Opera vs. IE: Round One, Fight!
I'm getting this feeling of deja vu... haven't we been through all this before? Today Opera filed an antitrust complaint with the European Union against Microsoft. According to Opera, the makers of an alternative web browser, Microsoft is using its dominant position to unfairly influence the web browser market by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows and by "not following accepted Web standards," which Opera says causes developers to create web pages specifically for IE that break in other browsers -- and thus lowers the incentive for users to switch.
The solution? Opera wants the EU to force Microsoft to stop bundling IE, or to bundle other browsers with the OS (i.e., Opera). They also request that the EU make Microsoft follow "fundamental and open Web standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities."
This is not an unfamiliar argument to Microsoft -- that tiff with the Justice Department was about much the same thing. But, as Larry Dignan points out, Opera might find a more receptive audience in the European Union than Netscape found in the US DoJ. The European Union has already ruled that bundling Windows Media Player with Windows was illegal, so a precedent in Opera's favor appears to exist (note: I am not a lawyer).
"Our complaint is necessary to get Microsoft to amend its practices," said Jason Hoida, Deputy General Counsel for Opera, in a press release."The European Court of First Instance confirmed in September that Microsoft has illegally tied Windows Media Player to Windows. We are simply asking the Commission to apply these same, clear principles to the Internet Explorer tie, a tie that has even more profound effects on consumers and innovation."
Hold on to your hats. This one is just getting started...
Share
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
A Mike Tyson Punch-Out! reference? You have made my morning! Of course the EU has always taken a harder line against MS, I don't know if it's simply a nationalistic attitude or what, but OSS, Linux, Opera, or whomever wants to compete with MS has a better shot at things on that side of the pond. Still, even in the US, Vista is really forcing people's hand - I still recall the push back on the XP switch in the corp-workplace, I think Vista will provide even more drama; how much new hardware will companies need to purchase to upgrade to an OS that'll likely run at about the same speed as their current systems do? Ugg...just let me at em, put me in charge of some companies IT and we'll have Linux on every desktop, with nary an upgrade needed.
Woooh. That argument from the first paragraph sounds pretty strong. Using the past verdict to strengthen their case makes me hope even more that Opera are successful in getting a verdict that might end up removing some of IE's market share, even if by a bit.
Browser is a part of the O/S like a file browser is, or a text editor is. It is bundled with EVERY o/s that is worth anything today.
Opera needs to become more attractive to developers by closely following what IE has, and by making such features available for other platforms.
Asking others to stick to standards is asking to stop innovation. Instead GET MORE CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE. Opera should make something that makes IE look ridiculous by comparison. If you make another platform in an infrastructural market (like Linux attempts to do in O/S world or Firefox does in the browser world), people cannot and will not switch easily. Opera is facing this issue.
Nothing in the world stops Firefox from extending and embracing VML or DirectX for example, or making it the part of their features. That is the way to compete, rather than squealing about standards that everyone should stick to so that the landscape remains flat.
The complaints about 'bundling' a browser with the OS need to be thrown out as ridiculous, but with the EU courts who knows. In a world with at least 3 major viable platforms to choose from, with every single one 'bundling' a browser, I lose a lot of respect for a move as disingenuous as this from Opera.
I used to think Opera were pretty cool.
Well I guess whoever wins the fight, would also win the trust of any user.
Nhick
http://www.itrush.com
The issue with standards and IE is two-fold. One, IE supports things (certain MS-specific programming code that really only works if you're using a Windows machine) that no one else does, and it also doesn't properly support some of the accepted web standards that everyone else does. PNG image files with transparencies were an issue in IE6 (instead of showing as a tranparency, it showed a blue background). Thankfully they fixed the issue with IE7 though, but it still highlights the issues that there are accepted things that everyone else supports and does, that IE does not. In CSS there's all sorts of little hacks you sometimes have to do to get pages to render correctly in IE because IE doesn't always support what everyone else does.
This is what we're talking about in regards to following web standards.
Asking them to adhere to the accepted web standards doesn't stifle innovation in the least. IE NOT following the standards is what stifles innovation from a developer's side of things, and it hurts the end user as a result by reducing interoperability and causing developers to have to design to the lowest common denominator (often IE in my experience).
IE was also the last browser to feature tabbed browsing (AFAIK anyway). Mozilla/Netscape/FF and Opera have always been on the forefront of browser innovations, with IE always trailing behind, trying to do the web their own way. As a developer, my issue with standards isn't one of IE going above and beyond, it's more about IE not matching what everyone else (ie: FF, Opera) does.
"Browser is a part of the O/S like a file browser is, or a text editor is. It is bundled with EVERY o/s that is worth anything today."
The fact that an Internet Browser comes bundled with every Operating System is very true. All Operating Systems come with at least one Internet Browser. "It" that you are referring to is "Internet Explorer," I assume. Just for the record, Internet Explorer is not bundled with any version of Linux or Mac that I've ever used. In fact, the last time I installed Linux, I was given five different options of Internet Browsers to install (Firefox, SeaMonkey, Konquerer, Safari, and Opera). I don't see why Microsoft couldn't just come bundled with the "big four" (Firefox, IE7.0, Safari, and Opera).
"Opera needs to become more attractive to developers by closely following what IE has, and by making such features available for other platforms."
Wow. That is the most ignorant statement that I have ever heard. Internet Explorer is the WORST browser for web development. Period. Web developers who care about cross-browser consistency are constantly pulling their hair out because of Internet Explorer.
"Asking others to stick to standards is asking to stop innovation."
Hate to break it to you . . . asking others to have to break their backs by supporting multiple different browsers is asinine. You're forgetting about the people who we make the websites FOR: the consumers who USE the websites. You can be much more innovative if people are consistent because then you are worrying less about the way things are going to display in different browsers and more about how things are going to work.
"Instead GET MORE CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE. Opera should make something that makes IE look ridiculous by comparison. If you make another platform in an infrastructural market (like Linux attempts to do in O/S world or Firefox does in the browser world), people cannot and will not switch easily. Opera is facing this issue."
