Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Default Search For Opera Mobile

Posted by Zonk on from the goopera dept.

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."

106 comments

  1. Firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't it the same with Firefox? Except, well, Google didn't have to pay for it.

    1. Re:Firefox? by Fluffy_Kitten · · Score: 0

      how do YOU know? How did mozilla become a CORPORATION? donations? no, google. besides, Epiphany > Firefox and gnome didn't get a penny to put google search into epiphany

      --
      People who have no sig are cool
    2. Re:Firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Isn't it the same with Firefox? Except, well, Google didn't have to pay for it.

      You're kidding, right? One of the main reasons for the search bar in Firefox is the money that Mozilla's partners (e.g Google) pay to be convieniently and visibly embedded in your UI. Our eyeballs pay Mozilla's wage bill.

      (For the more defensive types out there, note that this isn't a negative criticism).

    3. Re:Firefox? by Baricom · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mozilla Corporation gets a cut every time you click on an ad from a Google search.

    4. Re:Firefox? by Ucklak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How do you know if one of the developers works for Google and happened to work on that part for the OSS browsers?

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    5. Re:Firefox? by Fluffy_Kitten · · Score: 0

      That still doesn't explain where all the MONEY used for the CORPORATION came from!

      --
      People who have no sig are cool
    6. Re:Firefox? by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      That's good.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    7. Re:Firefox? by ncurtain · · Score: 0

      unless you are a lamer who objects to Google defaults?

    8. Re:Firefox? by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      Doesn't need to.
      If you work at Google and you have a hand in an OSS browser, your manager says "take some time and work on the search feature in the browser, and by the way, since you're on our clock, make us the default search engine."
      There, it's done. You get a paycheck, the browser gets a useful working tool - for free.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    9. Re:Firefox? by thumperward · · Score: 1

      That's not strictly true. Google was the default search in both the browser and the search bar even back when Mozilla was still an AOL project. A deal certainly developed afterwards, but the primary reason is one of quality. Not everything is about the benjamins.

        - Chris

  2. Oh, WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Slashdot, Not-News for Anyone. This is a new low. Congrats, Zonk.

    Would you idiot subscribers please cancel? If you keep paying for this crap, we'll keep getting this crap.

    1. Re:Oh, WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Oprah Mobile is not crap. Everyone wants a mobile Oprah.

    2. Re:Oh, WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Troll

    3. Re:Oh, WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Obviously you don't surf on the train!

    4. Re:Oh, WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Obviously I don't give a shit about what website a search button takes you to by default.

  3. Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    This is a serious comment, i am only doing this as an AC to avoid being modded +5 funny, -7 flamebait. Why do people on slashdot not mind macs, and yet act like microsoft is the devil (which it, obviously is). Apple's Macintosh is not only just as a proprietary piece of crap as Windows, but it also forces you to purchase their HARDWARE if you want to use it the "legit" way (though this may change with mactels, they have been operating this way for years). In my opinion, each of the two companies is, after all considerations THE WORST FUCKING THING TO EVER HAPPEN TO COMPUTING.

    1. Re:Macs by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are posting AC because it's a stupid thing to ask, you know it's a stupid thing to ask, and you are only asking it to wind people up. Microsoft aren't hated because they publish proprietary software, they are hated because they break the law, ruin other companies and hold back the industry, for nothing more than money.

    3. Re:Macs by Millenniumman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:Macs by emurphy42 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
      These are not always mutually exclusive. You can charge, not for the code itself, but for the service of developing it (RMS routinely did this, still does for all I know) and supporting it. Even if code is open, the original author has a leg up on working with it, due to familiarity.
    5. Re:Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "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!

    6. Re:Macs by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      How do you charge for developing it other than charging for the application? I can understand charging for support, and that is a very good idea for major things like an enterprise linux solution that needs a lot of support. But for a lot of things (like small shareware applications) it doesn't work. Mac OS X itself is an example of combining open source and proprietary software. It's based on BSD but has a proprietary (and great) GUI.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    7. Re:Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second that, take for example what Mysql does. They make money off of selling liscenes to their opensource code.

