Microsoft behind $12 million payment to Opera

CNET News ^ | May 24, 2004, | Evan Hansen

[Bush2000]

Actually, it does. Opera is growing rapidly in the browser market, while Microsoft considers Netscape/Mozilla dead.

Dude, even you aren't that good of a liar. Here are recent statistics for browser market share. Opera comprises a mere 2.1% of all web browsers -- up from 1.2% from a year ago. If this is your idea of "growing rapidly", that's pretty damned sad. I'd hate to see your 401K or stock portfolio.

Browser Statistics Month by Month

2004	IE 6	IE 5	O 7	Moz	NN 3	NN 4	NN 7
May	72.6%	9.7%	2.1%	10.7%	0.3%	0.3%	1.4%
April	72.4%	10.1%	2.1%	10.3%	0.3%	0.3%	1.4%
March	72.1%	10.7%	2.1%	9.6%	0.4%	0.4%	1.4%
February	71.5%	11.5%	2.2%	9.0%	0.4%	0.4%	1.5%
January	71.3%	12.8%	2.1%	8.2%	0.4%	0.5%	1.5%
2003	IE 6	IE 5	O 7	Moz	NN 3	NN 4	NN 7
November	71.2%	13.7%	1.9%	7.2%	0.5%	0.5%	1.6%
September	69.7%	16.9%	1.8%	6.2%	0.6%	0.6%	1.5%
July	66.9%	20.3%	1.7%	5.7%	0.6%	0.6%	1.5%
May	65.0%	22.7%	1.4%	4.6%	1.0%	0.9%	1.4%
March	63.4%	24.6%	1.2%	4.2%	0.9%	1.1%	1.4%
January	55.3%	29.3%		4.0%	1.2%	1.7%	1.1%
2002	IE 6	IE 5	IE 4	AOL	NN 3	NN 4	NN 5+
November	53.5%	29.9%		5.2%	1.1%	2.0%	4.9%
September	49.1%	34.4%		4.5%	1.3%	2.2%	4.5%
July	44.4%	40.1%	0.5%	3.5%	1.2%	2.6%	3.5%
May	40.7%	46.0%	0.7%	2.8%	1.2%	3.4%	2.7%
March	36.7%	49.4%	0.7%	3.0%	1.2%	4.1%	2.4%
January	30.1%	55.7%	1.0%	2.8%	1.3%	4.4%	2.2%

IE	Internet Explorer
AOL	America Online *
Moz	Mozilla
O	Opera
NN	Netscape

[Bush2000]

People actually did a test of this. To make sure style sheets and HTML were correct, they used wget to pull an MSN page with style sheet, setting the user-agent in the HTTP header to identify itself as Opera, IE and Netscape. They then analyzed the files that the server returned.

Wow, congratulations. They found a bug. In your world, a bug translates immediately into "they did it on purpose". Again, as I pointed out before, never ascribe to malice what can be explained by error. But since you dweebs hate MS to the point of frothing at the mouth over every bug, I'm hardly surprised.

[Bush2000]

Using underhanded tactics or lies to disparage another's product in the marketplace is subject to a civil suit.

But since there is no proof that MS actually used "underhanded tactics or lies to disparage another's product in the marketplace", all that we're left with is your gasbag bloviation. And, as we've seen with the jury nullification in countless tobacco and gun lawsuits, it doesn't matter whether the company being sued did something on purpose or not; particularly, if the party suing shops around for a sympathetic court. Settlement is not equivalent to admission of wrongdoing. Ask your auto insurance company. If you're involved in an accident in which another party receives significant bodily injury, they will [in all likelihood] settle because the risk of going to court outweighs the cost of settlement. Same thing with malpractice. I can't count the number of physicians that I've read about who have shuttered their practices because they can't afford malpractice insurance -- because the industry settles most claims.

[antiRepublicrat]

. Opera comprises a mere 2.1% of all web browsers -- up from 1.2% from a year ago. If this is your idea of "growing rapidly", that's pretty damned sad.

End stats on your list: Opera use more than doubled. Mozilla use more than tripled. Total IE use declined. People are realizing IE sucks and are finding better alternatives. Microsoft doesn't like that, especially with Opera's threatening position on the handheld market.