Opera already does make IE look ridiculous by comparison. All standards-compliant browsers do. I find it odd that you quote Firefox as being more creative and innovative when Opera and Firefox both are doing essentially the same thing.
"Nothing in the world stops Firefox from extending and embracing VML or DirectX for example, or making it the part of their features. That is the way to compete, rather than squealing about standards that everyone should stick to so that the landscape remains flat."
For the record: Firefox is THE Standards-compliant browser. Its biggest appeal is that when you create something that looks good and works well in Firefox it will more than likely look good and work well in all other browsers (EXCEPT Internet Explorer because it is so ridiculously ineffective).
For example, your website that touts being the new Web 3.0 will never garnish more than 60-65% of the individuals who come to the website if it doesn't get with the times and become standards compliant. I, like most individuals, will not stop browsing on whatever non-IE browser it is that I am using, open up Internet Explorer, and then browse to your site so it will work as intended. Even if it is/was a great website, you're going to lose a large portion of your potential audience solely because of your inability to embrace the current technologies and trends.
I don't see how it's a monopoly. I can download what ever browser I want to my MS created OS. I see it like suing McDonalds for not including a Whopper with my Big Mac meal.
How are these law suits being won!?!?
That comparison is faulty. Fast food items don't effect your ability to access data. Its like there is one store that sells glasses. This store is insanely successful. Then they start selling contact lenses that somehow make it so you can't see certain things unless they have a special type of paint. So people are almost forced to use this special paint. Well the glasses you get anywhere else can't see this paint. But most people use the contact lenses because they are sold at the successful store, despite the fact that the contact lenses are hazardous and poorly manufactured. Windows is the store and IE is the contact lens. Firefox (My browser for a multitude of reasons), Opera, etc. are the other glasses. Sorry that was so long, it was the best analogy I could think of.
Windows comes with IE7, Leopard with Safari, Ubuntu with Firefox. All the major OS's bundle a browser. Just because MS has the biggest market share doesn't mean it's doing anything wrong by bundling IE7.
I do agree, however, that IE7 needs to start complying to standards (and for the love of God/Allah/L. Ron Hubbard, drop ActiveX controls entirely).
The keyword in your analogy is "almost". "People are almost forced". You see, no one is actually forced. MS offers you a product and you can either, buy it or not buy it. You are in your rights to complain about what you dislike and boycott it and try to convince others to do so (as many people already do). But just because MS is hugely successful and used widely, does not give the government the right to step in and dictate what a business can include in their product, just because consumers don't like it. If you don't like it, then purchase another OS, rally support for other OS's or browsers that do things much better and easier than MS. Maybe you should open up your own glasses store (since there is no law stopping you) and sell your own contacts that don't require special paint, and make them easy to use, affordable, and much more enticing. Then you will be rich and successful and eventually sued in some european government because they are backasswards on business rights.
@OrbitalGun
Right, they all come with something. However, none of the other operating systems require that those browsers be installed in order for the underlying file system to function properly.
The coupling required by IE to the Windows file systems is where it starts to get hairy. The browser "has" to stay installed. Whereas on the other OS's, they can be swapped in and out at the users discretion. Even if you just drop all shortcut's to IE, you'll still receive prompts for it in Windows Update, etc...
I just don't believe it's too "crazy" a claim to say they shouldn't bundle/couple the browser to the OS the way they currently are. Good for them!
Call me crazy, but if Windows were to ship without any browser, how would the end-user go about surfing the intrawehb at all? Downloading a browser usually requires a browser in the first place (The only time I ever use IE is when I'm on a new computer and go to the Firefox download page). The only other option I can think of is FTP, and not everyone in Europe knows how that works (Think about the people Vista was apparently made for, with security warnings for everything)
@Mike G
but in our hypothetical world all architects and painters are being forced to use the special paint. My new glasses are(and should be) made to see a world without special paint. Is it rely sensible that the world be painted just because that one store wants to use its market share to force people to use it? all web pages are being forced to cater for IE failures and the fact it is the default browser makes this worse.
If it was as easy as saying "Get Firefox because it shows the web pages the way they were designed" and then everyone getting it(or another standards compliant alternative) that would be fine, but its not.
instead everyone is seeing the web wrongly.
to me it seems the equivalent of architects and builders being forced to skew buildings just for people wearing bad glasses
@Mike: some people are forced- those with vendor lock in can't switch, as Linux and OSX won't open their files, or run their apps.
IE is also locking people in, sites build to it's buggy/broken 'standards' force people to use that browser. And since it's still the most common browser, a lot of developers work strictly with it, which only exacerbates the problem.
And for those that can switch, most of them don't realise that to be the case. To them Windows is the only OS and IE equals the internet. (When was the last time you saw a retail store with PCs running anything else?) Breaking that association by not bundling IE with Windows is a good thing. It shows customers that there is actually a choice to be had, and it enables IE to be removed if you install it and then change your mind (something you can't currently do)- you're not stuck with it regardless.
@Brian: there's always PC magazines, and some retail outlets bundle free software onto DVD for the customer's convenience.
Even if MS was to abandon IE, people would continue to use it until it was replaced with something else in the next MS OS.
"I don't see how it's a monopoly. I can download what ever browser I want to my MS created OS. I see it like suing McDonalds for not including a Whopper with my Big Mac meal."
It's because MS bundles and ties in Internet Explorer with the OS. Sure you *can* download whatever browser you want, the point is that you are not offered any choice in the first place. This allows MS to gain a bigger share of the browser market.
Another real point a lot of people make is that IE is so tied in to the OS that it can't even be made platform independent. I imagine there are a lot of people out there like me, something that I can't use on Windows, Mac OSX and Linux, is not worth my time because I like consistency in my software. Something MS has a lot of trouble with.
In response to # 3:
I hope you read #7, you clearly need to be educated on software and standards. Innovativeness does not come from neglecting standards and poor implementations of them. Innovations in the browser market are made when you apply standards correctly and then exceed them (i.e.: make things better!). What you propose is for other browsers to mimick IE, so what you're really saying is that you think it's a good idea for browsers to be inconsistent, full of bugs and *not* standards compliant. All for the sake of what ? Methinks you should research before you comment.