    8. Re:Macs by ImTheDarkcyde · · Score: 1

      thank god someone has sense around slashdot!

    9. Re:Macs by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

      I mentioned RMS; he basically followed the bounty model, years before it became an OSS buzzword. He'd find a client who needed a program badly enough that the value of them getting it for a price outweighed the drawback of their competitors subsequently getting it for free. In particular, consider code that wouldn't get written at all without the bounty.

      A lot of the code I write for my day job is custom tailoring for individual clients, so it doesn't really matter whether it's proprietary or OSS (because no one else would want that exact thing anyway). My last employer was big on generalizing and re-selling such things, but that gets messy in a hurry unless you have major economy of scale (on the order of, say, TurboTax's customer base).

      Small shareware applications are not too far removed from open-source donationware.

    10. Re:Macs by SassyDave · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you have globbed together shrink-wrapped software and custom development projects. For open source work, the latter lends itself to making developers money. The former does not. I've worked on both sides.

    11. Re:Macs by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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)

    12. Re:Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you so much for saying that.

    13. Re:Macs by rmccabe916 · · Score: 1
      I agree completely with what you said. Here is something I just posted on another forum:
      I agree open source is very important; going open source is another way to promote innovation. However, it is not very feasible for some companies to allow their products to become open source. Opera needs to stay proprietary, for now at least, to keep its hold on the cell phone/portable device market (It's current main source of income). Also, Opera might not be able to support itself if it went open source (It is a publicly traded company after all).
  4. Aha?! by Cee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does this outrule the rumor that Opera has a deal with Microsoft then? (No, I didn't RTFA.)

    1. Re:Aha?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      no, i didn't RYMFGAMFGAP

  5. Reuters is light on details. by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Reuters article is light on details. How much is Opera going to make by signing with Google?

    1. Re:Reuters is light on details. by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 1

      WebProNews.com has a longer article, I haven't seen one with much detail.

    2. Re:Reuters is light on details. by ezzzD55J · · Score: 1

      Light on details? You're too kind. The Reuters article is light on article. The article is one (meaningless) sentence longer than the blurb, which was short even for a blurb.

    3. Re:Reuters is light on details. by Tezkah · · Score: 1

      They didn't say, but it is enough that they were able to take advertisements out of the main Opera browser.

      The Mozilla foundation makes $30 million from having the default search bar in Firefox as Google. I bet Opera has a similar deal.

      And Yahoo is the default in Asian markets for Firefox. Hooray for bidding wars!

    4. Re:Reuters is light on details. by ncurtain · · Score: 0

      And Yahoo is the default in Asian markets for Firefox [webpronews.com]. Hooray for bidding wars!

      Hooray for bidding wars?

      What about freedom of speech wars; or the lack of them? Yahoo aught to be boycotted by people in the free world.

  6. Web translates badly to mobile devices... by defile · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Web translates badly to mobile devices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      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. : /

      What do you mean? If a user navigates away from a page, any outstanding requests for that page should be disregarded. You don't hear people complaining when people navigate away from a page before images have finished loading, do you? That's exactly the same thing.

      As for two simultaneous requests, the problem is that a lot of Javascript is written assuming that it doesn't happen, not that how it works is some big mystery. The problem lies with the particular web developers that make assumptions like that. If you know what you are doing, then it's not a problem.

    2. Re:Web translates badly to mobile devices... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Informative
      The really great mobile applications won't come around until industry stops trying to cram PC oriented web pages at pocket devices.
      Dude: look at how cleverly industry sold laptops with just a slightly bigger screen every year throughout the 90's, then went towards a wider, less-square form factor (driven by Apple?) post 2000.
      There will be no end-point, "really great mobile applications". Closure is as anti-sales as giving people the source code: WTF the coercion?
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    3. Re:Web translates badly to mobile devices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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...

      What the fuck are you talking about?

      "AJAX" still has to do a full HTTP request, so if the latency is high it'll take just as long as reloading the whole god damn page.

      And no, I doubt gmail was designed with mobile phones 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. : /

      Umm.. if the user navigates away from the page, the request is ABORTED and absolutely NOTHING happens from the users' POV. Dumbass. And if they issue a second request, well then your pretty AJAX-code better be able to handle it.

