Microsoft Giving Rival Browsers a Lift 272
gollum123 tips an article at the NY Times on the progress of the European Windows browser choice screen that we have been discussing recently. "Rivals of Microsoft's market-leading Web browser have attracted a flurry of interest since the company, fulfilling a regulatory requirement, started making it easier for European users of its Windows operating system to switch. Mozilla, whose Firefox browser is the strongest competitor to Microsoft's Internet Explorer worldwide, said that more than 50,000 people had downloaded Firefox via a 'choice screen' that has been popping up on Windows-equipped computers in Europe since the end of last month. ... Opera Software, based in Oslo, said downloads of its browser in Belgium, France, Britain, Poland, and Spain had tripled since the screen began to appear. Microsoft said it was too early to tell whether the choice screen might prompt significant numbers of users to change. The digital ballot is being delivered over the Internet with software updates, and it is expected to take until mid-May to complete the process. The browser choice will also be presented to buyers of new Windows computers across the European Union for five years."
BTW (Score:5, Informative)
The script on that page uses a proper shuffle algorithm now (Fisher-Yates/Durstenfeld). If the page is viewed without Javascript, the order is fixed though, with IE being in the leftmost spot...
Re:BTW (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When I think about it, on some level it seems wrong that browsers default to having javascript enabled and to doing stupid things like saving form data. At very least make those things options available to turn on during the first time you open the browser. Or more specifically directing you to do it yourself with adequate instructions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Windows script host is an integral part of the windows operating system. Most scripted automation tasks rely on it in Windows.
WSH, by default supports both JScript and VBScript.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I knew javascript was used on a lot more pages lately, but I had no idea just how much it is used until I installed noscript. Now I find myself constantly re-enabling various webpages when I need that functionality.
I've had the exact reverse experience. There are a handful of pages that I've had to enable javascript for, almost all the others don't need it - although they might look prettier with it (slashdot being one such example). Occasionally I will run into a page that won't work right, but unless it is really important, I just move on to another similar page rather than enable javascript.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to surf the web without javascript, so I just install No-Script. On every web page, I get a popup telling me that trash is being blocked. If/when I think that I MIGHT want to see some of the trash, I selectively enable the stuff being blocked. I never enable cross site scripting.
Is this 1998, or what?
Re: (Score:2)
I have the same experience. In fact, I am able to disable my adblock extension since most of the annoying add use javascrip to display.
The only real excecptions being my bank and newssites that have comments plus a few forums.
Re: (Score:2)
But anyway, it does seem to be working - people are trying out other browsers.
It may also show how trusting and confident people are about downloading new software, installing it and running it on their systems...
informed decisions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a "find out more" link under every browser description in the selection screen.
That said, of all browsers, IE seems to have the most coherent and persuasive page linked from there.
Re: (Score:2)
This leads me to ask who wrote the descriptions of the various browsers.
Re:informed decisions? (Score:5, Informative)
This leads me to ask who wrote the descriptions of the various browsers.
It's something that is trivial to find out on your own. Here [browserchoice.eu] is the ballot page. If you click on "Tell me more" buttons, you'll see that all links lead to web pages hosted on a domain owned the company behind the browser (mozilla.com, apple.com, opera.com, google.com etc).
Sorry if that didn't provide any substance to yet another "evil MS" conspiracy theory...
Re: (Score:2)
Each browser provided their own copy and link URLs. So if, for example, Mozilla's is sub-standard, they only have themselves to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the human race. Most peoples' important life decisions are made emotionally, on a whim, or on a bet. Failing that, they ask a friend what they should do. Very few people think deeply about their situation, and even fewer confer any serious research (beyond the shlock pushed out by news agencies and the government) on all that many topics.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and also having no intention to use Windows 7 any time in the near future
The browser ballot is presented to Windows XP and Vista users as well (via auto-update).
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt this will change much other than possibly making it so that fewer people that don't want/need IE have it on their computer and possibly making MS provide a better option for updates rather than via an activex website.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I helped my girlfriend's mother access a website and she was freaking out saying she broke the internet. I walked her through getting to the website she wanted to see without getting sent to a phishing site(she clicked a bad link in an email to her bank).
She simply could not get her head around the concept of distinguishing between IE and the internet. To her, IE IS the internet. To her, you can't see websites without IE.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:informed decisions? (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be the reason why the change was necessary. MS doesn't do a particularly responsible job of supporting IE, and way too many people think that IE is the internet and Outlook is email.
But why should they care how they access the web. If they think that IE is the internet, then how is tricking them into loading another browser going to help them?