-I agree with someone in this post who says if the product is innovative and good people will opt for it.
-Take the example of firefox: people preferred it over IE and switched to it
-I think its shamefull for Opera to come up with something like this-simply makes me feel that their product is not good enough
-personally speaking, i have tried it and didnt like it
Wow, this is alot of heat and light over nothing. I wonder why people are so passionate about complaining about a free Microsoft offering when there are plenty of alternatives? Isn't it silly to think that Microsoft is going to spend a huge amount of its resouces on this when they don't make any money from it? Last I checked, Microsoft is a publicly traded company and more concerned about the bottom line. If you'll remember back, after IE6 - Microsoft disbanded its browser team. I think they did a great service recreating the team and releasing yet another free browser version. They are even considering doing another version of IE after IE7. Personally, I think they shouldn't bother. Put it in maintenance and fix the occasional bug. IE has succeeded in doing what it needs to do - provide a basic browser for the masses. Let these other small companies fight their turf wars over essentially an ant hill with nothing inside. It is a huge waste of time and money and Microsoft has better things to do.
Joseph Pally-- So, you're saying incompetently supporting CSS is "innovation" on MS's part? (Actually, it is... just not in a way that benefits anyone save MS.)
It seems to me that web browsers can compete on issues of efficiency (speed and RAM usage), UI quality, or security while still conforming to W3 standards.
"it's more about IE not matching what everyone else"
That doesn't make sense your like saying, because IE is worse Microsoft shouldn't bundle it, even though people obviously don't mind its worse.
Thats like saying Wii sports comes with the nintendo wii for free, but Wii Sports doesn't work on an xbox 360 that should be illegal, Nintendo should not be aloud to bundle any games with their system because it makes it so that People like that game and begin to not like other games.
To those who don't see the problem with bundling IE with an OS that has a virtual monopoly, one reason you might be interested in is this: *you* lose out because MSFT can't / won't make a browser that works.
How? Because it costs more to develop sites that work in IE.
All the cool things one can do in every other major browser out there - AJAX, nice design, etc. - are borked in IE until we (the developers) write the extra code that duplicates the same functionality. More work = more time = greater cost.
The truth is that developers are the ones to bear the extra cost, because we can't ignore the fact that up to 70-80% of users have IE... but all that means is that we can't afford to bring everyone the same experience so we have to cut back on features.
Bottom line: it isn't about bashing Microsoft. If IE followed the specifications that were published 10 years ago you would have a much better time on the web.
thanks for the information, cool
@ Josh
> "Thats like saying Wii sports comes with the nintendo wii for free, but Wii Sports doesn't work on an xbox 360 that should be illegal"
No it isn't.
If you buy a Wii or Xbox you are making a conscious decision to buy into that platform, along with all its strengths and weaknesses. When you buy a PC or surf from work, the machine is almost guaranteed to have Windows - and hence IE - pre-installed, and there is legal precedent to say that this amounts to anti-competitive behaviour.
@tobindrake
Your logic is baffling: you say that, MSFT being publicly traded, one would be a fool to imagine they're concerned with anything but the bottom line, but then praise them for their generosity in bestowing another version of IE upon us? Weird: it looks to me as though they simply want market share and only bother to do anything when forced to.
As for your suggestion that they "fix the occasional bug", there are so many they'd be better off scrapping the whole thing... which, ironically, is where we agree. Have a look at the IE blog
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/12/05/internet-explorer-8.aspx#comments
and you'll see that we're not alone.
As a web developer, I find it more limiting to develop site to the standards of IE. Personally I would love to see Opera win, then hopefully people will understand that IE is not giving them the entire web viewing expierence. Maybe Mozilla should get into the fight as well...
@Jason @ MKOwens:
MS had to innovate and excel to beat Netscape. And they did a great job with it.
However, most of the things that folks complain about "as non-standards compliant" are actually not MS fault. In fierce competition, companies have to make choices, and standards should accomodate best practices. MS had to incorporate all they did, and they were not saintly and exactly CSS compliant - sometimes they have had to do things differently, and get the standards to reflect that later.
Developers have a tough time supporting multiple browsers. I have had to spend millions of dollars trying to support Firefox, and had to give up without hope in a complete Firefox product - not because I do not want to support firefox, but firefox lacks the basics that will make it easy for us to develop for it.
For example, Some of the key things that Firefox do not have (or should I say, Firefox DO NOT WANT TO HAVE): style.zoom on elements, contenteditable on elements, svg element z-Indices, outerHTML on elements, support for all box models, drag-drop in non-chrome mode, inline VML/SVG (instead of providing SVG only in XHTML and Canvas that is not inline in non-XHTML mode) - all of these things that MS did directly or indirectly (thanks so much to them). Trying to achieve some of these in Firefox is IMPOSSIBLE, and the rest so complex to achieve.
Instead, Firefox and other standards folks REFUSE to do these basics saying they just do not agree with it. So, developers WHO MUST USE advanced graphics, and DOM management, have to support a half-cooked SVG or switch to a non-browser solution like Flash. Both of which are very costly and untenable.
The reason for this sort of reactionary mode by some parties is that the standards definers come from companies with established agenda in protecting their turf. The only way to get over this is to be innovative, that will eventually open up the standards to be better.
Developers hence have to bend over backwards, and end up getting something that is the lowest common denominator out. Instead of saying DirectX does not work in Unix, get it or equivalent implemented in Unix. Instead of saying VML is bad, make SVG as good as VML with all its features. Do more, not less. If you want to do less, do not hamper others.
Instead of evangelizing products that actually make it MUCH harder for people to develop and support, let those backward looking products become more embracing of good ideas and make it better for people who want to do more innovative stuff.
World is not driven by saints and nuns, it requires some folks who challenge standards. And on this one count, I love Microsoft. Without them, even Ajax or ActiveX would not have happened. Without that Web 2.0 companies would still be using page refresh and Shockwave will still be an add-on.
