Slashdot Mirror


Safari Killing Opera for Mac OS X?

analog_line writes "According to an article at News.com, the folks at Opera have given an ultimatum to Apple: Use the Opera engine in Safari or we'll have to rethink developing Opera for the Mac. While I know people who use Opera for the Mac, I find it hard to believe that Opera thinks they'll get any response other than, 'enjoy developing for one less platform.'"

54 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Opera sues Apple? by sporty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what if Opera sued Apple for the same reason Netscape sued MS?

    Apple is probably planning on bundling safari with OSX. Granted, they probably won't integrate it. Is this right or wrong? Is it anticompetitive? Analysis?

    --

    -
    ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    1. Re:Opera sues Apple? by oyenstikker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Irrelevant. Microsoft used their monopoly in one market [operating systems] to hinder competition in another market [browsers]. Apple does not have a monopoly in the OS market, so this does not apply to them

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    2. Re:Opera sues Apple? by mishac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      well, it's not quite the same as fritos. When I buy fritos, I don't have to buy a special version of Coke that is designed to be eaten with Fritos. I don"t have to recompile or purchase new products if i switch from doritos to fritos. Software and operating systems are fundamentally different from other products.

    3. Re:Opera sues Apple? by babbage · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Granted, they probably won't integrate [Safari].

      In what way, and for what reason, do you feel this to be so? What do you mean by "won't integrate it"?

      After all, Safari already interfaces with both Rendezvous and AddressBook right in the main interface, and it offers simple gateways to helper applications like StuffIt, Preview, etc. Not only that, but one of the long term goals for Safari seems to be to make the KHTML engine available to third party application developers. If this isn't "integration", what is?

    4. Re:Opera sues Apple? by LordNimon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The "Mac OS market" doesn't mean anything. You can't raise the monopoly issue with a company and its own products. Obviously, 100% of Apple computers are sold by Apple, otherwise they wouldn't be Apple computers!

      I hope I don't need to explain this further.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    5. Re:Opera sues Apple? by jbolden · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even if you did have to buy a special version of Coke that is designed to be eaten with Fritos it still wouldn't make Fritos a monopoly. To be a monopoly you need to be in a position to restrain free trade. How if Fritos owned the entire US corn market and thus could change the price of Doritos at will; or even if they just used up lots of the country's corn and indicated they had a policy that any farmer selling corn to Doritos could not sell corn to Fritos...

    6. Re:Opera sues Apple? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can drag safari to the trash and destroy it. Software Update will never require you to run safari to update your other components. You can (if you wished) write a wraper for Gecko and drop it in-place for WebCore.

      Need I continue?

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    7. Re:Opera sues Apple? by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure what he means is that Safari is not a part of the system like IE for Windows. You want to delete Safari? Drag it to the trash. I have no doubt it will continue to function in this way after the beta period is over.

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    8. Re:Opera sues Apple? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The analogy holds if Apple prevents resellers from installing or bundling Opera with their Macs, which Apple is probably not going to do.

      Microsoft bundling IE is fine.
      Apple bundling Safari is fine.

      Microsoft integrating IE is fine.
      Apple integrating Safari is fine.

      Microsoft using it's Windows monopoly to control browsers is bad.
      Apple using it's desktop monopoly to control browsers is bad.

      To expand: Microsoft manipulating licensing agreements and fees to prevent OEMs from bundling Netscape or making Netscape the default is bad. Microsoft using mshtml in Outlook, Outlook Express, Explorer, Internet Explorer, is fine, but if they used their marketing muscle to prevent bundling/packaging of other software is bad.

      In Apple's case, this is *plain* competition. IE is the default. Netscape/Mozilla is the popular alternative. Apple releases a competitive browser. Opera decides not to compete, Opera's loss.

    9. Re:Opera sues Apple? by babbage · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You can drag safari to the trash and destroy it.

      Currently. Will that still be true if/when KHTML & any other aspects of Safari become part of the system libraries? Maybe the Safari interface to those libraries will be easily removeable, but will that mean anything?

      Software Update will never require you to run safari to update your other components.

      Same objection applies -- the SoftwareUpdate application still seems to do HTTP communication and some kind of extraction of data returned from the web. Okay, so it's not doing real HTML rendering now, but if the library is just waiting to be used then why couldn't it be applied in a future version? (IMO, Microsoft just uses IE for WindowsUpdate just because it's so easy to put that info into a web page rather than having to keep a separate application on every instance of Windows they ship. The fact that Apple came to a different conclusion on this matter isn't very impressive to me one way or the other.).