The browser choice system is designed to help the other browser makers like Mozilla and Opera. It is designed to help the website designers who bitch about CSS support in IE. It is not designed to help the people who actually own the computers that are being forced to re-choose their software.
The thing that everyone has forgotten here is what is best for the general public - the ones who aren't interested in tinkering with their computer and who just want to get onto the web. They don't care that there are other options out there, because they just want to use what they already know. They don't care if writing a website for IE is more work for the webmasters, because they don't see any of that and all they know is that all the websites that they want just work.
Re: (Score:2)
It actually does help them, because their own stupidity will be limited by the capabilities of the browser they choose. So if you gave them IE by default, the most clueless users would catch every IE/Windows related malware. But if they have Mozilla or Opera, then they'll be immune to IE malware, and since Mozilla and Opera have a smaller marketshare, they'll be exposed to statistically
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing that everyone has forgotten here is what is best for the general public - the ones who aren't interested in tinkering with their computer and who just want to get onto the web. They don't care that there are other options out there, because they just want to use what they already know.
"What is best for the general public" is a very subjective goal, anyway. One could argue that, in long-term, awareness that one can even choose a browser (or, in more extreme cases, awareness of what a "browser" even is, as a class of applications) is more beneficial for the society as a whole than just "using what they already know".
You know, teach the man to fish, and all that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One could argue that, in long-term, awareness that one can even choose a browser (or, in more extreme cases, awareness of what a "browser" even is, as a class of applications) is more beneficial for the society as a whole than just "using what they already know".
Feel free to make that argument. I would be interested in what the benefits are. But I maintain that people just want to use their computer as an appliance to get the job done. They don't care about the subtle differences between software, anymore than they would care about whether they used NTFS or ext4 for their file system. People like us might care, but other people have other priorities.
If they need to know about this stuff, then we developers have not done our job properly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing that everyone has forgotten here is what is best for the general public - the ones who aren't interested in tinkering with their computer and who just want to get onto the web.
What's best for the general public, and what the general public are interested in are rarely related. The general public will usually take the path of least resistance, which frequently doesn't serve their long term interests. Causing short term inconvenience may indeed be good for the general public in the long term. We've already seen what happens when Microsoft gains an unopposed monopoly - IE6 caused the web to stagnate for *years* because they had destroyed the competition and so there was no longer
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, they don't have a monopoly anymore, so why bother doing this now
The EU has certainly waited until far too late - this step should have been taken 10 years ago. However, I do support what they are doing simply because it will prevent history from repeating itself.
Sure they didn't support PNG format properly until way too late, but really what makes the web so much better now than it was when Netscape threw in the towel and decided to rewrite their browser from scratch? We had CSS back then.
Yes, we had more or less the same standards back then, the difference is that IE's support for them was criminally broken. Getting anything reasonably advanced to work the way you wanted it to on IE was *really* hard. Getting stuff to work on both IE and any other browser was even harder - this means that the
How is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)
X Y Z Means eXtreme eYebally microZoft, of course.
Seriously, though, this was really expected. It's not that people actually like the browsers in such cases, but they just randomly click. I've had my grandfather randomly picking Firefox already; I've had my grandmother clicking an add that says "You are visitor 1M, you win a big prize!". It's the fact that many people are still "ignorant" or careless towards this question.
The dialog pops-up: "CHOOSE THY BROWSER".
Reaction: "What the hell is a browser? Choose? I just want to 'surf' the 'internet'. Hell, this one with the shiny colors and the fancy name should be good, I'll click it. [double-clicks instead of single-clicking]."
All in all, I'm glad that people are being given the choice. But, really, those of us who care about it, already had the means to do it; it's the fact that we're fucking upset that other people don't get pulled into using them...
Jorl has spoken. Now mod up/down/sideways.
Jorl has spoken indeed .... (Score:2)
but i wonder what are Harald and Jarlssen doing. they havent been around since the last pillage ....
(sorry i couldnt resist)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Opera download numbers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Presumably they can track where the users come from via referer HTTP header.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Overreach. (Score:4, Insightful)
EU: "Hey Microsoft, people are too ignorant to do research and realize there exist alternatives to IE"
M$: "So what."
EU: "Give them the option to use third party software options other than the installed feature built into your OS, or else pay up!"
M$: "Ok, we'll buckle, we don't need any more bad press waxing possible monopolist practices."