The point is, MS is a technology leader, and they define many of the standards (just like Netscape did for a while). It is ok to be innovative. A better strategy for other players is to adopt these into standards to neutralize the effect of a larger competitor. What I have seen is that vendors like Adobe seem to push standards as a way to push down others.
To say that MS should stick to all standards or otherwise they will be taken to court, is like MS asking Netscape in those days not to create a browser that reads HTML, because MS software only reads .doc format.
Opera's mistake is that it is trying to be in a market where all its competitors are free. That is a marketing mistake. Not MS's fault.
@OrbitalGun said: "(and for the love of God/Allah/L. Ron Hubbard, drop ActiveX controls entirely)."
Flash works because of ActiveX. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water.
The round has just begun! So 2009 may be a good time to check back.
PNG image files with transparencies were an issue in IE6, and that was more of a bug. Not a lack of feature.
Tabbed browsing was not in IE for a long time. Atleast Tabbed Browsing was a kind of "innovation" by Firefox folks. Did they make sure that it was not against any standards when they did that? What if there was a standard that said all browsers had to be single page? Should firefox folks have said it was ok and not ever make a tabbed browser?
I've heard so many complaints about standards and compliance. But from all of my stats over 90% of all the visitors to our websites (there are many) are using IE.
So lets face it... even if they are sub-standard. IE is THE standard. I've heard every argument from all of our developers on the matter and I still just point out that it's the average users standard.
As for MS and having no option with the OS. Well there you have it... just don't buy it! If every other OS was as easily available then it wouldn't be an issue.
Personally I'm a Linux user... having switched from Netscape to Firefox. But why hate MS just because they are better at marketing?
I would love to see IE 'detached' from the core OS and I definitely support what Opera is doing. MS can keep shipping their sub-standard browsers with their operating system if they like, but if it's removable without complications from the OS, it would be ideal.
Personally, I'm old enough to remember when I was back on early versions of Windows that actually included the Netscape Navigator (the one where it looked like a house you went through). That's what I'd like to see the most - MS giving people the option to install FF or Opera or various other browsers easily and automatically integrating that option to have alternatives - since most users don't have a clue.
Microsoft can keep shipping their OS. They already limited development on their browser. They are no where near considered competition in the browser market in terms of functionality. They would be, in my view, better off ditching their browser entirely, packaging other free browsers in their OS, and refocusing on developing other aspects of their business. The only reason they 'win' the browser war is from saturation - if functionality is compared they are a no contest loser.
@Joseph Pally
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. I'm not too worried about people taking it seriously because anyone who is deeply into web can immediately read every single false accusation and completely wrong statement about web that you're making. And this movement by Opera IS for the people who DO web.
Just a few sticking points FYI - Flash doesn't work 'because of ActiveX'. Flash on IE works because of ActiveX. Flash on every other browser is not dependent on ActiveX. There are different versions for download depending on browser.
"Opera's mistake is that it is trying to be in a market where all its competitors are free." Just in case you missed the news flash - Opera hasn't been a paid browser for a long time. But even if it still were - don't you think it says something that it managed to survive as a paid browser for 10 years in a world of free browsers?
And while it may be an exaggeration on your part, I'm sorry but I think it seems quite amusing for someone to claim they spent millions trying to get Firefox to work, claiming all sorts of incorrect things about the web, and then to peek under the hood of their website and see:
meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 6.0"
Why am I not too surprised.
@ Joseph Pally:
"MS had to innovate and excel to beat Netscape. And they did a great job with it."
MS did NOT have to innovate, and they rarely do innovate. BASIC and DOS were "innovated" by someone else.
MS is not a technology leader - it sees ways to make more money doing what the leaders are doing,
and either buys them out or "cuts off their air supply".
Check the About box in MSIE - it's based on Mosaic, licensed from Spyglass.
MSIE was initially sold for money, not "free", then they noticed that they could give it away for free
and not have to pay anything to Spyglass. This also forced Netscape into
a "browser war", as Netscape Navigator had to be given away "free" too.
@Mark Space
Leaders do not change unless innovation sets in. Browser was an innovation. It transformed to be a platform. Netscape could have been easily successful if they monetized Search rather than the browser. It was poor business choices that killed it. (The same problem exists with Opera).
Though many folks may criticize IE for having issues with secrutiy etc. in the older versions, one thing has to be recognized. IE was a fascinating attempt (though forced by competition) at making the browser powerful. And with a larger scope they opened up more security holes - most of them were closed over a period of time. But the vision was awesome. HTC, HTA, etc. are examples of that. They made browser into a true platform. I do not think that only MS could have done it with such depth, given their background in the O/S, Office Apps, etc.
MS paid $2million for licensing Spyglass. Netscape, just like Google, was a product of research at a University. Mostly supported by public funds, which then became commercialized. Some steps that took place during this commercialization can not be seen as exactly legal either(or would have met with great resistance in other domains).
Again, it is incorrect to say MS does not innovate. They do not innovate enough for the money they invest into research, but they do compete fiercely. Not a bad thing at all, since they are not expected to be strictly generous - and the rest of the world are not expected to be generous to them either. If they are threatened, they can innovate, buy out, do whatever a competitor should do. And the rest of the companies have the same choice. Maybe MS does not play fair, but that means others do not have to play it fair too. Instead, MSs competitors should be competing, not filing silly lawsuits with retro courts. Competition is not about being nice, that is for Santa Claus to do.
If MS products were bad, they would not eventually win. Excel and IE are some of the best products I have ever seen. Though we are far ahead of both products, I still respect both of these a lot more than its competitors.
"I do not think that only MS could have done it with such depth, given their background in the O/S, Office Apps, etc."
- Read it as
"I do think that only MS could have done it with such depth, given their background in the O/S, Office Apps, etc."
I suggest to anyone interested in this issue to read a law review article by Ian S. Forrester, QC, entitled "Article 82: Remedies in Search of Theories", published in the April 2005 Fordham International Law Journal.