And that's just considering your study, which looks suspicious. A real study of browser usage should have results adding up to over 100% since many people use multiple browsers. For example, I use IE at work and Mozilla at home, and sometimes IE at home for testing web sites (to make sure my code isn't too complex for its broken rendering). I consider Mozilla to be my main broswer, but anything I do from work would also count for IE.

[1L]

Using underhanded tactics or lies to disparage another's product in the marketplace is subject to a civil suit.

While I'm not conceeding this was "underhanded", a lie, or disparaging, please post the specific causes of action and their authority.

By purposely breaking Opera

There was no "breaking" of anything.

Microsoft tried to make those users with Opera think their browser was broken, casting doubt on the functionality and usability of that browser, which can be incentive for people to switch to a more "compatible" browser, such as IE.

This is called marketing. Ever heard commercials with the term "other leading ____" where there is a distinct picture of something that looks like the other company's product? Besides, Opera users are virtually by definition power users (computer novices don't know anything about Opera and don't download it; they use IE), even the below average Opera user knows exactly what is going on here and that it is limited to certain sites.

Such action is bad enough, but coming from a convicted monopolist known for anticompetitive behavior is that much worse.

Microsoft was never "convicted" of anything that I know of.

Dude, there are a LOT of reasons to diss MS. Some of their products are crappy and buggy (Word); they have licensing agreements that are driving many users to other options; they discontinue support of older apps, effectively forcing upgrades by people and companies that don't really want to upgrade; and their technical support has individuals that are less knowlegable than the average computer power user. I guarantee you I know more Word that 90% of the Word tech support people. I have never, ever, gotten a helpful response from Microsoft support.

But making things up by saying stuff like this is illegal makes you, not Microsoft, look silly. If you want to use this as a reason to not purchase MS products, and encourage others to follow, go for it. I might actually support you. But saying this stuff is illegal is ridiculous.

[antiRepublicrat]

Wow, congratulations. They found a bug. In your world, a bug translates immediately into "they did it on purpose".

If you'd take the time to read the files, you'd know they were far more than a bug. The whole thing is crafted to look bad, while doing nothing would have left the page rendering perfectly.

But since you dweebs hate MS to the point of frothing at the mouth over every bug, I'm hardly surprised.

If someone had five convictions for burglary and you found him on the premises of burglary in progress, would you automatically assume he's perfectly innocent, or would his past create a strong likelihood he's involved?

This isn't Google, which puts ethics at the forefront of everything they do. This is Microsoft, convicted monopolist on two continents and payer of billions in settlements due to unethical and illegal conduct.

[Bush2000]

End stats on your list: Opera use more than doubled.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Yeah, from 1.2% to 2.1%. And that's "growing rapidly". Dude, despite all your spinning, it should be obvious to everyone reading this thread that Opera has negligible market share. That doesn't mean it's a bad browser. It just means that practically nobody is paying attention to it.

[Bush2000]

If you'd take the time to read the files, you'd know they were far more than a bug. The whole thing is crafted to look bad, while doing nothing would have left the page rendering perfectly.

God knows, an ordinary bug wouldn't make a page "look bad". /SARCASM

If someone had five convictions for burglary and you found him on the premises of burglary in progress, would you automatically assume he's perfectly innocent, or would his past create a strong likelihood he's involved?

Ah, but you're going well beyond presumption. You've already convicted MS. And that's precisely the reason why courts exclude evidence of previous behavior in a court of law.

This isn't Google, which puts ethics at the forefront of everything they do. This is Microsoft, convicted monopolist on two continents and payer of billions in settlements due to unethical and illegal conduct.

Rrrright. This is the same Google that considers search engine optimization bad -- but doesn't hesitate to give preference to its own ads. /SARCASM

[antiRepublicrat]

But since there is no proof that MS actually used "underhanded tactics or lies to disparage another's product in the marketplace", all that we're left with is your gasbag bloviation.

Proof. Microsoft's policy is to violate wherever profitable in the long run and payoff when necessary, as long as they make more money in the end. Raising doubt about Opera could have hurt Opera's marketshare (they are a company that can be put out of business) and derailed its goals of being a large marketshare holder in the handheld device market.

