoft developers on various things. At one point I worked with the COM team and the IE team for several months. I didn't work for MS, I worked for a company that had discovered a weird and complicated bug. "They" are just a bunch of guys, regular programmers, just like you find at every other big company in the world. Nobody has a secret evil plan. It just doesn't exist. They b
          • and yet a small private company consisting of tens of individuals (opera) can make a standards compliant browser while microsoft (60000 employees and 20 billion profit every year) cannot.

            so i must conclude that either microsoft is incompetent or microsoft is deliberately not implementing the standards.
    • Re:Waaambulance (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kelson (129150) * on Friday December 14 2007, @02:49PM (#21701244) Homepage Journal

      Opera's developers need to admit that their "standards" are nothing but the constructs of the companies who failed to challenge IE so they took their ball and went home. "I'm going to invent my own internet. That'll show those meanies"

      You are aware that Microsoft is a member of the W3C [w3.org], right? And that they contributed to the development of such standards as CSS2? And that Microsoft pledged to support these standards back in 1998, and yet somehow their competitors support considerably more parts of that spec than they do? (I suspect ceasing all development other than security fixes for 3-4 years had quite a bit to do with that.)

      A bunch of companies didn't get together and say, "We don't like how Microsoft does the web, let's design another one." A bunch of companies including Microsoft got together and said, "Here's how we're going to design the web," Microsoft signed off on it, and then went off in their own direction.

    • Re:Waaambulance (Score:4, Informative)

      by nick.ian.k (987094) on Friday December 14 2007, @03:28PM (#21701808)

      No, the "IE won and thus reigns king" crowd needs to accept that IE doesn't even have its own set of standards and that this is the real root of the problem. Version to version, we see some bugs fixed, some bugs ignored, and wholly *new* ones appear. When you do a QA cycle on a site and find that IE6 actually renders something mostly okay while it totally breaks in IE7, you can see how ridiculous this is.

      Yes, it's a tremendous pain in the ass when there's a standard everybody else either complies with or at least makes a sincere effort to comply with, but when the one player who doesn't follow it doesn't even prove itself to be consistent internally, the resulting product is worthless. They don't even provide any documentation as to what coding standards *should* be followed for their browser; this is why they outright recommend conditional comments [microsoft.com] as a fix for (qutoing them) "pages that display correctly in browsers other than Internet Explorer."

      Now, you can either keep lying to yourself, or you can accept the fact that IE is crap and in need of either serious repair or published documentation of how to code for it, and will remain crap until such a time.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          In reality, people can just code for IE and ignore the other browsers and hit most of the web.

          Sure they can. Except coding for IE alone is still a bitch, and ignoring other browsers is incredibly naive as IE no longer holds 95%+ dominance as it once did. In reality, these people are stupid as far as creating web content goes.

          The only instance where this is an acceptable practice in business terms is when the client specifically says, "compatibility with anything other than IE is not necessary" - eithe

      • by Kelson (129150) * on Friday December 14 2007, @03:29PM (#21701818) Homepage Journal

        if MS did make a feature-full, standards-compliant browser, wouldn't that lower Opera usage?

        Not necessarily. End users don't pick their browsers for standards compliance. They do pick them by questions like, "Does this browser work with my bank's website?"

        If the most-used browser (IE or otherwise) is fully standards-compliant, that lowers the bar for developers to build sites that work with multiple browsers: target standards and you get something that works in IE8, Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc., instead of targeting IE6, tweaking for IE7, tweaking for Firefox, and deciding anyone running another browser is just SOL.

        End result: More websites are compatible across the board, so when people try Opera, fewer of them will run it for 2 days and say, "Well, I sorta like it, but the POS browser can't handle my favorite website. I'm going back to IE."

      • by Ash-Fox (726320) on Friday December 14 2007, @04:39PM (#21702730) Homepage

        Nor does interpreting HTML in a slightly different way.
        Indeed. But interpreting HTML the way IE does is vastly different.

        Since MS has over 80% of the market share, one could easily say they are the de-facto standard and if Opera doesn't like it
        Web standards are not defined by Microsoft.

        they can interpret pages how MS does.
        Not only does IE not interpret things to what is considered standards, but it also uses Microsoft's own incompatible technologies that prevent other browsers and operating systems from adopting them. Additionally, with Microsoft being the 'standard' in this case, this makes it impossible for the industry to grow without Microsoft creating more 'standards'.

        Additionally, the ultimate fault is with web developers - if they cared about Opera's users, they'd test their pages on it. They don't, and that tells you all you need to know.
        It isn't about caring. Opera will render standard compliant pages well, period. IE does not work with standard compliant pages - hell, it can't even do HTMLv2 properly. When you have to support a browser that is used by the majority in such a way that it makes it very difficult to support browsers which are standards compliant, the web developer can be forced due to other constraints (time, money, more effort) to just not support them. If a web developer could write for a standard and have browsers just work with them (it's rare that you will find standards compliant pages that do not work between firefox, safari, opera etc), it would be fine.

        That's not happening here. Equating the use of proprietary file formats and non-comformity to "standards" that some group has adopted with anticompetitive practices is ludicrous.
        Considering the fact a web browser is supposed to browse the web, the web having a standard that programs are supposed to follow to make it work. Microsoft taking this standard, breaking it and then adding their own proprietary additions, gaining control of the majority of the web 'market', leaving little choice to web developers when they develop new web sites.

        I don't know if you recall the purpose of the web. But it's main goal and design is meant be a cross-platform, cross-architecture design for handling content on the "world wide web" - granting access to all who adhere to the recommendations/standards from the formation of standard organizations such as the w3c, ISO/IEEE and others. Microsoft has broken the design of the web in ways that I consider is anti-competitive.

        Embrace, break standards (so other software does not work well with Microsoft's implementation) and extend with proprietary lock-ins.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        You missed some of the point. Actually, you missed most of the meat of the point. The 77% market share and lack of separation is only as big issue an issue because Microsoft refuses to implement proper web standard compliance in their browsers, and that forces programmers (who want their site to be seen properly by IE users) to program non-spec compliant code in conjunction with the spec-proper code for the _real_ browsers on the internet.

        If IE supported all current standards properly, users who switch
    • I agree with improving the browser and following the standards, but why ask to untie Windows and IE?

      Because it is illegal to tie a product you have monopolized to one in a different market.

      ...what about MacOS X and Linux?

      It is illegal for them to tie products in markets they have monopolized with one in a different market. That is why the EU is investigating Apple's market share with the iPod (since they are close to having monopoly influence in that market) and may force them to remove the ties between the iPod and the ItTunes store and iTunes software.

      why should Microsoft sell an OS without a web browser

      Because it has destroyed both the market for Web browsers and slowed progre