In one statement, Mr. Forrester remarks:
"The exceptional nature of the compulsory licensing remedy in the Microsoft Decision is striking. For the first time in European (world?) competition law history, a competition authority has imposed on a dominant undertaking an obligation of indefinite duration to draw up a description of its technology for the sole purpose of delivering that description to an unidentified number of competitors, and then to license its competitors to exploit the technology so they may improve their own products."
There are serious economic consequences that follow the EU's position and orders of the ECJ, that arguably set precedent for parties other than Microsoft.
As a Windows/Mac user, and user of numerous browsers, I have no sympathy for Opera. Though that lack of empathy is not germane to the law, it is pertinent in that I have never encountered any problem using an alternative browser on Windows. The remedy of forcing MS to produce a product without a browser may be absurd, and an instance of economic waste, if there is no market for such a product, a factor ECJ judges are in no position to predict.
Although Apple lacks "market dominance", I ask, if those who support unbundling for MS, would take the same position with Leopard and Safari. The question is: to what extent should government, under competition theories, dictate business development and innovation. In addition, users have access to open source products, including the OS, and are free to choose.
This area of law and IP is complex and interesting.
@ Joseph Pally:
For the love of god keep your ignorance to yourself. I don't have time to point out every single one of the reasons why *everything* you've written is mistaken and/or stupid, but here are a few:
> "MS had to innovate and excel to beat Netscape. And they did a great job with it."
a) No they did not. IE6 was and is an appalling browser from every perspective from security to CSS compliance.
b) To use Netscape as any basis for comparison is a straw man argument.
> "However, most of the things that folks complain about "as non-standards compliant" are actually not MS fault."
Yes they are. The specifications for CSS have been out for over a decade. Not to follow them is an abject failure on MS's part.
> "In fierce competition, companies have to make choices, and standards should accomodate best practices."
Basically you're saying that MS *chose* to ignore CSS standards. I agree with you there, but not with the conclusion you illogically draw... that MS was under some obligation to do so.
> "Developers have a tough time supporting multiple browsers"
No we don't. Writing valid code is straightforward and looks and functions the same in any standards-compliant browser. The ONLY browser you're completely screwed over by is IE: it is inconsistent, undocumented and buggy.
You then go on an extended rant about how Firefox does less than IE and tell the story of how you blew millions on trying to get your product ported. Answer me this then: if other browsers offer less, then how come we're seeing the emergence of entire suites of online office software? They aren't being built solely for IE. Sounds to me like you should have hired some decent developers.
All the "basics" to which you refer are
a) non-standard / proprietary / patented, hence unavailable to other vendors
b) can be emulated using standards!
> "The reason for this sort of reactionary mode by some parties is that the standards definers come from companies with established agenda in protecting their turf."
> "Developers hence have to bend over backwards, and end up getting something that is the lowest common denominator out"
Sounds like Microsoft to me. Bit of an own-goal there mate.
> "that will eventually open up the standards to be better."
Doesn't sound like Microsoft to me. Another scorching own-goal methinks.
> "World is not driven by saints and nuns, it requires some folks who challenge standards."
Again no. It requires people to properly implement standards!
Have look at what WebKit is able to do, since it implements a lot of the CSS 3 spec. The standards are not the bottleneck: if IE were the innovative platform you think it is you could have things like animation in pure CSS.
> "The point is, MS is a technology leader, and they define many of the standards"
No they don't. You seem not to understand the difference between de facto standards and published standards. As developers we have to write separate javascript and stylesheets to accommodate IE's failings because it has a large user-base, not because it defines standards: that is the job of the W3C.
> "To say that MS should stick to all standards or otherwise they will be taken to court, is like MS asking Netscape in those days not to create a browser that reads HTML, because MS software only reads .doc format."
a) That makes no sense whatever.
b) MSFT only ever raise their game if they're legally obliged to, as with the Eolas patent and the "click to activate" debacle.
> "Opera's mistake is that it is trying to be in a market where all its competitors are free."
Opera has been free for a couple of years now
> "Flash works because of ActiveX. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water."
a) No it doesn't. If it did only IE users could see Flash content
b) By your own logic, since Flash is "very costly and untenable" this would be no bad thing. Not that Flash is either of those things.
Finally, just so you know, I don't have any issue with MS, their success or profitability. I *do* have an issue with the fact that despite that success and profitability they simply won't improve the browser that they bundle with their OS, to everyone's cost and disadvantage.
@Joseph Pally
A couple more things for you to get your head round:
> "PNG image files with transparencies were an issue in IE6, and that was more of a bug. Not a lack of feature."
Quite the reverse!
> "What if there was a standard that said all browsers had to be single page? Should firefox folks have said it was ok and not ever make a tabbed browser?"
You are a moron. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it's true.
Application functionality is not the same as standards compliance.
@:John JA Burke
One word: Reinheitsgebot. If you know about European competition law you'll know of this case and that where measures are *functionally* anti-competitive the ECJ will rule in favour of measures that allow greater market access.
@Oliver:
I do not want to tear your arguments down by calling you belittling terms. I will forgive you this one time on that.
"Application functionality is not the same as standards compliance."
CSS is part of functionality of a browser. MS did not follow the rules completely (but they did mostly), but MS is the defacto standard. It is for minor players to adjust to the major player (in minor items like Box Model) so DEVELOPERS do not have to go in loops adjusting code to suit both browsers.
If MS had switched box models midstream to satisfy W3C box model, most webpages in the world would have broken at once. Anyways, there are going to be differences like that. However, the point is that sticking with standards is not the best tactic for any company or product if innovation needs to happen. Standards are to be set after innovation is over. And generally MS platforms come back to the standard when things are stable.
You said:"MSFT only ever raise their game if they're legally obliged to, as with the Eolas patent and the "click to activate" debacle."
It is totally unfair to ask to shell out 500 million for a patent that does not meet prior art criteria by all measures. Viola browser had actually done prior art on embedding. MS was defending their position, not filing a lawsuit against EOLAS. They yielded to the patent troll, but should not have.
Also, development in Flash is costly - it does not have the DOM advantage DHTML has.