      (Where the hell do all these AJAX-n00bs come from?)

    4. Re:Web translates badly to mobile devices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I have to disagree with your subject line...I happen to be posting this using Opera mini on a Motorola v635, and though it's far from a laptop, I still find the browsing experience more than satisfactory...even on graphics-intensive pages like Slashdot. That said, I'd like to be able to change the default search. Google is a great search engine, but I'd prefer to run my queries on Wikipedia first.

    5. Re:Web translates badly to mobile devices... by n-baxley · · Score: 1

      The reason that there aren't more sites directed at mobile devices is that there are not really any good mobile browsers. Once some decent browsers are made available, mobile borwsing will be used more often and more sites will be directed at this audience. The sites will follow, once there is an audience.

      --

      THIS SPACE FOR RENT
    6. Re:Web translates badly to mobile devices... by :jax: · · Score: 1

      Latency is definitely one of the constraining factors for mobile devices, but it isn't the predominant one. Bandwidth and slow processors (fast processors are not only expensive they consume batteries, and long battery life is essential for a phone) are more likely to slow down mobile web browsing. Even so it is a good idea to consider latency, e.g. avoid having one style sheet calling another one as that would mean three sequential roundtrips to be able to style the page.

      AJAX-like techniques can both alleviate and aggravate the problem. You don't want to expose the user to server roundtrips in response to user interaction.

      The best payoff is in small, efficient code. Getting rid of those deeply nested tables and other superfluous markup reduces page size (and thus bandwidth and processing) but also creates more responsive pages on normal PCs as well as on mobile devices. And as memory is the greatest constraint for the vast majority of phones less code means less memory use, with dramatic better useability as a result.

    7. Re:Web translates badly to mobile devices... by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Hmm... So, on the free-to-the-Opera-Community version, you scroll down one click to Wikipedia when you to the search...

    8. Re:Web translates badly to mobile devices... by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Ding!

      Or, better yet, an optimizing preprocessor, like the one that Opera Mini uses.

  7. Typical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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."

    Yet again, we're comparing everything to bloody Microsoft! Opera are a tiny competitor to Microsoft!? Everybody is! So why can't we have Opera duke it out against Firefox and Safari for a change? We know IE is crap, we know it comes with every installation of Windows, and we know that Windows accounts for a huge percentage of shipped OSes, so can we have a little less obvious journalism - less on the obvious victories of today and more about the battlefields of tomorrow please...

    Why oh why is software always be compared to the equivalent product with the greatest market share, regardless of technical merit?

    Please, can we just get off the market share thing, it's irrelevant and pointless, as long as you're using what's best.

    1. Re:Typical... by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 4, Insightful

      is a tiny competitor of Microsoft in the Internet browser market

      Isn't Opera the biggest name in browsers for mobile devices?

    2. Re:Typical... by ClamIAm · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Why oh why is software always be compared to the equivalent product with the greatest market share, regardless of technical merit?

      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).

    3. Re:Typical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is everything compared to Microsoft products?

      Well your preaching to the converted HERE...

      Go look at a log of website visitors to most sites. I've seen as high as 99% for IE.

      Opera is providing a great product. People who use Firefox probably AREADY know about Opera.

      Opera wants to show the people who DON'T KNOW IT EXISTS (IE users) ... "here I am"!

      It's finally gaining some ground in the portable market. I use it daily while on public transport on a 3G network. Infact I read Slashdot through Opera's portal! (not Mobile Accelerator)

    4. Re:Typical... by c_forq · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call Sony a tiny competitor to Microsoft.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    5. Re:Typical... by Tylerious · · Score: 2, Informative

      Agreed, Opera should be compared to something like Firefox than IE.

      In my experience on a 266 Mhz Slackware box, Opera has operated way faster than Firefox. And all the extensions (like session saver) I use on Firefox are built-in anyways. Unlike the Mozilla Firefox was forked from, it doesn't seem to bloat the software. I completely understand why Opera is becoming such a leader in mobile internet browsing.