Means, motive, opportunity. All there.

[antiRepublicrat]

Yeah, from 1.2% to 2.1%. And that's "growing rapidly".

100% growth. Calculate that out for a few more years and see if that threatens Microsoft's position. And don't forget the handheld market, where MS doesn't have majority and Opera is poised to claim a large marketshare. Microsoft needs Opera to look bad.

[antiRepublicrat]

God knows, an ordinary bug wouldn't make a page "look bad".

I take it you didn't look. That's why you don't know how different the pages were.

Ah, but you're going well beyond presumption. You've already convicted MS.

Oh, I would love for this to go to trial for a conviction because I know that's what they'd get. BTW, I suppose in your mind Saddam Hussein is absolutely innocent of torture, rape, murder and use of chemical weapons on his own people.

This is the same Google that considers search engine optimization bad -- but doesn't hesitate to give preference to its own ads.

Google tries to paint a true picture of what's on the web, so it tries to deny people with optimization knowledge better ranking despite the site's actual popularity. Google never sold search rankings and all ads are prominently labelled as ads.

Now if you want to go into what Microsoft has done, that's going to be a very, very long post.

[Bush2000]

Look, I'm not going to waste any more time on an anti-MS activist such as yourself. You're hopelessly confused.

[antiRepublicrat]

You're hopelessly confused.

And you're hopelessly blinded by your loyalty to a convicted monopolist. Good day.

[Bush2000]

Google tries to paint a true picture of what's on the web, so it tries to deny people with optimization knowledge better ranking despite the site's actual popularity. Google never sold search rankings and all ads are prominently labelled as ads

And guess what: The California Senate passed a measure recently to ban Google -- your model of "ethics" -- from threatening the privacy of users:

"The No. 1 Web search company's Gmail service, which will be supported by advertising and free for users when it launches for the public, is currently in beta testing.

Google had intended the service to scan e-mail for key words and concepts and use them to place targeted advertisements in personal messages."

Which just goes to show that you're a lamer hypocrite when it comes to your choice of targets: "Google Good, Microsoft Baaaaaaaaaaaad..."

[antiRepublicrat]

Which just goes to show that you're a lamer hypocrite when it comes to your choice of targets: "Google Good, Microsoft Baaaaaaaaaaaad..."

That was standard overreaction by idiot politicians who need an issue to campaign on and a reason to pass another useless law. All of their issues are pure political grandstanding. Google was up front in the beginning about every aspect of this free service that gives you a gig of storage. You pay for such generous service by accepting automated scanning of emails that puts separate ads on the page depending on the detected words. You know, kind of the way you already get clearly labelled ads when you search for a term.

[Bush2000]

That was standard overreaction by idiot politicians who need an issue to campaign on and a reason to pass another useless law. All of their issues are pure political grandstanding.

Totally disagree. If it had been MS, you'd be screaming like a stuck pig.

Google was up front in the beginning about every aspect of this free service that gives you a gig of storage. You pay for such generous service by accepting automated scanning of emails that puts separate ads on the page depending on the detected words. You know, kind of the way you already get clearly labelled ads when you search for a term.

Wrong. It goes way beyond scanning emails to put ads on the page. Google was planning on archiving some of the marketing data that it gleaned from your email. And since Google won't disclose what it was going to archive (such a model of "ethical disclosure" -- NOT!), the California Senate proactively forbid Google from violating your privacy.

MS had similar problems when it created Passport. The FCC and all kinds of privacy organizations had a fit -- despite the fact that use of Passport was completely voluntary. Your side was part of the litany screaming, wailing, and gnashing your teeth over big, bad Microsoft. But, now, it's obvious that you're a hypocrite. If it's Google, the darling of the pro-Linux crowd, then it's goooooooood; if it's MS, it's baaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

I don't have to swallow any hypocrisy. I think that both organizations should stop their aggressive marketing tactics. It's gone way too far.

[antiRepublicrat]

MS had similar problems when it created Passport. The FCC and all kinds of privacy organizations had a fit

I didn't have any problems with Passport from a privacy perspective. The only thing I was afraid of was MS tying Windows use to Passport registration.

The worst part of this: all of you are complaining about the privacy implications of a free service that isn't even out yet.