      A better example might be the help system -- that all seems to just be simple HTML rendering, and I don't see any reason that they wouldn't transition this to a KHTML based backend in a future release.

      You can (if you wished) write a wrapper for Gecko and drop it in-place for WebCore.

      Quite true. So what?

      Need I continue?

      Could you please? I remain unconvinced. You've given a handful of offhand remarks about how you can route around or remove Safari. That in my opinion doesn't refute the fact that Safari -- especially for a beta release -- is already remarkably integrated into the system, even if in a "loose coupling / tight cohesion" kind of way where, as I say, everything works well together but, as you say, components can still be removed or replaced without too much pain. I don't see any reason not to expect the cohesion among Safari and the rest of the system to get even tighter in post-Beta versions, and it remains an open question whether the loos coupling aspect that you're leaning on will remain part of the picture (though I think we both hope that loose coupling will still work well in future releases).

    10. Re:Opera sues Apple? by sporty · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But, they aren't the only ones who produce softare.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    11. Re:Opera sues Apple? by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everything you said in your comment was what you imagine Apple could do. If you are looking to argue about speculation as to what Apple could theoretically do, I think that's a waste of time. Yes, they could go so far as to do all the things Microsoft did to tie IE to Windows.

      All you can look at is what Apple's situation is now, and what their general philosophy is. Right now, Safari is totally optional. It's safe to say it will be the browser on the dock on new machines once it is ready. It can simply be dragged to the trash to be erased. This isn't just the way Safari works-- if I want to delete Mail.app, iChat, iMovie, etc., all I have to do is drag the app to the trash. It is part of the easy and intuitive user experience that Apple has always had over Windows, and that has become especially strong in OS X.

      Additionally, look at Apple's gameplan. Apple is trying to further the Mac OS, in order to further Apple hardware. They aren't trying to make Safari the dominant browser that crushes all others. Apple felt that a simple browser that is OS X through-and-through, and that integrates with the other iApps, was a very useful piece to making the OS X experience better. The other side-motivation that possibly exists would be to push away the dominant MS products and offer a worthy alternative. In this case it isn't to crush IE, but to keep MS from crushing Apple by leveraging IE.

      So, yes, there exists a possibility that Apple could go counter to the way they have developed all their other applications and go against the general design of the platform, but until I start seeing some sort of evidence to at least suggest this is what they are trying to do, I don't see the point in arguing over it.

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    12. Re:Opera sues Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Rendezvous is an open-sourced public API, and its documentation can be found here. Address Book's functions are also published, and developer documentation can be found here. And if you look at Apple's Cocoa documentation, you'll find that Apple already includes basic HTML rendering capabilities in its NSTextView class. You're using it whenever you view an HTML message in Mail or make use of Project Builder's built-in documentation viewer, or when you launch OS X's Help Viewer application. So by making the WebCore framework available to the public (which, you should remember, it HAS NOT YET DONE), Apple would essentially be doing nothing more than UPGRADING its HTML rendering capabilities.

    13. Re:Opera sues Apple? by cappadocius · · Score: 2, Informative
      That in my opinion doesn't refute the fact that Safari -- especially for a beta release -- is already remarkably integrated into the system,

      Really I think the burden of proof is on you. If I drag Safari to the Trash it will be as if Safari never existed.

      On my system Chimera is far more integrated than Safari. When I open an html file or webloc or tell another app to open a page, it opens in Chimera. (Chimera even appears automatically on my list of possible default browsers. OSX 10.1 only showed IE automatically)

      The only real way in which the System and Safari are linked is that when Safari 1.0 comes out the system will tell me. Of course by the time it does I will have already seen it on VersionTracker and read articles about it on MacSlash and possibly Slashdot. And if I never want to see another Safari release in my life after that I can tell System Update to stop showing Safari to me.

      The only integration is that Safari looks like an iApp and it accesses the same features provided to 3rd party browsers.

      --

      omnia tua castra sunt nobis

    14. Re:Opera sues Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not like Apple hasn't bundled browsers with it OS before. If memory serves, MacOS 8/9 came with IE, Netscape AND AOL already installed and ready to go.

