Opera Founder Jon S. von Tetzchner Resigns

fysdt writes with this excerpt from TechCrunch: "Opera founder Jon S. von Tetzchner has resigned from the company. In an email to Opera employees, von Tetzchner said that 'It has become clear that The Board, Management and I do not share the same values and we do not have the same opinions on how to keep evolving Opera. As a result I have come to an agreement with the Board to end my time at Opera. I feel the Board and Management is more quarterly focused than me.'"

Comments

the fat lady sang?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry it just slipped.

So, will he continue to use Opera?

[Anonymous Coward]

If not, that'll cut their usage share by half.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[hkmwbz]

Opera has more than 200 million users (on desktop and mobile combined), so I think they're doing pretty well as it is.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[Coren22]

Does anyone force Opera on their customers as Apple forces Safari on their iPhone users?

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[UnknowingFool]

If by force you mean installed by default, there are installationsbut getting them to be the default is the problem.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[hkmwbz]

How so?

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[Lunix Nutcase]

How does Apple force Safari on iPhone users when you can trivially easily replace that browser with dozens of other choices with a few clicks?

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[hkmwbz]

It has 200 million actual users. More than 50 million on desktop, more than 100 million on mobile, and then some on various devices.

It might not be big in the US, but it's huge in many parts of the world. The mobile version in particular is completely dominant in many countries, especially emerging markets.

The world is bigger than the US, you know.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[Lunix Nutcase]

It has 200 million actual users.

And you say this based on what? That Opera claims it as so?

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[hkmwbz]

Opera's audited financial statements to its investors and the market.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[Lunix Nutcase]

Of which you failed to link to.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[That Guy From Mrktng]

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Theres no way to know the actual usage of browsers since theres no central authority that requires each and every person connected to the internet to "contribute" their data. But don't worry, lots of people are working on it now.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[hkmwbz]

You are not interested in facts, it seems. If you were, you could easily go to the financial section on www.opera.com. I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate someone who can't be bothered to educate himself.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[cababunga]

Opera has more than 200 million users (on desktop and mobile combined), so I think they're doing pretty well as it is.

If that was true, then 2% market share of Opera would mean 10 billion web users total.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[praxis]

You are making the assumption that each web user only ever uses one browser.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[jbolden]

Its been a few years but Opera was my choice for web browser on blackberry. It wouldn't shock me if 1/2 of all blackberry users use Opera, so that's like 50m right there.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[jbolden]

No it would be mean 10b web using devices total. That may be true. Computers outnumber people in most 3rd world countries. Now add phones, ereaders, tablets, game consoles. I don't have any problem with a 10b figure.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[Sir_Lewk]

So get off your lazy ass and find it.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[bonch]

Opera fans love to repeat that they have hundreds of millions of users, but it's never actually proven. On the contrary, Opera regularly shows up at the bottom of market share stats. If it had 200 million users, it would have much higher share.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[bonch]

"I'm going to make a baseless claim, and I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time proving it!"

If Opera had 200 million users, it would have a higher market share number. Instead, it regularly appears at the bottom of the list.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[smellotron]

"I'm going to make a baseless claim, and I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time proving it!"

If Opera had 200 million users, it would have a higher market share number.

Since you're too lazy to Just Fucking Google It, take a look at Opera's financial reports (see p.3 of the 2011Q1 presentation). You can argue with them about their user count.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Of which you failed to link to.

Did you mean to say, "To which you failed to link", or perhaps the slightly less grammatical but still acceptable, "Which you failed to link to"?

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[davester666]

Maybe there are 200 million distinct 'users' that have downloaded and used Opera at least once during their lifespan.

But do those 200 million actual users that regularly actually use it? Are those 100 million mobile users ones that use use their phone regularly to browse, or are they just counting all the handsets sold that have Opera installed on them?

I'm probably counted as one of these mythical 'users' as every once in a while I will download an update to my copy of Opera (and generally won't even launch it to see what's new after doing so), and I think I might have actually launched it to look at one site I had trouble accessing [which it didn't make any improvement] last year.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[dunkelfalke]

Opera Mobile was the default browser for the last few Windows Mobile phones made by HTC.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[hkmwbz]

You are aware that Opera is the top mobile browser, with a claimed market share of 20-25%, right? (likely higher, since StatCounter is biased towards countries where Opera is not as strong)?