You mentioned: "You seem not to understand the difference between de facto standards and published standards. As developers we have to write separate javascript and stylesheets to accommodate IE's failings because it has a large user-base, not because it defines standards: that is the job of the W3C."
It is W3C who has to account to take good points into consideration from popular browsers rather than going against everything MS does - and making it tough for developers to work for a generic platform. Most standards bodies are infested with purists and those who have hidden agenda. All standards are recommendations, and there is NOTHING wrong with not being compliant - until a standard has clear industry following. The point is being practical.
"If IE were the innovative platform you think it is you could have things like animation in pure CSS."
- that is CSS 2 and SMIL. Both done by MS already. As soon as it came out.
- SVG (available only in XHTML) for firefox can do it, but that means all pages need to be XHTML. And making it compliant to XHTML is pathetically difficult for all past work. Again XHTML is a standard that cannot take off because of its strictness.
- CSS 3 will be supported by MS platforms. It is a matter of time.
When you do a simple page for simple server side technology, standards are great. But that cannot be the case when you go to any serious level.
You also mentioned: some of what non-IE folks has not done are "-a) non-standard / proprietary / patented, hence unavailable to other vendors -b) can be emulated using standards!"
Well, when something is made into a standard, the "non-standard / proprietary / patented" definitions disappear. This is where W3C needs to work with major players in getting it to a standard. If 90% of browsers support one thing, there is no point in crying about non-standard. It is for the standards body to adopt it, so that the patents are released by the vendors.
"IE6 was and is an appalling browser from every perspective from security to CSS compliance."
- this is the standard statement made by standard lovers. As if Mozilla has no security problems, and has full CSS compliance. Let us not even go to Safari, Opera, etc. Every one of these are only compliant to standards to a certain degree (none of them are 100% compliant). IE is mostly compliant given that it is commercial product, may not be in some fine details that are understandable. To think IE is appalling shows lack of understanding.
But let me not tear the HTML renderer with umpteen add-ons that is NOT considered to be a security risk for the sake of mercy.
If you do any research on the web, you will see people screaming for style.zoom, contenteditable, svg layers, svg in HTML mode, etc. Mozilla does not care about the developers desires. Atleast MS listens to it.
And if you think you have some smart developers who can help the developers who desparately need these features, ask them to work on the open source browser to make it happen. Rather than asking others not to ignore a platform like Mozilla and Opera that are extremely hard to work with.
The "can be emulated using standards!" is the catch. Example: .outerHTML. This can be done with standards complaint code which works 95% of the time (not 100%). But the issue is that it should be given as a part of the API directly so programmers have to spend days in ensuring such basics!!! Why force the developer by NOT implementing outerHTML? Why in the world is outerHTML not a part of Mozilla DOM? Is the open source run by sadists??? Developers should be able to assume things like outerHTML as a standard, and just be given access to it directly. We should not need the divine sanction of w3C to have this.
And, God! Give me a firefox debugger that works this Christmas!!!! Not the Junky Venkman in which you cannot even add a watch conveniently. I do not mind paying money!
Thank God for MS and its tools!
Also, on PNG do some research. Do not listen to your open source beer-buddies.
Nicole, I tried to figure out what you had written, but could not. Anyway I saw you were surprised about:
meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 6.0"
on a website.
Not that I love Frontpage. Not that I need Frontpage to do a webpage either. But why the surprise? We could have used any text editor. Is there a standards compliant html editor that you would recommend everyone should work on? The big selling point of Frontpage has been that it makes standards compliant pages. In fact, MS does work real hard at it with Frontpage.
This Flash comment comes back again and again. IE lets flash be embedded through ActiveX. Other platforms do not have ActiveX, but they have their own technologies that allow embedding. Object embedding is not a sin - when done in Windows. It works nicely in the most popular O/S with little additional work.
@Joseph Pally:
Apologies for calling you a moron. Ad hominem comments are unfair, and so in the same spirit of mutual respect I'll forgive your comment about not having done my research on the PNG format (you're wrong by the way) and your lack of respect in describing FOSS developers as my "beer buddies".
"Ignorant" would be more justified: you plainly don't understand *any* of the technical terms you use, who creates standards and why, Flash or how patents work. This is why you don't understand the case raised by Opera and presumably how you managed to spend all those millions without somehow managing to create a working app in a browser that can quite easily handle something as complex as Google's suite of online office tools.
As for a decent debugger for Firefox, you should try FireBug. It's way ahead of anything IE has to offer, which is a pity: I need a decent debugger for IE far more often.
Thanks for suggesting FireBug, Oliver. I just hope it solves our headaches. Let me also suggest Microsoft Script Debugger, which should solve your debugging problems on IE. It works awesome!
Let me not debate with you what I know on technology, standards, flash, patents, etc. You can assume I am ignorant of all of this for now.
Making things Firefox (forget the rest) compatible is EXTREMELY frustrating. Not at the basic level, but at a deeper level. Just for example, outerHTML or even style.zoom. Atleast outerHTML can be handled somehow, but style.zoom cannot be unless Firefox implements it. Same with SVG on HTML. It just has to be provided by Firefox, and it does not - locking us into a place for "standards" reasons.
Let me point out that inline vectors are an important aspects of storing graphical information in HTML (not everything can be jpg as some would wish it to be). I want everything in our product to be atleast compliant to HTML standards. Only choices are VML and SVG. Great, but Firefox does not have SVG in HTML. Why? It is in FF XHTML. So unless the page is in XHTML (another big standards pain), the page cannot work with SVG. And IE would not read XHTML at all. Not that XHTML is not a good standard, it is just very not-backward compatible and terribly strict. So, making such retro decisions on design and deployment, FF gets much harder to support. We have to spend 4 times more time in FF jumping around unnecessary loops to solve problems that are solved directly in IE.