      The basic issue with Safari is that one day, someone at Apple (for the sake of theory, let's called him/her "SJ") wakes up and says "Gee. Web browsing in OS X really kinda sucks. Let's make a browser that doesn't suck."

      In other words, they raised the bar. Previously, the browser that everyone compared themselves to was IE -- was it better or worse than IE 5.1?

      Now, they've raised the bar. This is a good thing for users (by providing better browsers) and a good thing for developers (by giving them higher targets to shoot at).

    15. Re:Opera sues Apple? by FatRatBastard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's sort of saying "Ford has a monopoly on Ford cars" and then claiming shipping the car with a stereo is anti-competitive.

  2. Opera X dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Insert joke about a fat lady singing here.

  3. Opera isn't dying! by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, really. They acknowledge that Opera 6 sucks pretty bad, and promis that 7 will rock ass on OS X.

    If anything, though, I'd think Chimera would be the one hurting Opera the most.

    The fact that it costs money certainly doesn't help matters.

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
  4. What about KDE? by EccentricAnomaly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Konqueror doesn't use the Opera engine, will Opera drop linux support? Since they've released a Windows version, they must've gotten Microsoft to use the Opera engine in Explorer...

    Yeah it sucks when Apple releases a free version of your App... but it would suck more if there were less Macs to sell your app to. Apple releasing a web browser was a very neccesary step for Apple to keep tha Mac platform alive and to try and take away the Wintel market share. The more mac users, the bigger the market for Mac developers.

    Opera has a head start on Safari... instead of giving up, they could just try and out-innovate Safari they way Watson has out-innovated Sherlock.

    --
    There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
    1. Re:What about KDE? by TheJesusCandle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Opera has a head start on Safari... instead of giving up, they could just try and out-innovate Safari they way Watson has out-innovated Sherlock.

      Problem is, and we have seen it before, end users dont really care what browser they use ( or other applications for that matter), as long as long as they can check their webmail and surf. Lots of browsers do this just fine. Some do it better than others. But the fact remains that most end users will just use use what came with the system.

      Ive used opera quite a bit on pc's and it's pretty fast. Bout a month ago i put it on my macintosh, a blazing 80Mhz runnin macos 9.1. It was dog slow compared to ie on that box.

  5. Opera has to be competitive. by bmetzler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they can't produce to web browser that will cause people to buy it over Safari, then they should just not develop Opera for the Mac. There's nothing wrong with that.

    And before anyone says anything, this does not mean that Apple has an illegal monopoly. There is nothing wrong with not propping up third-party developers.

    -Brent

    1. Re:Opera has to be competitive. by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More importantly, if they insist on charging for something other companies are willing to give away free, they had better make it worth the money. And it probably isn't in Opera's interest to continue developing a commercial browser for a smaller market that now has 2 outstanding, fast, free browsers (3 if you count Phoenix, but that one still needs work). I haven't seen iCab since Jaguar but the last version of that I saw was also outstanding. It makes a lot of sense for Opera to abandon the Mac market, and concentrate on Wintel, but there is no need for them to act like it's apple's monopolistic practices that led to this. Chimera blows Opera away on os x and it has for longer than anyone even knew Apple was working on a web browser. And most people don't want to pay real money for a web browser. So Opera should concentrate where their strength is, which is not OS X.

  6. Why all the fuss? by akgunkel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    IE already comes with all Macs.
    Safari will probably take IE's place as the default.

    Is Safari really already so much better than IE that Opera and others see no hope in going up against it?

    Is the sole selling point of alternative browsers really just that they're not from MS?

    I don't understand why there's a willingness to work on alternative browsers when the default is from MS, but not if the default browser is from Apple. If Apple makes a feature complete, windows version of Safari available for free, how many of the alternative windows browsers will close shop?

    1. Re:Why all the fuss? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Is Safari really already so much better than IE that Opera and others see no hope in going up against it?


      Honestly it is so much better that it raises the bar of competition significantly. I have a very strange feeling IE7/win will try and adopt many of it's concepts (because to be quite honest for 99.99999% of the world [including most powerusers] Safari has everything you need in a nice clean interface)

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    2. Re:Why all the fuss? by fault0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > because to be quite honest for 99.99999% of the world [
      Except for the three to ten percent of us who use Mozilla (and derivatives), Opera, or Konq, which all have TABBED BROWSING.

    3. Re:Why all the fuss? by cappadocius · · Score: 5, Funny
      Is the sole selling point of alternative browsers really just that they're not from MS?