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[bedouin]

Kind of true. Those browsers are all forced to use Safari's engine -- so you're really just getting a new UI slapped on top of the same old thing.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[Patch86]

Opera Mobile is pre-installed on a bunch of devices- not least the Wii (only browser available without jailbreaking), some WinMo phones, and even the (Symbian) Nokia N90. Bearing in mind most people don't even attempt to change browsers on their phone, that'll give them a fair swathe of market straight up.

Add that to the loyal diehards on the PC and other devices, and that probably gives you something like 200 million (more or less active) users.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[cenkozan]

If Opera users are below 200 million, it's users' fault, not Opera's. Show me any browser that can do this, and I will repeat what you say on my twitter. My browser is pumped yo! http://imgur.com/8TxLk

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[walternate]

Opera has more than 200 million users (on desktop and mobile combined), so I think they're doing pretty well as it is.

This number is repeated in many posts here. But are those users not using the Internet? Total number of Internet users, on any device, is estimated at around 2.1 billion. With 200 million users Opera should have close to 10% share of users, but statistics only have them at a third of that, around 3%, for desktop and mobile combined.

Two sources for numbers but have also seen other sources with about same numbers: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[Ant P.]

Why would I need a browser to poorly emulate the multiple desktops feature in my OS?

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[hkmwbz]

Opera's market share in the mobile browser market is nearly 25%, child.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[hkmwbz]

You are still repeating this nonsense. Not only was someone kind enough to provide your ignorant self with more data, but you chose to ignore it as expected.

You are ignorant enough to not know about the fact that Opera's market share in the mobile browser market is 20-25%. You can't even bother to educate yourself about really, really basic things.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[hkmwbz]

Yeah, who needs tabbed browsing, right?

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[hkmwbz]

No, there are 200 million users who actually use Opera every month (installations are not counted). How about educating yourself instead of making false assumptions all the time?

This is the same way other browsers are counting users, by the way.

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[hkmwbz]

You may want to stop making assumptions, and instead ask honest questions. Hint: Opera is the #1 mobile browser globally, with a market share of 20-25%. Furthermore, stats like Hitslink focus almost exclusively on North America and Western Europe, while Opera is stronger in other parts of the world (that are not weighted equally because the stats data is much more comprehensive for North America).

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[justforgetme]

and that is a lie.

You conveniently forget to mention that the list you refer to is the list of top 5 browsers.

On another hand maybe you didn't know there exist more that that many applications whose sole purpose is to display HTML...

Re:So, will he continue to use Opera?

[Coren22]

When you have a choice on the iPhone, it will mean you can run Firefox, Chrome or Opera. Not having a choice of no Safari is not having a choice at all. Even on the Mac OS machines, you cannot remove Safari, it will actually re install with the patches, but at least you can run something different.

Ouch

[Hatta]

Opera has been a damn good browser, and the focus of the company Opera has always been producing a damn good browser. If the focus becomes quarterly profit, I don't see much of a future for the Opera browser.

Re:Ouch

[Applekid]

Opera has been a damn good browser, and the focus of the company Opera has always been producing a damn good browser. If the focus becomes quarterly profit, I don't see much of a future for the Opera browser.

Unless they can make such a damn good browser people would be willing to pay for it.

Considering they moved away from a paid model, yeah...

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

No they didn't. The let people have their desktop browser for free. Their embedded mobile stuff still costs, and it's this that keeps the company alive. But not for much longer. Chrome has too much momentum now, and mobile devices are reasonably computers in their own right these days, and don't need mini versions.

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera is a big player in the mobile browser market (think Nintendo, HTC). That stuff isn't free. The Desktop browser is supported by advertising IIRC (the default searches, for example, are Google, Bing, Ebay, Amazon, etc).

Re:Ouch

[man_of_mr_e]

Really? I downloaded Opera Mini for my Android at no cost. Did the same on my ancient Windows Mobile. How exactly are they charging for those?

Re:Ouch

[hkmwbz]

If the focus becomes quarterly profit, I don't see much of a future for the Opera browser.

What does that mean? Turning a profit is evil?

Re:Ouch

[Hatta]

No, that means focusing on the short term alone is likely to be bad for the long term.