FYI, Firefox canvas info cannot be stored inline, it has to be scripted - meaning more programming. SVG - another headache - no z-index for elements. Every vector standard has z-Index (sooo fundamental), but not SVG. So we have to wait another year to get the new standards out, and another year to implement it. Or else, forget SVG. The reason that SVG does not have z-Index so far was because someone in its standards committee did not think it was theoretically correct - that one could manipulate this in code anyways and may be difficult to implement. Such decisions do not work when we have to deal with inline SVG or complex drawings. Not that I have not tried to contact SVG standards writers on this, the contact addresses do not work - because apparently the guy who is the contact list at w3c standards site left the job.
On the other hand, VML was implemented BEAUTIFULLY by Microsoft (with z-index, thank God!). And still Firefox folks keep pushing a half-cooked SVG as being standards compliant and something of a revolution. BTW, it may take two more years for SVG to reach where VML is. Another player (Adobe) pushed their SVG viewer (as ActiveX), and after they bought MacroMedia, stopped supporting it. So, unless Firefox folks get less rigid with standards, and more towards practice, developers have to stick to the least common standards.
At the least, get SVG on HTML mode rather than pushing SVG as a vector solution and not supporting it in HTML mode! Such details are a minor step for Firefox, a great leap for developers who want to use FireFox the same way they use IE.
(P.S. Do not just listen to your open source buddies. This time tell them to help the folks out by being more open and less standards-oriented!)
Also Oliver, "Google's suite of online office tools" is not very complex. Most logic is on the server, and the Google Suite products are only about 5% as powerful as its competitor Microsoft Office. And they already spent close to 100 million to develop what they have done so far. And if you use them seriously, you will know what they are lacking. It is practically a joke to compare them with Microsoft Office.
P.S. Also, Oliver, can you contact me? Think I have something very interesting for you to look at. joseph@zcubes.com.
@Joseph Pally:
I'm pretty sure that FireBug will help you no end (make sure you watch the screencasts to see how powerful it is). Also the Web Developer's Toolbar by Chris Pederick is a fabulous aid to development. In fact I'm equally sure that once you start to investigate the options Firefox gives you you'll start to feel as though you're being let down in IE: I've used the Script Debugger before of course, but it simply doesn't compare.
The truth is that I'd suggest that you develop in Firefox and then make the necessary adjustments so that it works in IE subsequently: the advantage being that if it works in Firefox and validates you've automatically ensured 99.5% compatibility with every other browser out there.
SVG is a case in point: Firefox adheres to the correct spec because SVG, like XHTML, is a subset of XML... unlike HTML (which can be malformed and still work). Hence it's logical that XHTML would be required since it guarantees that the mark-up is well formed. The fact that IE second-guesses your intent is one of the reasons why it's a nightmare to develop for: like Clippy it thinks it knows what you want to do, overrides what you're actually doing and then does it badly. Because it "improves" things by simply ignoring the rules there's no way to know how or why it f@cks things up; the only certainty is that it will.
Finally, "More open and less standards-oriented" is a contradiction in terms: we'd all be better off if Microsoft were at all open and even slightly respected standards, or actually bothered to fix their browser.
"SVG is a case in point: Firefox adheres to the correct spec because SVG, like XHTML, is a subset of XML... unlike HTML (which can be malformed and still work)."
This is exactly the problem. 99% of webpages in the world are not well formed - and will not pass the strict mode check. Also, a machine can work with some malformed xml/html. If it does not parse, do not render it. What is the big deal???? Is it difficult to write exception handling for a strict mode parsing????
Why is that IE can render VML inline without dying (even if something is not well-formed) and why is that FF is unable to handle a broken tag? And VML is also XML. This is EXACTLY where MS gets practical. Yeah, it had security issues, but FF also have had security issues.
For your info, a browser which works in quirks mode can render slightly malformed html. So, why do we have to keep SVG out of 99% of world's webpages (and effectively making it unlikely XHTML and SVG will ever become popular). This is precisely the kind of retro thinking by standards folks.
Your opinion on FF development first is correct when you make plain webpages - but the fundamentals of SVG, zoom, and many others are NOT THERE. It is NOT THERE. It is NOT THERE!!!! That is the problem.
Let me say it again, the issue is not whether we can make it compatible with 99% of browsers. It is whether something is EVEN possible to do in Firefox.
Microsoft actually has respected almost 99% of the CSS, HTML, SMIL, XML, XSLT, and many other standards. Firefox on the other hand is 99.5% compatible. Read the w3c standards and msdn documentation. And all standards (as the docs says) are recommendations. MS has diverged in very few places that some folks keep crying about. But for the most part, MS has been really practical - and realistic. Not so retro-strict that they would insist that everyone had to change all webpages in the world, close all tags before they can draw a circle. Keep the XML in a data island or something. But PLEASE make it work in HTML!!!!
SVG is a simple XML language. Easily inlined, easily checked, and supposedly supported by every non-MS company on the planet. It is a weak, but an accepted standard. Now, It is KEPT OUT OF FIREFOX for 99% of World's webpages. It affects both Firefox and SVG. This is really something you need to talk to your buddies!!!!
-------------------------------
PS. Thanks for suggesting Firebug, Oliver. Looks pretty. Seems to die for large size files though. FF crashed 5 times after installing. Maybe something to do with the old debugger on. Will figure it out next week! But the interface is prettier than MSD. Check out the latest Visual Studio, which has a much better debugger than the MSD.
@Joseph Pally
No worries re FireBug. If FF's crashing, verify that you're using the latest version (currently 2.0.0.11): I've always found it to be v stable. Also, do check out the screencasts and documentation: pretty it may well be, but that really isn't the point: it is fantastically powerful... you can do everything from edit nodes on the fly to monitor XHR traffic between the browser and the server. Heck, it'll even read trace statements from Flash!
I might sometimes sound abrupt, but if I can help a fellow developer I always will. :)
That being said, I have to say that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the issues you raise with FF are really about:
1) Malformed data: it is better that *you* should have to write fully valid code rather than be able to rely on the browser to do the work for you. This is not "retro thinking", just doing a professional job. If your mark-up breaks the DOM - e.g. because your doctype is incompatible with the page content or you haven't closed a tag - you're only making it harder and more unreliable to work with. The fact that FF doesn't let you is therefore more of a help than a hindrance.