What if I started a class action suit against Apple because Itunes is installed by default, and that is a "monopoly" on digital music storefronts? Would Apple have to install a Media Player Choice(TM) screen, allowing customers to choose Windows Media Player for OSX, RealPlayer, or WinAmp because they are too ignorant to do the research themselves? Yes Microsoft is huge. Yes they are the main provider of consumer level OS's to the big-box retailers. So let them package and run by default the software of their choosing. People don't have to buy M$. This would be like forcing a leading car manufacturer to offer brakes from 3rd party companies, because the buyers are complacent enough to accept their shitty factory brakes, but litigation hungry enough to file complaints about them.
What the fuck is society coming to.
Some things, you need to 'force'. (Score:5, Insightful)
the food health standards are forced too. despite most of the populace knowing no shit about them. but, it is necessary.
same thing here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well you could argue about food safety standards too...
But no, I don't see how this crap is necessary at all, and I'm saying this as a long time Opera user.
Either the clueless people will be clicking randomly, which won't result in any improvements since they'll just stick to whatever they picked initially, or the were already familiar with that browser and would have downloaded it anyway. Then there's the fact that the top five vendors felt it's cool to keep everybody else out of the view, nicely hidden by
Re:Some things, you need to 'force'. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you get it? It's not for the benefit of the clueless users, it's for our benefit, by having an internet less dominated by IE. Maybe its market share will drop enough to justify the usage of technologies like HTML5 which IE doesn't support.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not necessary at all. You think the milk you drink is fresh and ok because the FDA makes it, or because you wouldn't buy it, if it wasn't?
This is even more ridiculous, because no one's health is at stake. It's a friggin browser, and all of the major ones are available for free anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And people would die in the process. Some things need to be regulated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes they do. Oh, certainly there are individuals who can choose not to. On slashdot they're probably the majority. But the general population? If they want a computer, they go to a computer store, where they're offered a choice between Vista and Windows 7, if they're lucky. They might realize that a mac is an alternative, but they'll quickly find out that they have hundreds of dollars of software that won't run on it. They might realize that Linux is an alternative, but findin
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Overreach. (Score:4, Informative)
I am aware Microsoft has been a little overreaching with their software practices in the past
Congratulations, sir, for winning the understatement of the day award.
They barely got off in 1991, thanks to a deadlocked panel. They settled with the DOJ in 1994 to end their investigation into abusive monopoly practices, and then they breached that settlement, prompting the trial in 1998 involving 20+ states and the US Department of Justice.
In that trial, witnesses intentionally failed to answer questions, claimed not to recall, and provided answers directly contrary to the documentary evidence. Microsoft submitted falsified video evidence and edited demonstrations regarding the operation of its software and the process involved in switching to that of competitors.
They were convicted of abusive practices, a finding not overturned on appeal.
Similar EU proceedings produced the ballot screen, also a minor slap on the wrist.
What if I started a class action suit against Apple because Itunes is installed by default, and that is a "monopoly" on digital music storefronts?
It's not. It's a dominant player, but it's not a monopoly, and even if it were, it has not engaged in unlawful leveraging of that power.
Microsoft's IE trouble isn't because it's included with Windows--it's because they launched IE as a separate product and then violated their DOJ agreement when they started integrating into Windows. It took seven years of legal action to get them to un-integrate it.
Had they complied with their original obligations and kept the products separate while allowing OEMs to bundle other browsers without being penalized, they wouldn't be in this situation and no one would care that MSIE is the default browser on MS Windows.
Yes they are the main provider of consumer level OS's to the big-box retailers. So let them package and run by default the software of their choosing. People don't have to buy M$
Contradiction of points. The difficulty of avoiding Microsoft and their misconduct in prior settlements is the major reason they face this penalty.
This would be like forcing a leading car manufacturer to offer brakes from 3rd party companies, because the buyers are complacent enough to accept their shitty factory brakes, but litigation hungry enough to file complaints about them.
Ah, the inept car analogy. Now I know I'm just feeding the trolls.
1. No leading car manufacturer uses first-party brakes.
2. Brakes are an integral component of a car; IE was a separate product that Microsoft decided to weave into Windows specifically to quash competing products, using their captive monopoly audience (both OEMs and customers) to do so.
3. MS is not being punished for its selection of a shitty browser, but for its repeated breach of legally-binding settlements requiring that they not bundle any additional products with Windows. Trying to tie the IE codebase into the OS was an attempt to dodge that bullet by calling IE a "feature" and not a product.