Re:Ouch

[digitig]

That short-term profit might not be a good long-term strategy.

Re:Ouch

[Teun]

Stupid question.

No of course the man is not opposed to making a profit, quite the contrary.

The man is against short term and short sighted policies, he prefers to have a future horizon that's more than 13 weeks ahead.BR> A perfectly sensible thing to do.

Re:Ouch

[hkmwbz]

Considering they moved away from a paid model, yeah...

Your point being? They did move away from that, and now have more than 200 million users on desktop+mobile+devices.

Re:Ouch

[hkmwbz]

What makes you think anyone is going to focus on the short term alone? Opera has numerous long-term projects, such as a new joint venture in China which is supposed to grow their presence there. That will take time, and will cost money in the short term, but is expected to be profitable in the long run.

Re:Ouch

[hkmwbz]

I don't understand. Where did anyone say that quarterly profits are the only focus? Opera has numerous long-term projects going that will in fact cost money in the short term (and they were started after JvT stepped down as CEO), so it seems quite ignorant to claim that they have started only thinking about quarterly profits.

In fact, the company believes that the real big money will not be made until a few years from now. They may be profitable right now, but their aim is long-term profitability, and they have laid out their strategy for that.

Re:Ouch

[hkmwbz]

As I already replied: "What makes you think anyone is going to focus on the short term alone? Opera has numerous long-term projects, such as a new joint venture in China which is supposed to grow their presence there. That will take time, and will cost money in the short term, but is expected to be profitable in the long run."

Re:Ouch

[hkmwbz]

Their embedded mobile stuff still costs, and it's this that keeps the company alive.

Um, no. The mobile browsers are free to download. And the desktop version is more than 1/3 of the company's total revenue. Where are you getting your nonsensical claims from?

Re:Ouch

[sconeu]

What makes you think anyone is going to focus on the short term alone?

How about this?

I feel the Board and Management is more quarterly focused than me

Re:Ouch

[Teun]

No worry you don't understand, this is typically a confidential issue between the board and the Management.

But judging by his public statement we can safely assume he wanted a longer term goal while the Board wanted more focus on the short term results.

Re:Ouch

[hkmwbz]

But judging by his public statement we can safely assume he wanted a longer term goal while the Board wanted more focus on the short term results.

No we can't. We can conclude that he said something about "more on quarterly results", and the fact is that after he stepped down, Opera has been able to both deliver quarterly profits and set up projects and strategies for the long term. Maybe he wanted them to ignore quarterly profits, but clearly it was time for Opera to deliver on something after 15 years in business.

Re:Ouch

[praxis]

How about someone familiar with the company and product feels that the company has become detrimentally focused on the short term. You are correct that does not mean short term alone, but it seems he feels it means too much focus on making certain numbers on certain dates and not enough focus on improving the browser itself.

Re:Ouch

[praxis]

Maybe he felt there should be more focus on long-term goals and less focus on short-term goals. That is, after all, what he said. It's not a binary thing. He felt it was too much of one and not enough of the other.

Re:Ouch

[garyebickford]

... in his opinion. We don't have any way of knowing if he's right, or the board's right (they have much more focus on keeping the doors open, and if the company has investors, they probably want to see an exit strategy, like selling stock in a company that's worth something). He may be too 'pure' to run a business at this level. Most business management tends to be good at a certain size, and not so good as the company expands to the next level. The company may have simply outgrown him. I don't know if that is what is happening, but it's possible.

Re:Ouch

[tibit]

I used to use it back in Windows 95 times, and I did pay for a version way back then. It was, at the time, the fastest browser out there. It switched to an ad-supported model, then the GUI ads disappeared, so I don't really know how they made ends meet... I don't use it much nowadays.

Re:Ouch

[Zontar The Mindless]

There's this thing called "inductive reasoning". You should try it sometime.

Re:Ouch

[NNKK]

Real-world experience? The douchebags that generally staff boards of directors and upper management don't give a shit about anything but this quarter's numbers and their own golden parachutes. Corporations have to have someone in power to counter that. Opera no longer does, and their focus will become the same as any other typical corporation: quarterly profits above all else.