      Of course.Are you new here? £:-)

      --

      omnia tua castra sunt nobis

    4. Re:Why all the fuss? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You fail to notice probably 20-30% of safari users came from tabbed browsers. I don't really think there are that many people in this world who really utilize tabbed browsing, so making a mainstream browser with tabs is silly (have you tried teaching it to someone who barely gets WIMP, it's rather like beating your head into the wall).

      Tabbed browsing does not belong in a clean interface. Peroid.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
  7. From the article... by greenhide · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "We think Safari is one of the best and most innovative browsers in the world, and it seems our customers do too," the Mac maker said in a statement. "No one is making Mac users choose Safari over Opera--they're doing it of their own free will--and Opera's trashing of Safari sounds like sour grapes to us."

    Boy, that sure doesn't sound like someone in Public Relations would say. It'd be interesting to know just who it was at Apple who said this, as it seems more inflammatory than anything else.

    --
    Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    1. Re:From the article... by jbolden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The purpose of public relations is to recast things. Apple may be trying to recast the developers who complain about competitive products poorly so that they don't get public support.

      Think of it this way. Because of going to OSX Apple has access to tons of Unix software which is very good but suffers in the ease of use area. Apple as a software company specializes in making products more user friendly this is far and away their #1 skill. While they may have a very tough time beating the price of a barebones x86 machine for years to come, they aren't going to have that hard of a time beating the price of an x86 machine which includes: an OS, office suite including databases, digital entertainment applications, high amateur - low professional video, sound and picture editing, games, publishing suite.... In other words they can create a tremendous value add by bundeling in tons of software on their platform. If they do this however they will devestate the independent Mac publishers that survive on selling truly mediocre products in the $25-75 range.

    2. Re:From the article... by analog_line · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course it's inflammatory. How isn't an ultimatum from Opera Software inflammatory? Just sounds like Apple responding in kind to me. The Apple response wasn't in the story earlier. It's less inflammatory than, "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA," or "Opera? Opera who?" which I imagine gives the gist of the responses by the Apple reps when they heard about this.

  8. 2 things about this... by nocomment · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1>I think this is sounding like Opera might be in some trouble. This sorta reminds me of when Be Inc said "Open up your specs or we'll stop developing".
    What does Opera think it will accomplish other than they won't have to spend money to make opera?

    2>If this was to start a war like the early NS vs M$, I don't think Opera would have a chance. For one thing Safari is based on {GPL'd}KDE software and therefore Apple has released it's changes to the source code. It's a lot faster than Opera. Opera just sucks! I don't know what happened, it used to be the fastest browser around circa version 3. Maybe they need Helmar back in charge of Project Magic?

    Is he still hanging out in Africa as was his last post to the Opera NNTP server several years back?

    I have an Idea, how about Opera, instead of trying to force it's outdated browsing engine on others, why don't they just go grab apple's changes and use those at _THEIR_ new engine?

    --
    /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
    /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
  9. Whaaa? by Lurkingrue · · Score: 4, Troll

    Opera makes an Mac version? Who knew?

    Seriously, though -- Opera must have a smaller "market share" than iCab, let alone OmniWeb, IE, Gecko-flavors or...well, smaller than ANYthing that browses on the Mac.

    All I've ever seen from Opera is a delayed, three-steps-behind version that has been seemingly produced as a grudging, halting afterthought on the Mac. Why should I care? Essentially, we're being told "A product that nobody used BEFORE Safari came out is being discontinued because something else that IS popular has been released.". I'm supposed to care about something that is inferior, under-supported and over-priced?

  10. Re:I'm sorry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sorry bout the AC posting, but I think you're confusing Opera with OmniGroup and OmniWeb.

    Ken Case, the CEO of OG and developer of the OW engine, said they would take a look at WebCore. I don't recall hearing anything out of Opera until now.

    I think the most disturbing thing about this article is that CNET's treating Opera's whining as actual news.

  11. Re:uhmmm by jbolden · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Didn't they just say they were happy about Safari about a week ago?

    No, that was Omni (a NeXT software company that has moved over to OSX). They produce a different browser but are thrilled about the Webcore (open source) engine since in their opinion this will allow them to make a better interface without having to worry about the engine. Omni believe it or not actually is better at cool looking easy to use interfaces than Apple (which is saying a lot).

