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 Reuters article is light on details. How much is Opera going to make by signing with Google?
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Oh my God! Google is the default search engine for Opera Desktop too! What a coincidence!
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.
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.
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)
Only Slashdot and Usenet.