Re:Ouch

[hkmwbz]

What means less long-term reliability? The new CEO has been in place since early 2010. Since then, the company's profits have soared, and the company has unveiled lots of new projects, products and services, as well as long-term investment, such as a joint venture in China to boost their popularity there. JVs will cost money in the short term, but may be profitable in the long term. So they are not sacrificing the long-term.

As for cashing out, that could happen to anything at any time, in theory. Lots of tech founders have cashed out by selling to Google, Yahoo, Apple, etc.

Re:Ouch

[Billly Gates]

One word Chrome.

It is just as fast if nto faster and it is moving faster than any other browser suppoprting HTML 5 and so on. Opera can not catch up unless it changes its business model and you can't resell a browser every 3 months out when a new version is out. If they stay conservative than it falls behind Chrome.

Re:Ouch

[hkmwbz]

What are you talking about? Opera is a free download. Are you really this ignorant?

Re:Ouch

[hkmwbz]

Except anyone who read the current management's strategy for the next few years realizes that they are not detrimentally focused on the short term.

And no, JvT does not say that he feels it means too much focus on numbers vs. product quality. You are just making that up. He said nothing whatsoever about product quality. He talked about more or less focus on delivering solid quarterly results.

Re:Ouch

[hkmwbz]

And what happened since he stepped down as CEO in early 2010? The share has gone up gradually, whereas when he was CEO it would rise and then drop dramatically when he failed to deliver. Since he left, Opera has unveiled numerous new projects, products and services. Opera now has a very clear and easy to understand strategy (as opposed to when he was boss). And so on.

Re:Ouch

[Billly Gates]

The problem is the board does not want free. hence concerned for short term profits. They want to charge money and that is hard with Chrome out that is free and always as up to date.

Re:Ouch

[hkmwbz]

You mean "making stuff up on the spot"? Is that it? Ignore the facts and everything is fine?

Re:Ouch

[hkmwbz]

You are obviously clueless about who the Opera management are, and what they value. The new CEO has been running the company for a year and a half now, and they've never had more long-term projects and plans for the future. Until the new CEO took over, there was no clear direction for Opera, and no one really knew how they would survive long-term. Now they know.

You need to stop making assumptions about things you obviously know nothing about.

Re:Ouch

[hkmwbz]

No, the board does not want free. If you weren't completely clueless about Opera, you would have known that they laid out exactly how they can grow their profits and still keep Opera free. They laid out their strategy to reach 500 million users with a higher average revenue per user within the next few years. All based on freely available browsers and other products and services.

Please, educate yourself. It doesn't take long to look up Opera's strategy for the future on opera.com.

The board does want free. In fact, the board counts on remaining free to reach their long-term goals. There are other ways to generate revenue without charging end-users directly. You should ask Google, Facebook or any other company that does it about it some time.

Re:Ouch

[NuShrike]

Have you seen the SDK costs for Opera? They make money that way for embedded ports. Nintendo for DS probably, etc, any STBs.

If Sony would fork up the cash instead of funding their lawyers, Opera for PS3 would be nice. Sony doesn't seem to have have the skills for a proper Webkit port (unless Google did it for them).

Re:Sad news

[Nerdfest]

After the remaining board members "monetize" it, (my guess as to their intentions), I think your estimate will be quite accurate.

No surprises here

[dkleinsc]

Business guys want short-term profit at all costs. Technical guys want long-term technical excellence which is better in the long run but not as profitable in the short run. Because the business guys have the dough, they win in a for-profit business.

That (in a nutshell) is why for-profit business cannot be the driver of excellence in software.

Re:No surprises here

[Twinbee]

I'm sure some business decisions are long term based. Like .NET, or CUDA, or research generally.

Re:No surprises here

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Panicky investors and the business guys who live in perpetual fear of them want short-term profit at all costs

FTFY.

Re:No surprises here

[im_thatoneguy]

Yes and No. I've beaten my head against developers who see their code as sacred and are unwilling to put it in the hands of users.

That obsession with perfection can often prevent "good enough" software from being put to good use "before it's ready". And then I often find that the developers are working in too much isolation and lose the incredibly valuable feedback from being used 'in the wild'.

Re:No surprises here

[eugene ts wong]

According to "The Innovator's Dilemma" and "The Innovator's Solution", hunger for profits when establishing new markets critical. After you get a profitable foothold, then hunger for growth is critical.