      I haven't yet tried Firefox 1.5, so I won't comment on it's speed, but it needs quite a boost to catch up to Opera. Speed isn't really noticible on faster computers (Firefox and Opera seem about the same on my 2.2 Ghz Windows box); you really notice it on older hardware.

      Sorry that's not really on original topic, but is at least replying to the previous post.

    6. Re:Typical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Isn't Opera the biggest name in browsers for mobile devices?

      Perhaps the biggest *name*, but not the biggest player.

      I see a lot more of Openwave.

  8. How much longer does Opera have to live? by Caspian · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Not to devolve into an "Opera is dying!" post, but this bit makes me think:

    "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."

    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?
    1. Re:How much longer does Opera have to live? by Nataku564 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From what I recall, Microsoft doesn't really have that big a foothold in the handheld browser area. So unlike in the PC world, where MS is the defacto standard, they cant just muscle in and make everyone use their browser. I would liken it more to their recent attempts at getting into the console business via the XBOX. They actually have competition, and can't just win by making the thing cheap.

    2. Re:How much longer does Opera have to live? by c_forq · · Score: 1

      I don't think MS is concerned, and I don't think they will be until Opera becomes big enough to effect Billy's income, or until MS thinks they can expand their income by assimilating the small Oslo company.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    3. Re:How much longer does Opera have to live? by Orrin+Bloquy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Not to devolve into an "Opera is dying!" post,

      Netcraft confirms it!

      joke, don't waste your mod points here
      --
      "Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."
    4. Re:How much longer does Opera have to live? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      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).

      Amazing.

      The vast majority of marketshare that Opera has gained (no, I don't have stats - all I have are anecdotes of my own experience and those of peers and friends) has been at the expense of Mozilla cum Firefox. Generally someone either just uses what Microsoft produces/they're a raving pro-Microsoft fanatic, or they're open to alternatives. The latter is the only crowd Opera has a hope in hell with, and generally those people flirt between Opera and Firefox. I've been using Opera or Firefox/Mozilla alternately for several years (despite otherwise being a Micro-droid), and I suspect the same of many Opera users.

      Anyways, the browser wars are over. For all of the nattering about Microsoft being worried - Microsoft REALLY doesn't care. IE didn't stagnant because they just couldn't cut the mustard. It stagnated because they beat Netscape, showed they have the chops, and realized that there really isn't any money in the browser business. They cut the IE team when they realized that pushing web apps wasn't in their best interest, but now that the cat is out of the bag Microsoft, like Google, knows the real money is being where the browser goes, regardless of the browser itself.

    5. Re:How much longer does Opera have to live? by welshsocialist · · Score: 1

      What's to stop Microsoft from undercutting Opera's prices on some fancy (or un-fancy!) new version of IE for mobile devices?

      There is a edition of IE for Windows Mobile called Pocket Internet Explorer. From what I heard, it's limited compared to desktop IE.

      --
      Support the Chagossians
    6. Re:How much longer does Opera have to live? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Look, every Nokia phone around you having an operating system (symbian) has Opera installed.

      IE for mobile exists, it is a sad joke.

      Opera Mini runs on ANY J2ME (midlet) enabled phone. It is so good that I could post this reply using that 95kb wonder. I am signed into Slashdot even using that.

      Wireless World is different. Opera is the king there.
      http://opera.com/products/

    7. Re:How much longer does Opera have to live? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Opera's not competing against MS (has Opera even released a Pocket PC version? And nobody uses IE on Windows Smartphones, they use Opera.) They're competing against OpenWave (which they blow away on features, if not speed - then again, I'm comparing the native version of OpenWave for my phone, versus Opera Mini, which is a J2ME applet) and NetFront (which they beat in rendering quality and speed.)

  9. First post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    eat my balls

  10. An Opera-Mobile? by endtwist · · Score: 0

    An Opera-Mobile? Is that anything like a Pimpmobile? Ohhhh...you mean that kind of mobile.

  11. Nice by protomala · · Score: 1, Informative

    I like this, opera mini is really good software that works like a charm on my Siemens C60 I just got from my brother on christmas (he bought a new one and gave me the old one). Everbody that want good search results will use google, it's is the best search engine out there today, so this deal make a lot of sense, both for google and opera.