  12. This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    See this article -- Chimera Developer Considers Dropping It as well. Quite honestly, I don't think that this is a big deal. As others have already pointed out, Apple was already bundling MSIE with OS X, and I never saw anybody complain that that was killing Chimera or Opera. This is simply another web browser for OS X. If you find that Browser X suits your needs best, then simply download Browser X, and drag Browser Y to the trash.

  13. poor loser by bhawbaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    opera was already losing their edge awhile ago.. they had plenty of time to to catch up, and they did not.. so their problem.

  14. The new kid... by Iron+Chef+Unix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1) Opera is out playing on the playground and bragging about how fast he is. 2) A new kid shows up and is actually fast. 3) Opera yells some obsenities. 4) Opera takes his ball and goes home. Kind of a testament to how good Safari is. Do you think Opera would be making this stink if Safari was no good? It's like saying, "the Mac browser market was pretty easy to compete in because all of the browser were mediocre, but now Safari raises the bar and we don't feel like jumping" I know there are some definate advantages to being backed by Apple, but I still think no one would be complaining (except Apple fanatics) if Safari were just another average browser.

    --
    Like puzzle games? Warehouse51 for iOS
  15. Big whoop. by Tar-Palantir · · Score: 2

    I know some people like Opera for Mac, but personally I couldn't care less. I am tired of fighting with horribly buggy betas that crash constantly. If Opera wants to compete, they need to produce a robust full version of Opera, without ads, that lives up to their speed claims. As it is, I'll use anything but IE over Opera.

    I am not trying to troll here - I genuinely would like Opera to succeed. The company just needs to get their act together.

  16. Let me get this straight... by The+Fink · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ... they want Apple to put part of their browser on each system, or else they won't develop their browser at all for that platform? Huh? So effectively you'd have two browsers which have the same rendering code, or none which use that rendering code?

    Riiight. Somehow I don't see Apple buying this, particularly given that KHTML is an arguably "better" renderer, and I'd imagine costs a lot less to work with than this particular "option".

    Looks like Opera just don't want to cross-develop, and they're going to blame whoever they can for their reason. No great loss; there's heaps of resonable-to-good browsers on the platform, so I'm sure we can live without.

  17. Re:No loss... by baryon351 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think you've summed it up well there. Opera on the macs I've used it on (400Mhz G3 with Jaguar, and a few G4/Dual G4s also with Jaguar) just doesn't compete. It's noticeably slower than IE, chimera and Safari, and featurewise doesn't offer anything I can't get on the other browsers.

    That's not to say there aren't other people with needs that Opera addresses just perfectly, however.

  18. Scuttlebutt by MacAndrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A reliable source mentioned to me a while ago that Opera was negotiating with Apple for a place on their desktop. Perhaps at the time Apple was debating whether to re-enter the browser market after having abruptly jilted poor old Cyberdog, and was contemplating an alliance outside of IE. So maybe Opera felt it had some assurances in place that their product would get a needed boost from Apple and relied on that to develop Mac product that was otherwise not worth the trouble, and maybe Apple pulled a fast one. Apple has been known to undermine developers in the past, and while it certainly has the right to do so it shouldn't deliberately alienate them. I know Apple feels it has to keep its next "killer app" under wraps until the next MacWorld, but there must be ways to telegraph intentions (or sign NDA's) with allies w/o tipping off competitors.

    All guesses. But it does make Opera look less irrational.

    Was back when I thought it took a great deal of time and effort to develop a high-performance browser, and bought Opera's performance claims. Then I met Chimera Navigator. Whatever happens, I think the for-profit model of browser development is dead.

  19. Opera logic? by gsfprez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    by Opera's logic, we should hear the following press release... "Microsoft has just announced its own web browser, dubbed "Internet Explorer", and in a fit of childishness, we no longer see a point in developing Opera for Windows." because if we don't.. then its obvious that they are basically just pussies.

    (Note to opera guys - you make a browser for Windows, and so does Microsoft. A little consistency with your whining would be nice)

    if its not as obvious as the dead-squirrel on Congressman Trafficant's (D) head - the real issue is that Apple, in about 5 minutes during Steve's demo at MWSF, proved to the world that they can flat-out out code Opera and beat the bajezzuz out of them at their own game of "lightweight, small, fast, easy to use broswers".

    They are pissed that they got so soundly defeated by a "hardware" company.