Re:No surprises here

[ArsonSmith]

"...profit at all costs."

You know that's an oxymoron right?

Re:No surprises here

[Artagel]

You do know that the investment made in companies uses money, right? And the people who gave the money, actually value the money? I mean, sure, it must be fun to burn other people's money. But don't act surprised when they object.

Re:No surprises here

[dkleinsc]

It's actually not panicky investors, but investors who can very easily move their cash to greener pastures.

Imagine a world with 2 investment possibilities: Company A is growing at a steady 5% and is likely to continue that easily over the next 5 years. Company B is growing at a very unstable 15%, and is likely to blow up in about 6 months. Our rational investor will want to invest in company B for the next 5 months, then go back and move their money into company A. If the investor moves his cash, it's quite possible company A won't be around when company B blows up. But if the investor doesn't move his cash, then company A will still collapse because all the other rational investors came to the same conclusion about the correct strategy. That means moving the capital from B to A is a completely rational, yet destructive, decision.

The management at both companies knows this. So the management at company A will try to look like company B to investors. Meanwhile, the management at company B will try to cash in on the investor activity, make a bundle, and quit before moving on to found another unstable company C.

Re:No surprises here

[hkmwbz]

So... Are you saying that Opera was driving excellence before and isn't now? Or what are you talking about exactly?

Is Google driving excellence? Is Apple driving excellence? Can you think of no for-profit business that drive excellence in software?

How about you mention someone who does drive excellence in software, then?

Re:No surprises here

[ArsonSmith]

You do realize that while those are included in the term "all costs," so are the monetary ones, right? Right?

Re:No surprises here

[MrHanky]

It's not. Not at all. Cost-cutting is a common approach to short-term profits, often leading to lower quality which may cost money in the long term as the product no longer sells.

Re:No surprises here

[Junta]

I'm sure the statement was oreinted toward costs like making 80% of your salaried workforce work a few back-to-back 80 hour work-weeks (without overtime) *just* to make a quarterly target and cause a mass departure of top talent. On a related note, massive layoffs before quarterly results to make the bottom line look better and then have to hire back up in 6 months to keep yourself from going under.

However, I do sometimes see business obviously incur massive *monetary* costs in the name of profit, just usually costs that are certain to come but at a later date. For example, moving mass volumes of product knowing that warranty costs will eat you alive in a year, doing some funny accounting to effectively shift a massive expense incurred in the process of booking revenue to a later quarter to make this quarter look good. Stuff like that.

Re:No surprises here

[BeanThere]

If business guys wanted "short-term profit at all costs", they would all immediately liquidate their businesses in order to show extremely high short-term profit. The vast majority of businesses don't want "short-term profit at all costs", they want long-term growth out of investment expenditure.

Re:No surprises here

[praxis]

Mod this up! Few people realize that rational can be destructive.

Re:No surprises here

[DrBoumBoum]

But I thought the magical invisible hand of the market would solve all problems and then make the coffee?

Re:No surprises here

[ArsonSmith]

But money is inclusive in "All costs"

Re:No surprises here

[ArsonSmith]

Of course then it would be "...profit at social costs" the word "all" is inclusive and not specific.

Re:No surprises here

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Yet the investor applying logic would evaluate both companies, and not invest where there was not a reasonable expectation of long-term return. The day trader, the short-seller, the short-term investor on the other hand... would follow the course you described. And while there are many of those who make their decisions in a calculating manner, the net effect on the stock and market is no different than a panic.

Re:Quarterly Focused?

[firellama]

Quarterly Focused means that they are looking to hit their quarterly financial targets rather than the strategic long-term objectives. Companies that do this tend to be loved by analysts, but encounter difficulties when competition leaps ahead (usually by investing in R&D or technological breakthroughs).

Hard to compete with free..

[SuperCharlie]

I think the board will find that monetizing a great product in an environment of free mediocre and/or good equivalent products is still a failing business model.

Re:Hard to compete with free..

[hkmwbz]

What makes you think "monetizing" means that the product won't be free? Google searches are free, and yet they monetized that.

Hint: Opera is making money in several different ways without charging users directly.

Re:Hard to compete with free..