  12. I knew it! by Eric+Pierce · · Score: 1, Redundant

    "Reuters reports that Opera Software has agreed that Google will be the default partner for its mobile Internet browsers."

    See!? I told you! I just knew Google bought Opera!!

  13. Not sure why this is news by IntelliAdmin · · Score: 1

    Looks like the opera PR machine is running at full tilt these days.

    1. Re:Not sure why this is news by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      This is based on an announcement on the Oslo Stock Exchange. Got nothing to do with PR. Opera has to announce such deals there.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  14. Must. Try. To. Care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...

    Nope, sorry. I just don't care.

  15. Opera by sigzero · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I just starting using Opera. I have use FF and Safari. I use Safari mainly but I do like Opera. It is really quick in rendering. I like the little drop down to get to my bookmarks. I like how easy it is to "mock" other browsers. The interface is not clunky but clean and workable.

    Very nice all around.

    1. Re:Opera by rdoger6424 · · Score: 1

      Safari?
      You have a mac?
      type "defaults write com.apple.Safari IncludeDebugMenu 1" in terminal (~/applications/utilities)
      I'm just pretending to run IE6 on Windows right now...

      --
      "Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
    2. Re:Opera by sigzero · · Score: 0

      Like I said...much easier with Opera. I didn't say it couldn't be done with Safari.

  16. Repost? by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Amazing, now we do not even have to wait for reposts. It is all done in one article.
    The subject tells that google is going to be the default. The first sentence tells that google will be the default.
    The second sentence tells that google will be the default.

    Not bad for a story that is only three sentences long.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  17. Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is a serious comment, i am only doing this as an AC to avoid being modded +5 funny, -7 flamebait. Why do people on slashdot not mind macs, and yet act like microsoft is the devil (which it, obviously is). Apple's Macintosh is not only just as a proprietary piece of crap as Windows, but it also forces you to purchase their HARDWARE if you want to use it the "legit" way (though this may change with mactels, they have been operating this way for years). In my opinion, each of the two companies is, after all considerations THE WORST FUCKING THING TO EVER HAPPEN TO COMPUTING.

  18. Check out Google's mischief and malfeasance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://malfeasance.50megs.com/

  19. NetFront? by linj · · Score: 2, Informative

    NetFront 3.2, as of now, is the incumbent ruling web browser for Windows Pocket PCs, excluding IE Mobile (Opera Mobile is still in beta/alpha/unreleased stage).

    It, too, uses Google as the default search. Really, what *would* they use... MSN search?

  20. Gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Flat out you know it like a bread or oil pan. GAYYYYYYYYYYYY

  21. Microsoft's Reputation? by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 1

    Could Microsoft's reputation for poor security and strongarm tactics work against them in the portable market?

    1. Re:Microsoft's Reputation? by Caspian · · Score: 1

      Has it worked against them anywhere else?

      --
      With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
    2. Re:Microsoft's Reputation? by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      Only Slashdot and Usenet.

  22. Er... So? by Akdor+1154 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh my God! Google is the default search engine for Opera Desktop too! What a coincidence!

  23. GMail for mobile funes by Rebelgecko · · Score: 1

    And no, I doubt gmail was designed with mobile phones in mind.
    They have a version for cell phones which was obviously "designed with mobile phones in mind."

    --
    CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
    1. Re:GMail for mobile funes by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how "big deal" is that. Yahoo mail runs on WAP for years. Every serious mail provider including some serious ISPs have a WAP mail.

      Funny thing is, I can easily login to Spamcop webmail, one of the most advanced webmails available via Opera Mini on my cell phone to report spam etc.

  24. Found a cool Google jobs site by ellisDtrails · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    check this out, I know it is a bit offtopic, but its worth a looksee. you can search jobs without having to go through the "middle man" of typical websites! http://www.getthejob.com/Google_jobs.aspx/

    --
    GetTheJob.com : Nothing but Real Jobs.
  25. Google is a marketing Co. not a technology Co. by wintermute42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Google is a marketing Co. not a technology Co. by ysegalov · · Score: 1

      You have something there, but I think that Google still has something under its sleeves.

      for example, check out gbrowser.com and gphoto.biz which are both registered to google inc.
      What are they up to? A browser and an online photo album? Wait and see...