    Life's tough, get a fscking helmet. - Dennis Leary

    And damnit, that goes for everyone else who's whining about Apple making applications for Mac OS X and are complaining that Apple is "killing" the "small developers.

    Good God... they GAVE you developers tools free with every copy of the OS, and have a website that guides you by the hand for FREE on how to make apps.

    There are tons of tiny apps - PageSender, Watson, Interarchy, VueScan jump to mind - that are small, cheap, and GOOD!

    At least guys like Waston have sack. They admitted that they were on their laurels, and - and this is the most important thing....

    Watson is the BETTER thanks to Sherlock 3!

    Its called competition. At all levels. As soon as someone makes a better video editor than iMovie - then bully for them.. i'll use it.

    I might have paid "twice as much for my Mac as what i could get for a Windows box" but you know what?

    i don't think or feel like i did, and things like Safari are the reason why.

    --
    guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
  20. Safari is a Red Herring by Matthew+Weigel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look at Opera's history of competing with bundled browsers:

    • Opera never complained to Microsoft about bundling IE.
    • Opera never complained to Apple about bundling IE.
    • Opera even felt that going up against a bundled browser in an extremely marginal operating system (OS/2) was an acceptable money-making proposition.
    • Opera is even up for competing against free software browsers in Linux.

    But, somehow, a beta product is going to cause Opera to leave the Mac market?

    Please. The real reason is buried in the article:

    "It's not a platform where we've earned a lot of money," said Tetzchner.
    Opera simply wasn't successful on the Mac like it was on Windows. I personally suspect that that's because Opera didn't make the switch to the Mac UI very effectively (hard to describe, but it just felt weird relative to using it in Windows), and didn't have the same feel for performance programming in MacOS, making Opera feel sluggish (unlike its trademark lightning-fast performance in Windows).

    I think Opera just can't compete on the Mac, knows this, and has made a token "hell why not" offer to Apple to stick around for big money to have an excuse to leave.

    --
    --Matthew
    1. Re:Safari is a Red Herring by digitalcowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your post sums up my feelings quite well. I've tried just about every browser out there for both Mac and Windows.

      (Windows at work because it pays the bills and Mac at home because all those Windows problems pay my bills quite well. :-)

      My default browser on my NT box at work is Opera 6. (I recently downloaded the Opera 7 beta and gave up the first day. They've got a long way to go with THAT beta before it's ready.) I made that decision because it IS fast and compatible and feature rich. I epecially like tabbed browsing, especially on Windows. It makes up for some of the other fundamental flaws in the Windows interface.

      (For some reason, tabs are not nearly as important to me on a Mac. Haven't thought it through, but for some reason they're not as valuable. I've used Chimera but don't miss the tabs on my Mac. I've become almost dependent on them in Windows. It has something to do with the giant suckage that is the Windows GUI.)

      On my Mac at home, I've tried them all and had settled on Omniweb (prior to the intro of Safari) because it had hands-down the best text rendering and most Aqua integrated interface. It was a true pleasure to use except that it sometimes choked on complicated (non-standard) Javascript and some CSS. I had to keep IE as a back up for the occasional site that OW puked at, but I used OmniWeb 99% of the time.

      I tried Opera for Mac, but it was lagging WAY behind the Windows version and after a few days of use I could not find ONE compelling reason to continue using it. It blew goats. It had at least as many of the site compatibility problems as OmniWeb but wasn't as pretty. In fact, it was downright UGLY all the way around -- page rendering as ugly as IE with an interface even UGLIER than IE. It was not at all faster than OmniWeb. On top of all that, I had banners flashing in my face all the time reminding me I hadn't paid for this load of un-Mac-like crap. AND no tabs. (The primary reason I use it on Windows.)

      When Safari was released, I downloaded it the first day but frankly didn't expect much because I knew it was beta. It has been my default browser since the evening of day one. I NEVER open IE anymore and rarely use OmniWeb for anything. I have recommended it to my non-geek mother and sister and they both love it. It's elegant and clean and pretty and FASTER than greased owl shit.

      Opera for Mac sucked because those bone heads don't know how to develop for Mac, or don't care to. Either way, their Mac offering sucked and now they're pissed because even their Windows version can no longer honestly claim "Fastest browser on Earth."

      If they don't want to develop for Mac anymore, I say good riddance. We still have half a dozen browsers to choose from on the Mac platform and they're ALL better than Opera.