4. Unless that car company was using its cars in order to squeeze out other brake manufacturers, and made it such that installing third party brakes meant adding an extension onto the axles, with the MS brakes still mounted to the wheel, and then forcing all of its dealers and licensed maintenance shops to use MS brakes and not offer any others for aftermarket installation, it would not be engaging in similar conduct.
5. Even if the car company did engage in that conduct, if it complied with the original penalty (no mandatory bundling), it would still more than likely be permitted to install its brakes as the default choice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
-And that failing by Apple to open up to independent builders will keep Microsoft happily on top.
" Brakes are also not a good example, as they are an integral part of a car, and always have been."
-To the average consumer, brakes are as important to the car as the browser is as important to the OS. How else would they access Facebook?
And to your Holden argument, well, you are suggesting that because a manufacturer is the 'only' on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To the average consumer, brakes are as important to the car as the browser is as important to the OS. How else would they access Facebook?
That might be the case now, fifteen years after they were first added, but at the time, no, they weren't. There was a nascent browser market, and MS attempted to kill it in it's infancy, and roll it into their OS monopoly.
And to your Holden argument, well, you are suggesting that because a manufacturer is the 'only' one in the playing field, they have to accommodate other companies in on their revenue stream because its 'unfair' to default to their built-in features.
In essence, yes. Monopolies are abberations in a free market. They sometimes exist, due to natural laws, or simply the extreme competency of a company, but they are problematic. The laws of a free market do not apply to monopolies - therefore they need external regulations to keep them und
Re:Overreach. (Score:5, Interesting)
What if I started a class action suit against Apple because Itunes is installed by default, and that is a "monopoly" on digital music storefronts?
You have your cart and horse backwards. First, iTunes the application is not a monopoly of any sort. OS X is not a monopoly of any sort. That leaves iTunes the service, which as a lot of market share in the US. That means Apple can't bundle OS X with that service, but they don't they bundle the application with the OS and tie the service to the application.
If Apple required OS X to use iTunes, you'd have a case. If Apple forced people to buy a copy of OS X to buy a song on iTunes, you'd have a case. In fact though, Apple is moving iTunes to a Web interface to remove the tie with the application as they approach monopoly levels of market share... Which is probably the best you could hope for from any lawsuit regarding it. Apple can't leverage OS X's monopoly influence to promote iTunes because OS has no monopoly influence. Apple isn't leveraging iTunes service monopoly to promote anything in particular.
What the fuck is society coming to.
It is now and always has been a clamoring crowd of ignorance. People who insist on expressing their uneducated opinions without bothering to understand the topic even superficially first.
Re: (Score:2)
No Apple can't leverage an OS monopoly but they certainly are starting to get there in the media player space.
Umm, the Windows Media Player has more than double the share if iTunes. How exactly does that constitute a monopoly?
My problem is I like the iPod but have a strong aversion to iTunes. It continues to be a pain to manage devices with.
So use something else. Seriously WMP, Amarok, Banshee, Floola, gtkpod, MediaMonkey, Rhythmbox,SharePod, Songbird, Winamp,YamiPod all have support for iPod integration. Why are you using iTunes if you don't like it?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Except that Windows (and IE) are not a monopoly.
Windows is a monopoly in some jurisdictions and a market dominant in others, depending upon what they call it in their antitrust/competition law. IE is not a monopoly.
Yes, but there are alternatives (for those who really care, there's Linux), for everyone else there's Apple.
Linux has negligible share and Apple is not in the same market. MS's customers are Dell and HP and Acer and they cannot license OS X. You clearly did not bother learning anything about this issue before spouting off.
Unless you can prove that MS forces stores to sell Mac's for more money (they don't, Apple gladly artificially inflates their prices on their own), then you can't claim that Windows is a monopoly.
Unless you can prove bananas are purple you can't say Windows is not a monopoly. Seriously, just because make up some nonsense th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that Windows (and IE) are not a monopoly. Are they the largest player? Yes, but there are alternatives (for those who really care, there's Linux), for everyone else there's Apple.
For what software?
Remember, there now exist lots of essential line-of-business applications which simply do not have a non-Windows port.
'Run OSX' is not much of an answer if your factory runs CustomWidgetMaker0.3 written in Delphi, QuickBasic, DOS batch scripting and Excel macros.
Re:Overreach. (Score:4, Insightful)
A little? They've used their monopoly to dominate the browser, office software and corporate email. They go out of their way to avoid interoperability with their protocols and file formats and use vertical integration in addition to lock users into the Microsoft world of software. They have a history of unethical practices and continue today (OOXML, Linux patent threats). Many of their offerings have superior alternatives, but fitting them in with Microsoft's closed ecosystem is too difficult so people just do the easy thing and buy they stuff that works with their Active Directory, Exchange and Desktops.
