Slashdot Mirror
Google Default Search For Opera Mobile
sayanchak writes "Reuters reports that Opera Software has agreed that Google will be the default partner for its mobile Internet browsers. Google will be the default search partner for the mobile browsers, Opera Mobile and Opera Mini." From the article: "Oslo-based Opera Software is a tiny competitor of Microsoft in the Internet browser market, but the fast-growing part of its business is in browsers for mobile phones and other mobile electronic devices."
Isn't it the same with Firefox? Except, well, Google didn't have to pay for it.
Does this outrule the rumor that Opera has a deal with Microsoft then? (No, I didn't RTFA.)
The problem with mobile devices isn't that they have low bandwidth or weak hardware (well, arguably), but that network access is extremely high latency. Most web sites are a chore to use through a mobile interface. If Opera's Mobile Browser has full blown ``AJAX'' support, some sites become much more pleasant to use. Notably, GMAIL. No doubt this is what Google has in mind...
AJAX's problems, however, are compounded when the underlying transport is so slow. If a user navigates away from a page with an outstanding background request, or if they issue a second request while the first is outstanding, the results are effectively undefined. : /
The really great mobile applications won't come around until industry stops trying to cram PC oriented web pages at pocket devices.
Heres why (from the apple site):
Don't let its elegant and easy-to-use interface fool you. Beneath the surface of Mac OS X lies an industrial-strength UNIX foundation hard at work to ensure that your computing experience remains free of system crashes and compromised performance. Time-tested security protocols in Mac OS X keep your Mac out of harm's way.
Apples just seem to ummmm you know, like errrr work. Also, they look good, perform reasonably and have more commercial stuff on them than Linux.
liqbase
Right. Opera is tiny compared to MS. And we all have seen what MS has done to every other tiny company that's attempted to compete with them: Bought them out, or simply drove them into irrelevance (if not bankruptcy).
Eventually, the antics of the plucky Opera will awaken the Giant of Redmond, and Opera will be toast. I'm rooting for Opera, but honestly, do they have a snowball's chance in Hell? What's to stop Microsoft from undercutting Opera's prices on some fancy (or un-fancy!) new version of IE for mobile devices?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
This should be -1 offtopic. But I'll answer it anyway from my point of view. I don't think Microsoft is the devil and I don't think Apple is perfect. But I do believe Mac OS X is far better than Windows. I know Mac OS X isn't open source, but I don't mind. I don't think that software should all be free or open source. I prefer the idea of people who develop software being compensated for it. Open source is fine, though. I think it is better for things like file formats or other standards. As far as forcing you to buy their hardware, I like Apple hardware, and am willing to pay more to have it, and a better OS.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
is a tiny competitor of Microsoft in the Internet browser market
Isn't Opera the biggest name in browsers for mobile devices?
Why are you complaining about this? If some new upstart starts making cars, we would compare them to GM and Toyota. When Microsoft entered the console business, everyone compared them to PC gaming, Nintendo, Sony & Sega. Maybe if you'd explain why comparing things is "irrelevant and pointless", it'd be easier to understand what you're talking about. As your comment stands, it just sounds like you're complaining (not that there's anything wrong with that).
"computing experience remains free of system crashes and compromised performance"
This is what I was expecting when I got a job at a Mac based company.
What I experienced was system slow downs due to Carbon based applications stalling (e.g. Retrospect backup) the computer. The only fix was to "Force Quit" the naughty apps. On the server, the watchdog never jumps into gear, because the apps don't acutally crash. Bloody annoying.
I think Mac's are fantastic clients, but I wouldn't use them as a server.
When push comes to shove, I prefer MS Windows 2000/XP for the applications available. The next person who asks me for MS Project for Mac (never available for MacOSX) will get a serve of my cranky side...
At least Opera is available for the Mac. My only gripe is the Print Capabilities compared to Safari, otherwise I prefer Opera on the Mac!
I find it interesting that Google is rapidly becoming a marketing company rather than a technology company. As an increasing number of sites offer search that is at least almost as good, Google is concentrating more on marketing and defense of its position. The justification for the AOL deal (which cost Google $1 billion) was to avoid having AOL go to Microsoft. Now there is some kind of deal with Opera, again based again on marketing, without any obvious technology edge.
This raises the question of wither Google. There's the search engine and Google Maps, but not much else that I've found compelling. If their innovation starts to flag, will they try to follow the path of Coca-Cola (marketing, sugar, caffine and not much else).
This could be a big change for Google's corporate culture. They appear to think of themselves a a software company that hires "really bright" software engineers. Apparently the idea is that these really bright people are going to be the ones who deliver Google's future innovation. This flys in the face of what seems to increasingly be the "facts on the ground", where Google is increasingly driven by marketing deals.
Good call. I for one would be less willing to want to compile my own software and have no support. Since about 98% of the rest of the world have limited coding skills at best, they'd be in the same boat. I mean, I'm sure I could take the posted source somewhere and compile it into Cocoa or Carbon or whatever, but having the security of someone backing you is well worth it. Someone could open a Linux help center, charge $50 a year for coverage, and still come out in the black. I'm sure someone could make an actual Firefox manual, sell it as a book, and it'd at least break even (and prolly bring in converts)