  21. I was an Opera user when I switched to Mac. by DaphneDiane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have been a long time Opera users at the point I made my switch from Windows and Linux to Mac. I was a registered user of Opera and used to tell tell all my friends about it. My intent when getting my Mac was to buy the cross-platform upgrade and run Opera as my main browser. However before I spent the money, I tried out several of the other browsers and ended up buy an OmniWeb license. While OmniWeb has pretty bad standard support (especially CSS), it worked with most of the pages I used and I liked a lot of the options and settings it provided. For some reason, I could never place my finger on, Opera didn't feel at home on my Mac. I guess I'd gotten used to the MDI interface under windows... and Opera 5 beta or so just didn't feel polished/user friendly enough when I tried it.

    Having mostly used OmniWeb for a while, when Safari came out I decided to try a bunch of different browsers again. Opera 6 looks a lot better than it did the last time I tried it, and I'm actually thinking seriously about switching back to Opera. I've also thought about switching over to Safari once it's not a beta and converting back to OmniWeb after it switches over to WebCore.

    Personally I think that Apple's switch to Safari will help non-IE, non-gecko browsers and websites might adjust just a little to handle different browsers. One thing I can't help but wonder is... is this a tactic by Opera to get people to look at/buy there browser. After any media attention is good.

  22. Monopoly by MacAndrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple does have a monopoly over "Macintosh" computers because they won't sell licenses. They relaxed their hold for a few years and allowed clones, then changed their mind. There is now no way to build a legal clone, except maybe to cannibalize a working computer for the proprietary parts. If you need a Mac-compatible computer, you must go to Apple, and with it you'll get their OS, too.

    A monopoly is not illegal unless abused in some way. Microsoft's monopoly over Windows is not per se illegal. But their attempt to leverage IE by using their monopoly power was, obviously, improper. That IE is free changed nothing -- rather, it underscored that IE was getting a free ride thanks to the underlying profitable monopoly.

    Now, within the market of Mac-compatible computers, I'm wondering how Apple bundling more and more products into its ubiquitous OS could not eventually cause the same sort of problem. Unlike what Microsoft was doing by "integrating" Windows, the Apple components are pretty easily to deactivate. However, the Apple products are clearly intended to be competitive, and at some point Apple might be said to abuse its monopoly over Macs to shoehorn in other things.

    It's difficult to imagine, mostly because they're not Microsoft, but what if Apple were to squeeze out competitiors by embedding the free stuff or refusing to publish its API's and so on? The millions of Mac users can't just switch to another OS without getting a new computer, and their choices would end up being Apple's choices. [Now that there is a robust open source browser market developing, I don't think browsers will be the next battleground.]

  23. Re:ALL Third Party Software on OS X will die by XnetZERO · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yo frankie... Take a chill pill and settle down!!! Apple was forced to make their own browser. They've sat by the wayside and watched as not a single browser developer has brought a reliable product to market. If Opera hadn't treated Mac users as second class citizens, they would have a competitive on the market, but they don't. If M$ had brought a cocoa version of IE to market and quashed the bugs user after user complains of, there would be no safari... If OmniWeb and Chimera would come along more quickly there wouldn't be an issue... But no... Not a single vendor has given us a fast and stable product. Safari will do one thing... It will raise the bar for which third party developers to compete. I have a feeling you haven't used Safari, but Apple has taken the minimalist approach... It does two things and two things well... It's fast and it's stable. Omni web can and will build a competitive browser, most likely using the same rendering engine... Chimera will have all the features Safari is missing... IE will hopefully die away as they seem to have no interest in fixin IE. The open source community will benefit from Apple's work here, I don't see what the issue is. Opera can either put up or shut up, their product is inferior...

  24. Whiners by Daleks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone who develops for the Mac knows that everything is an uphill battle. You have to fight the good fight and make the best product you can knowing ahead of time that your market share will be slim. With this in mind, why are the developers of Chimera and Opera moaning and groaning about competition? Anyone that is a part of the Mozilla organization knows full well of this. Seeing that the Opera developers already compete on the Windows platform, what's the problem with competing on the Mac platform as well? They already compete with IE, OmniWeb, iCab, Chimera, Mozilla, etc. on the Mac platform.