In the browser market, Microsoft has clearly shown abuse of their Desktop monopoly with their lack of standards compliance and proprietary extensions. Tell me why MS can't build a standards compliant browser with their resources. Even today, they're trying to push Siverlight to hold the keys to the web's multimedia and with MS holding patents, there will always be a cloud over compatible implementations like Mono. And don't say they won't play that card. They already did it with their Linux patent threats. They've been anti-competitive with I.E. They deserve this.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2009/01/marketshare-2398402384.png [blogcdn.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Opera downloads tripled (Score:3, Funny)
So now that makes six Opera users. And they'll all be crowing that this was all due to a complaint raised first by Opera!
Re: (Score:2)
downloads of its browser in Belgium, France, Britain, Poland, and Spain had tripled
So now that makes six Opera users. And they'll all be crowing that this was all due to a complaint raised first by Opera!
I just want to point out that would be a minimum of 15 users, if each country started with 1 and went to 3.
Also, this was all because of Opera.
Posting from the US. 16, bitches!
Awareness is the best result. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Awareness is the best result. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moby Dick isn't the only book in the library. Is Charles Dickens to be blamed writing above the average reading level? Or is it the library's fault for pushing the book to hard on the ignorant masses?
Neither. Same applies to Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, some people here still prefer KISS to actual efficiency and elegance. As if it were something good.
Idiocracy here we come, indeed...
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame that people don't understand what? that they have a choice of a browser? and that all those choices, are for the most part almost identical?
Seriously, it's not a shame, it's people choosing what they do or don't invest their time in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
umm no. what's your point? i don't think the government should have any say in the browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If I choose not to invest my time in automotive research, should I have the government come down and force the largest automobile manufacturer to hand out a 'these are your automotive options' because I am unwilling to do the research?
Ooh, a car analogy! Let me play!
If every car had incompatible steering wheels, engines you weren't allowed to look at or touch, took different manufacturer-specific brands of petrol, and the largest one came free (and was in fact mandatory - you couldn't get from the kitchen to the bathroom without using the car) with every house bought from the #1 house manufacturer, and came with a special set of patented wheels which could also drive down a special railway line owned by the same company, which was active
Re: (Score:2)
many people use Internet Explorer simply because they are unaware of alternatives.
Did they want to be aware of alternatives? Or is this something where we are deciding they SHOULD be aware whether they want to be or not?
Which does not sound very consumer-oriented.
Why didn't the EU just force Microsoft to pass a certain set of standards with their browser or give users the choice? At least then they'd allow Microsoft to prevent the confusion by producing a quality product.
In my experience, the general user would rather not have to deal with the browser thing. Most people that aren't co
Re: (Score:2)
"You're assuming that before Firefox came around, IE was the only browser"
It was true enough to convince the DOJ. Perhaps you could have helped MS convince the court that there were plenty of browsers around competing with IE.
No matter how hard IE may have been to develop for, developing for IE plus developing for other browsers would obviously be harder still.
Web developers around here have been whining about IE and Flash for years. It's time to "man-up" and just do your job. If it were easy, they wouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
many people use Internet Explorer simply because they are unaware of alternatives.
Correction: many people use Internet Explorer simply because they don't care about alternatives. Seriously, to you it might be a big deal whether you're using Firefox 3.0 or 3.5 or Chrome's latest beta... for most people out there it's just the logo you click to get through to Facebook.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Firefox? I think I saw that in a popup once. It was anoying, so I just clicked Internet. Stupid Microsoft"
Just a thought (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just a thought (Score:5, Funny)
> Just a thought, how many people would use Internet Explorer if it didn't
> come with Windows?
Thousands. Probably even some who don't work for Microsoft.
Not a metric that makes me want to buy stocks. (Score:2)
EU (Score:5, Interesting)
kudos to the European union.
this and reading they will oppose ACTA's 3strike rule makes me want to join
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Opera with or without ads? (Score:5, Funny)
From my understanding it is the pages fault and not Operas.
It's the page's fault the same way it's the river's fault that my car isn't a boat.
Re:Opera with or without ads? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It does seem to render some pages wrong though. From my understanding it is the pages fault and not Operas.
Google in particular likes to write browser-specific web apps - "we support browser X, Y and Z" - where the list is usually "IE, Firefox, Chrome" these days. There used to be a time when they did browser detection in GMail, and show "this browser is not supported" for Opera. Lately the same goes for Buzz.