  26. I just wish that... by heffeque · · Score: 1

    I just wish that they'd make the mobile versions free too. I have a Windows Mobile Smartphone and I liked Opera a little bit more than the IE both WM2002 and WM2003 have (I haven't tried WM5 yet, although I've already downloaded the roms for my mpx200 ^_^). Problem with Opera's mobile browsers is that if you don't pay you can only use it for 14 days and I'm not willing to pay 30 euros for a mobile internet browser, that's for sure.

    1. Re:I just wish that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you complain that the phone wasn't free?

    2. Re:I just wish that... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      We all wonder the price of that Windows Mobile Smartphone you use and why you bought such a device while Symbian exists for years.

      They produced some technical wonder (still can't believe it runs on 7650, 2mb RAM) and charging for it. You know, to pay wages.

      I had no problem with Windows 2000 or XP while running Intel, e.g. I am not anti Microsoft but Microsoft is a huge joke on Mobile computing. I have seen total Joe Sixpack friends NOT buying a device they loved just because it runs "Windows". I have also seen some BSOD on those devices and could not believe my eyes. I even asked whether it is some joke program or not. Nope, the OS was a joke breaking the FIRST RULE: A device should never fail.

    3. Re:I just wish that... by heffeque · · Score: 1

      Because I can do some nice things with my cellphone that Symbian can't do :-P (And because the cellphone cost me 9 euros ^_^ So that answeres the guy that asked for the cellphone for free. It wasn't free, but almost. Hahaha!

      As for stability... I haven't had many stability problems. You said that mobile devices shouldn't fail, I've seen Symbian crash more than once so that wouldn't make Microsoft's worse in that sense. I've also haven't seen no BSOD in my cellphone, maybe yor friends' devices were buggy or something. I'm not saying that M$'s products are perfect or anything, but just because M$'s OS have always been somewhat buggy doesn't mean that they're all ridiculously unstable. I'm happy with mine. It has it's flaws, but Symbian isn't all that good either anyway.

      Programming things for my cockroach (mpx200's are all black, it's its nickname) is easy as hell and since it's structure is in some way similar to a PC's Windows, there are a lot of ported programs for it, like 3D games like Quake, Doom & Duke Nukem... also 2D games like Monkey Island, Simon the Sorcerer, Legacy, Indiana Jones... ; DivX, Xvid, etc audio/video players; and I can actually use my PC's mouse in the thing with THIS TP program :-P

      Most people would find most of those things useless, but there are other things like Office utilities that can manage M$'s Office and PDF documents; Contact, Calendar, Task, Inbox, file & folder syncronizations with a specific computer, or a company's server, etc... It can do countless things and it'll get more and more thanks to it's similarity to Windows' way of programing.

      Don't get me wrong, Symbian is a great OS, but just dumping M$'s Mobile OS just because it's from M$ is IMHO speaking blindly.

  27. They are taking over the world... by Drysh · · Score: 1

    Mobile now? They joined with AOL to dominate the IM market. Orkut: the largest social network (or is it friendster?). GMail leads free email. Not to mention they already have the market of internet search. And Froogle, and...

    Now... Put it all together. A single account that keep tracks of you preferences, your friends, what you buy, what you like, what you do. And that all the time and everywhere with mobile technology. Add a social network / semantics analises software that they will be the only organization on earth with the data to research.

    And we will have the Big Brother.

    I only hope they keep the "Do No Evil" after that... Maybe we'll have a good Big Brother after all.

  28. That make no sense at all. by demiz · · Score: 1

    I'm a webmaster and I know most websites are "desighned for Internet Explorer", so lots of them will looks a little strange in Opera. I will move back to IE even if my mobile phone has the default Opera program built in.

    1. Re:That make no sense at all. by :jax: · · Score: 1

      You evidently haven't used Pocket IE, where "a little strange" would be the least of your problems. Pocket IE is even more technologically behind than IE for Windows is. Opera isn't just more advanced, it is far better at adapting the web page to the phone.