    If anyone thinks Apple is going to pull a Microsoft and start saying that Safari is an integral portion of the OS and cannot be removed, let's look at their track record on other bundled applications. iTunes can be replaced by Audion and still have iPod support. Apple does nothing to prevent this. iChat can be replaced by Adium. Mail can be done away with and be replaced with Mutt, Pine, Entourage, etc. iMove, iPhoto, etc. can all be deleted and other applications may be used in their place.

    I can drag Safari into the trash and it's gone. Should Apple release a version of Safari that links to WebKit frameworks installed in /System/Library/Frameworks, /Library/Frameworks, or ~/Library/Frameworks, who cares? This makes it easy for developers to write applications that have HTML view's in their own programs. Gecko (CHBrowserView) could even be packaged as a framework and exist right along side WebKit. If you want you can delete any framework on your system that you don't like. While Apple may not give you the option to run Mac OS X on x86 machines, it does provide real software options, unlike Microsoft.

  25. Re:All of them by Chris+Canfield · · Score: 2, Interesting
    How about an integrated spelling checker into all textboxes? It would sure improve the quality of Slashdot...

    System wide bookmarks would also be nice, as would the ability to have bookmarks in multiple folders. So too, would be the ability to remove menu items, and otherwise prune the interface down to what you want. Quick cookie swapping would allow you to change identities on the fly, without the tedious task of logging out / logging in.

    But then we're talking about the power user, and not the simplicity and elegance of OSX. We're talking about Opera.

    Opera: Baffling newbies since 1995

    -C

    --
    This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
  26. Oh yeah? by CptTripps · · Score: 3, Funny

    Other examples of the same ultimatum...

    Ultimatum to my neighbor:
    Start using my lawnmower to mow your lawn, or else I'm going to stop mowing mine all together...

    or..

    Ultimatum to my mail man:
    You need to use MY shoes to walk up to my house to deliver mail or I'm going to have it delivered somewhere else.

    Ultimatum to wife:
    (Yeah, like anything I write here would ever fly)

    --


    My .sig can beat up your honor student.
  27. First Chimera, then Opera, next... by Lord+of+the+Fries · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tomorrow's Apple/. will probably be something like:

    Lynx developers decide to abandon Lynx port to Jaguar.

    In a surprise move, Lynx developers feeling dissed by the fact that Apple didn't use the proven Lynx rendering technology have sent iSteve an email (from pine no less!) stating that if Lynx is not demoed at the next MacWorld, they will cease the release of their nearly complete port to MacOS/X. Said key developers, "what really surprises us is that we figured with names like Lynx and Jaguar, we were certain they were destined for each other. We were sure that chosen OS/X code name was a cue to us to continue our work"

    --
    One man's pink plane is another man's blue plane.
  28. Opera is killing itself. by kiddailey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The basic idea of Opera is great. Lots of options, privacy protection, tabbed browsing, separate browser window, etc. I've tried to switch to it - but it's impossible to deal with all its quirks, bugs and slowness.

    My biggest complaint is that it does NOT handle tables or forms correctly. I've included some examples to play with (there are many more, just do a search).

    For many of these bugs to exist in version SIX of a browser is just plain crappy. Especially considering that Safari and Chimera in their beta versions are nowhere as problematic and render pages beautifully.

    Opera is killing itself and they company is using Safari as an excuse.

    http://www.gjk.dk/~krn/bugs/opera/ [google cache]

    http://www.gjk.dk/~krn/bugs/opera/table-csswidther ror.html [google cache]

    http://www.gjk.dk/~krn/bugs/opera/table-whitespace .html [google cache]

    http://www.gjk.dk/~krn/bugs/opera/blockoverflow.ht ml

    http://www.gjk.dk/~krn/bugs/opera/table-imagewidth .html

    http://www.gjk.dk/~krn/bugs/opera/font-vplacement. html [google cache]

    http://www.gjk.dk/~krn/bugs/opera/table-inputwidth .html
  29. Safari Killing Opera for Mac OS X? by skellener · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If anyone is killing Opera, it's Opera. I tried it and I thought it sucked. I tried Safari and Safari rocked! For now though, the best browser is still Chimera. We'll see what else Apple comes up with with the full release of Safari. While it would be a shame to lose some diversity on the Mac if Opera ceased, they should really be trying to make a better product rather than complaining about Apple.

  30. Then watch out, Apple! by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 3, Funny
    Omni believe it or not actually is better at cool looking easy to use interfaces than Apple (which is saying a lot).
    What?! Better than faux brushed aluminum with little candy-colored dots on it?