2) "Missing" features: it's no good screaming that no other browser supports such-and-such a feature just because IE does, because the fact is that there's no reason that what one browser vendor does *independently of agreed standards* should affect every other vendor. Imagine if Safari or Opera or FF suddenly started to go their own way, creating their own browser-specific features: it would result in a return to the days of "site best viewed in [x]".
Obviously MS would love to be able to do exactly that, because it would allow them to "embrace and extend" - that's to say "adopt and then add to until the result is proprietary" - web languages so that their browser would be effectively required to view web content. Because they tie IE to the OS it would therefore mean that the web would become Windows-only... oh, and before you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, persuaded by my "Open Source buddies" or anything else equally untrue, bear in mind that I wouldn't care if it were:
like you all I want to do is be able to develop advanced, robust, useful web-based apps that work for anyone, and frankly I don't mind how that happens.
The problem is that regardless of what MS says about the percentage of the spec it has implemented, it has done so badly, and it waited 6 long years to even start to fix its bugs (IE7 is certainly not a complete fix).
(Oh yeah... and btw I'm pretty familiar w/ the CSS spec, the documentation at msdn and I build more than just "plain webpages")
3) IE's Practical Approach: try telling the other developers yelling at Dean Hachamovich over on the IE blog that they're mistaken. But before you do, I'd advise you to fix the 1744 errors (adding the 3 frames together) on the Z Cubes homepage, otherwise they'll laugh at you. They'll also be a bit mean about the table-based layout, but IE can completely screw up valid code that works fine in every other browser, so I understand what you're doing there.
@Oliver:
You still do not seem to see the issue. Let me say before you insist that we have to do "error" fixing. The homepage renders nicely, and that is what we care about first. Not obeying standards to make you happy.
Now listen carefully. Focus. Focus. Focus Hard.
1. SVG is an excellent feature and *standard* for Firefox to have.
I hope you agree to that.
2. Now FF does NOT render SVG in HTML. Most of the world uses HTML. Not XHTML (and its sisters).
You agree to that. Wait. Do not loose me here.
3. Because some folks insist everyone should write XHTML to render SVG. It is not like firefox does not have an SVG engine. But some folks insist that HTML coding should be converted and done in XML/XHTML (even change the extension to XHTML) so that it will render vectors.
MS easily did this in 1999-2000 (to remind you that was last century) (with VML in HTML - terrific job. Congratulations Microsoft!), and Firefox has not been able to do this even in 2007 (:-(). Will firefox break in two if it rendered SVG in HTML??????
You are not alone in such standards based retro thinking. It is not just retro, it is stubborn & retro thinking together. Ineffective and Impractical at the same time.
I just hope your buddies actually wrote useful stuff, rather than making everyone close and match their tags. Why tout Firefox, when it refuses to be useful????? How many developer hours will it take to allow SVG to be rendered in HTML that everyone users, rather than XHTML that NO ONE USES. (In fact you cannot even open XHTML in most browsers -thanks to my friends at Microsoft). In all, your friends and MS have colluded to make XHTML AND SVG useless to most of the world.
And you want developers to somehow be compliant to both. How is that even possible???? We have to use IFRAMES, and extensive js to get around these retro standards issues. And we have to choose between resources and time. We do not care about standards that may make YOU sleep well at night. We need problems solved. Pages rendered. Ideas transferred.
Your stance almost reminds me of "primary-school-teacher" thinking. Or shall I say, "preacher" like thinking. Or may be, "cop" like thinking.
Be flexible and forward looking. It is OK to do that. Esp folks who try to promote standards.
Get practical before you preach MS on what to do. That way MS will take some advice. And try to make these platforms not just compliant, but USEFUL to everyone. Standards DO NOT make anyone's life easier. Useful products do.
Well, please give me some suggestion on getting this SVG thing to work in HTML. Any contacts you can use up in the FF developer chain??? I really want to make Firefox work SVG for the normal folks! I will even pay them.
@Joseph Pally
I'm sorry but I have to draw things to a close. I can't debate the matter with you any further when it turns out that you're so far off the mark as to think that standards don't make things easier, that MS listens to anyone or that I'm on some power trip when I try to explain why (for example) SVG requires an XHTML doctype.
Actually "debate" is the wrong term for dealing with you, just as "moron" was. Some things aren't up for discussion, they just are:
IE is a shit browser [Everyone but you]
Standards help everyone [Bill "we contributed more Web standards than anyone!" Gates]
You aren't qualified to discuss what you don't understand [Wittgenstein, sort of]
With tears of laughter coursing down my cheeks at your witticisms regarding what century we're now, I bid you a fond adieu and wish you the best of luck trying to get FF to behave like IE.
Was hoping for a real debate with someone who would identify himself.
Arbitrary drivel like: "IE is a shit browser" and "You aren't qualified to discuss what you don't understand", "moron", etc. show a lack of maturity and membership in some techo-cult for the blind leading blind (no disrespect intended to the blind). You need to also grow out of 4 letter words.
SVG requires an XHTML doctype. VML does not, nor cares. IE wins. If Firefox could render half the vector brilliance that IE could, I would contribute a million dollars to the FOSS community. I will have to try real hard to give the money away, I am sure.
Well, there you go. Draw on your canvas with no events.
Good luck.
Well then, what flipping browser do you want bundled with windows? Lynx? IE or mac? WHAT???????
Opera sucks because it runs everything too slow. I think Safari should be installed on all win comps AFTER it has been DEBUGGED! (yes apple, safari runs like crap with all those null 10053 errors!)
"For the record: Firefox is THE Standards-compliant browser. Its biggest appeal is that when you create something that looks good and works well in Firefox it will more than likely look good and work well in all other browsers (EXCEPT Internet Explorer because it is so ridiculously ineffective)."
Opera 9 is def way better to show the page correct. If something is wrong in the XHTML/CSS Opera usually manages to handle this. Firefox just throw up and that's like coding an app without error handling.
1 2 Next