Re:Opera with or without ads? (Score:5, Informative)
September 20, 2005
Opera Software today permanently removed the ad banner and licensing fee from its award-winning Web browser.
Re:Opera with or without ads? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder how much money they ever made from ads, and if they regret it, given that 5 years on they're still trying to lose the bad aroma it produced? It was bad enough wading through all the ads on the net, without extra ads built into the browser - what were they thinking?
Opera - the browser that could have been king.
Re:Opera with or without ads? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how much money they ever made from ads, and if they regret it, given that 5 years on they're still trying to lose the bad aroma it produced?
Given that Opera has not had ads for nearly 5 years, it would probably be fair to say that many Opera users today have never used a version that did have ads. In fact, Opera has been ad-free for long enough that I'm genuinely surprised when I see someone (like the OP) who still thinks it's ad-supported. I would think that anyone who would have been using Opera 5 years ago would at least be up to date enough to know that it doesn't have ads anymore. But, apparently, I would be wrong, as the OP appears to be one of those people. Sort of makes me wonder if the browser he's using is branded "Phoenix" or "Firebird".
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of the GP's post was that perhaps Opera's long term flirt with ads has permanently tarnished the name, meaning it doesn't even matter what they've done in the past 5 years.
Re:Opera with or without ads? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, my point is that 18-25 year olds using their Wii or Nokia phone have probably never even heard that Opera was ad-supported. Kids in high school now who sort of "came online" as Firefox was gaining popularity may hear about Opera at some point online (such as.. here) and would be hearing about what it's doing now, not what it was doing in 2005. The only mentions of Opera using ads, like here, also point out how it hasn't been doing that for 5 years.
The old guys? Even though I would expect most of us to know that Opera doesn't use ads, I can expect there to be a group of people who probably hate them for ever advertising in the first place. I don't think that's a very large group, though. There are other, more worthy corporations to focus our hate on now, such as Sony and Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Development costs money. Linux itself couldn't have come as far as it has so quickly without corporate investment. They took a shot at an ad-supported development model and it didn't work. I can't blame them for trying.
We can't all have sugar daddies like the Mozilla Foundation.
Re:Opera with or without ads? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I won't install Real Player on my machine after past issues.
There are many browser options, as this article is about. The OP does not owe Opera the opportunity to be installed on his machine when such quality choices exist.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes it did tarnish the name, I have not touched it since I downloaded a ad supported version. I did not even know that they dropped ad support from the product. I am a perfectly happy firefox customer now so yes I would say it cost them a bundle of market share.
Re:Opera with or without ads? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know, I haven't used Opera in years and I did have a vague Opera-"ad supported" association in the back of my mind. People will naturally expend only so much effort keeping up with marginal web browsers, and first impressions can stick with you for a while. I couldn't, for example, tell you if Konqueror has stopped sucking in the last 5 years (not to pick on Konqueror in particular - just an example).
And yes, I remember the Firebird fiasco, too - six years is not that long a time.
Re: (Score:2)
He's the same guy who thinks that Linux is hard to use.
Re:Opera with or without ads? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since when are one or two people enough to assume a globally smelt “bad aroma”??
Actually those are the first two I know, who even know or remember Opera having ads. Geeks.
Meanwhile, my whole family loves Opera. And in Poland, I hear, it’s the number one browser. :)
Also, everybody here who tried surfing over the phone, has heard of Opera.
So that’s what most people know of it.
I usually get two reactions from people I recommend Opera to:
1. They don’t know what it is. But since I show that I like Opera, and they can feel it, they get drawn in.
2. After a week or so, they wouldn’t want to miss it.
For some it’s Firefox, and that is just as good.
Only for IE users I have no heart at all. Since I used to be a webdev. And that thing has caused my nights to be nightmares for years. I would right here sign a law that said that every person using IE past next month will get shot. Without blinking. That’s how horrible it was. Like a war wound kinda...
Re: (Score:2)
"I wonder how much money they ever made from ads, and if they regret it, given that 5 years on they're still trying to lose the bad aroma it produced?"
If the "bad aroma" of advertising on nearly every web page a person has seen on any browser isn't a problem, I doubt that most people would worry about it.
In fact, it's possible that non-technical folks running Opera in the old days didn't notice if the ads were generated by opera or the web page they were viewing. Only fanatics get excited by these issues.
So? (Score:2)
They're all sane.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They're all sane.
No they're not, IE is included in the list.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called patching up the bruises that MS left behind when it hit them below the belt.