Just Browsing

Do We Really Want the European Commission to Regulate the Web?

Opera CTO Håkon Wium Lie continues to promote and defend his company’s legal action against Microsoft for anti-competitive practices with a guest editorial in The Register. One thing seems incontrovertible: Microsoft should not be allowed to tie Internet Explorer to Windows and strong-arm hardware manufacturers into refusing bundling deals with other browser vendors. Assuming this is actually happening, which I can easily believe, it constitutes clear abuse of Microsoft’s monopolistic position in the operating system market. Unfortunately, Opera is muddying the water with the far less tenable demand that IE be forced by hook or crook to implement specific web specifications.

Examining Opera’s Assumptions

Håkon is upfront regarding Opera’s motivation for approaching the European Commission:

In the area of web browsers, Opera Software has proposed a specific kind of remedy - that Microsoft only be allowed to distribute standards-compliant browsers. Microsoft’s IE is bug-ridden and the company, despite its vast resources, has shown little interest in fixing problems that cost web designers time and sleep. IE dominates the web due to its being bundled with Windows. This forces web designers to prioritize coding for IE. Coding for standards-compliant browsers becomes a secondary consideration

In other words, Opera is having trouble growing its market share, and they feel that websites that don’t support their browser’s standards-compliant implementation are to blame. But does this claim hold water? Let’s examine some of Håkon’s assumptions in more detail.

Opera would have significantly more success if more websites were compatible with their browser

Obviously this wouldn’t hurt. After spending a week using Opera as my primary browser, I was definitely turned off by the fact that the time tracking website we use did not work correctly. SlimTimer makes this clear on its homepage: “First, you should know that SlimTimer only supports FireFox 1.5+, IE 6+ and Safari.” This alone would be enough reason for me not to adopt Opera permanently, so it is easy to see why they are annoyed by the current state of affairs.

Nonetheless, it beggars belief that Opera would gain real market traction purely as a result of broader website support. Being as good as the other guys isn’t enough when you’re faced with formidable competition like IE, Safari and Firefox. Surely the market power of Microsoft and Apple, as well as the huge market traction currently enjoyed by Firefox, are much more important factors in Opera’s failure to expand its market share.

It is possible to designate certain web specifications as “standards”

To his credit, Håkon does suggest a definition for what should be considered a web standard:

If two or more major web browsers, in official shipping versions, add standards-related functionality that’s generally considered useful to the progress of the web, and described in a publicly available specification, Microsoft must add the same functionality.

Unfortunately, this characterization is riddled with imprecision and ambiguity. First of all, what exactly is a “major web browser”? And more pointedly, does Opera even qualify? After all, it only has 0.67% of the market (according to TheCounter.com). What does it mean for functionality to be “generally considered useful to the progress of the web”? Considered by whom? It seems inevitable that any such regulation would quickly descend into pointless bickering about what really constitutes a standard.

It is impossible to compete in the browser market because of Microsoft’s operating system monopoly

To quote Ars Technica:

The one shortcoming with Opera’s antitrust complaint is that Firefox has made significant headway against Microsoft. From its 1.0 release in November 2004 to the present, Firefox has gained over 125 million users worldwide, and as of last month, Firefox held over 40 percent of the market in several EU member nations. Firefox has managed a huge surge in popularity where Opera has failed over the last 10 years, demonstrating that it is possible to supplant [IE].

Microsoft is Opera’s main competitor

It is generally accepted that most IE users are technically unsophisticated and adopt whatever browser is pre-installed on their computer. This is certainly a plausible argument for making sure that all vendors get a fair shot at having their browser bundled with Windows. But in the current state of affairs, Opera is competing for users who decide to switch from their default browser, so their principle adversary is obviously Firefox, not IE. And if regulators finally do away with Microsoft’s predatory bundling tactics once and for all (please!), Firefox, with its dominant brand and market share, is much more likely to benefit than Opera.

Microsoft needs to play ball if website support for Opera is to improve

Yes, Opera would face a more level playing field if it had the broad website compatibility of more popular browsers. But the number of public websites that don’t support Firefox has plummeted since it began to make its mark a few years ago. Mozilla is just as committed to promoting web standards as Opera is, and the soon-to-be-released Firefox 3 marks huge progress in this regard. Websites are going to support Firefox 3, so they’ll automatically support Opera as well. Right? Why do we care about Microsoft again?

The European Commission is the right body to enforce standards adoption by browser vendors

Of all Opera’s assumptions, this is the wackiest. I’ve lived in Europe for 15 years, and I love it. We have great food, culture, architecture, rich linguistic diversity and a strong currency to boot (zing!). But I’ve never heard anyone claim that the EC is particularly democratic, transparent or efficient. In fact, its patent lack of all of the above is one of the most frequently voiced criticisms of the European political system.

At the same time, the United States has a huge lead in technological innovation largely because of its lack of overbearing regulation. The last thing we want is to put a bunch of bureaucrats in charge of which features must be implemented by which software product. As one of the few shining examples of internationally prominent consumer software firms born and raised in Europe, it is frankly shocking that Opera would even suggest this course of action.

Conclusion

I like Opera’s product. I like the openness and independent spirit that the company stands for. I like the fact that it is a successful European software company challenging America’s technological hegemony. I like Håkon. But this just makes it all the more vexing to see Opera embark on such a misguided quest to put the government (or, more correctly, a non-democratically elected supranational body) in charge of technological innovation. It is hard not to conclude that Opera is getting pretty desperate in the face of its dwindling market share.

Guys, there has to be a better solution. The browser space is firming up, and unfortunately Opera doesn’t have a strong competitive position. This isn’t the fault of Microsoft or anyone else. It’s just the way that markets work; they tend to coalesce around a small number of perceived leaders as they mature. On the other hand, Opera has great technology, a great brand and a great team. Rather than resorting to political remedies, they should be (and hopefully are) thinking about how to leverage these considerable assets to reinvent and revitalize their company.