    2. Re:That make no sense at all. by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      If it opens a slashdot page on my Sony Ericsson k700i (GPRS, not EDGE) faster than my broadband connected Mac, it is "more advanced".

      Gee I can even sign in to Slashdot using it.

      I am speaking about Opera Mini, the server side rendering, data compressing J2ME application.

      I hope you speak about same thing. If you are speaking about "real" Opera, e.g. the one running on Symbian, it is a damn real browser. I know people buying Symbian stuff just to use it. Especially business.

    3. Re:That make no sense at all. by porneL · · Score: 1

      You haven't seen any of these browsers, have you?

      Pocket IE is technically a completely different thing than desktop MSIE and it barely displays any page, even those "optimized for IE".

      OTOH mobile Opera has same rendering engine as desktop Opera, which now handles IE-tagsoup very well. If you disable SSR you'll get more MSIE-like rendering on mobile Opera than Pocket IE.

  29. Huh? by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

    So, opera makes Google the default homepage for it's mobile browsers.
    What's so special about this? FireFox did it without an agreement, hundreds of people not using opera make Google their homepage every day as well.

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    1. Re:Huh? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      "So, opera makes Google the default homepage for it's mobile browsers. What's so special about this? FireFox did it without an agreement"
      No they didn't. Mozilla got good money for making Google the default startup page. And Mozilla makes money every time you do a search from the search box in Firefox.
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  30. Uh... Opera Mini? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

    Why don't you use Opera Mini then?

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
    1. Re:Uh... Opera Mini? by heffeque · · Score: 1

      I think that your cellphone operator needs to have support for it, and mine in particular doesn't.

    2. Re:Uh... Opera Mini? by :jax: · · Score: 1

      The operator support that is needed for Opera Mini and other web applications is an Internet (not WAP) access point. This is effectively the name of the Internet server the phone must connect to. Getting this configuration can be easy or hard depending on the operator and the age of the phone. If you don't have it built-in many operators can just send a SMS message to your phone to install it. If you get no useful help from the operator this incomplete list of known access points in the world might help. You also need a plan that allows for Internet data.

    3. Re:Uh... Opera Mini? by heffeque · · Score: 1

      My Operator isn't in the list.

    4. Re:Uh... Opera Mini? by mikis · · Score: 1

      Neither is mine, but I just downloaded Opera Mini and it worked "out of the box".

    5. Re:Uh... Opera Mini? by heffeque · · Score: 1

      I'll try it then, but I'll have to install Java first :-P

  31. PalmOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hey! I'm still waiting for a nice PalmOS 5 version to run on my Tapwave Zodiac2 !
    Until then, I'm running the browser of an even smaller fish in the brower market - yep, novarra Incs NWeb

  32. News? by kylegordon · · Score: 1

    My P910 from several months ago came with Google as the default search engine in Opera. I fail to see how this can be called news...

  33. Shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google will be the default partner for its mobile Internet browsers"

    First of all I had no idea that Opera was gay. And DEFAULT partner. Sheesh, what ever happened to monogamy^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hmonopoly.

  34. Opera vs Minimo by demiz · · Score: 1
    IMO Mozilla will soon be the most powerful competitor in the world of mobile Internet browsers. I tested "Minimo" ver0.2 - the mobile version of FireFox on my HP iPAQ 3950, I just can say to the beta software is "WOW". I'll rate it 4/5 stars. Operas browser only runs on phones, not on PDAs, and a lot of browsers ignore frames or have limited JavaScript support-they do terrible jobs. With Minimo, it will render OK.

    Although Opera has developed mobile browser for 6 years, I believe Minimo can repeat the miracle just like FireFox did in computer browser market.

    --
    Keylogger killed my marriage, but saved my life.

  35. Google shoud also hobnob with Minimo! by demiz · · Score: 1
    Minimo 0.3, due in January, will include improved Web page navigation for mobile phone users. At present, phone users need to linearly tab through every link on the page to get to the right link, but the new technology will let people move between links on the Web page using the arrow keys. That's really great!

    --
    Keylogger killed my marriage, but saved my life.