[hkmwbz]

The competition is better than Opera? That's a useless subjective claim. You may think so, but that doesn't make it objectively true. Geez.

Fastmail

[willoughby]

I don't use the Opera browser but I do have an account at Fastmail (an Opera company). I wonder if they'll be affected by this dustup.

Opera is my favorite browser

[Missing.Matter]

I've been using Opera since before it was free, since I feel it provides the most in terms of features and performance. Every update seems to get better and faster while maintaining a low footprint. I don't know how they keep adding features without it becoming a bloated mess, but they manage to. It's sad they don't have more market share.

Re:Opera is my favorite browser

[hkmwbz]

How can Opera be in that boat when the company is turning record profits and has loads of cash to spare? It's even acquiring other companies!

Re:Opera is my favorite browser

[MonsterTrimble]

Can you give examples? I'm with the OP and don't see that many issues.

Re:Opera is my favorite browser

[Shippu]

Opera has become so buggy it is barely worth using any more. It still has at least two really fucking annoying bugs which I reported in 2007 (usually can't select text in text boxes such as this one without right click/select all first, and pages randomly becoming uninteractable). I actually have a huge list of bugs, but no point in posting it anywhere. The devs don't seem to give a shit, which is a shame. I need to figure out which other browser I can customize close to Opera then make the switch.

Re:Opera is my favorite browser

[spartus]

I've never had that text box problem, might just be you--I know I get UI ghosts sometimes if I migrate settings from one machine to another, if you've been porting settings for a long time there may be something incompatible with later versions that needs to be removed. As to the second, and you probably already know this as a longtime user, you have to click on Flash to "activate" it, such as needing to hit the play button twice on a YouTube clip, but then once Flash is in focus you can adjust volume, pause, etc. without needing a second click. Maybe this is your issue--being active in Flash and not in the rest of the page would do something vaguely similar to what you describe.

I hope Opera doesn't start to suck, I've been using it for over 10 years and none of the other browsers have the options, configurability, or ease of migration to new installs/machines. Chrome is okay, I guess, but I desperately hate the UI. The main reason I stay with it, other than its general greatness, is how responsive the UI is to input, even if it's doing things at the same speed as other browsers it just has a tactile "fast" feeling.

Re:Opera is my favorite browser

[hkmwbz]

Doesn't look like anyone else is seeing those problems, so it seems odd that you blame Opera for something that seems to be a very limited and local problem on your computer.

The devs are fixing huge amounts of bugs. Just check out the changelogs they are posting with every new alpha build.

Re:Opera is my favorite browser

[Shippu]

It happens with clean installs, on different computers with XP and Win7. Even in the latest beta which I'm using now. The frozen page thing happens on pages with no flash that I know of, and usually ctrl+a or switching tabs a couple of times fixes it. It has happened lately on youtube though, along with other bs like the video freezing when you change volume.. I think it's rarer than it used to be.
That's the tip of the iceberg though. It's just full of bugs and issues that come and go with each version which have become increasingly annoying, mostly since version 10.

Re:Opera is my favorite browser

[DrBoumBoum]

I don't know about your issue, I don't seem to ever bump into it, however to me the one and only drawback with Opera is that there are still a number of web sites or web application that don't render correctly with it or plainly don't work at all. I considered switching to Chrome lately, which seems to be the only reasonable alternative, however I had to give up after spending two week fighting against the speed dial and fit-to-width extensions. I have resigned myself to using Opera mainly and fire Chrome or FF for the rare instances when Opera doesn't cut it. Not perfect but there doesn't seem to be any other way to go.

Re:Opera is my favorite browser

[Shippu]

Just in case you don't know, switching to "mask as Firefox" in site prefs usually fixes these things. Something here http://operawiki.info/CustomButtons#webdev may be useful to you; dunno if the neptune plugin still works. One thing I'll miss about Opera is being able to put buttons on the start bar.
The likes of Google seem to deliberately break stuff for Opera users so it's not always the company's fault. On the other hand, they haven't bothered integrating hardware acceleration yet despite having a working version in 2008, so if you want to play Angry Birds you need to use something else, which is another reason I'm jumping ship.

Fork'd

[cratermoon]

Why doesn't von Tetzchner just fork the source and create a new project? Oh right, Opera is closed source. Pity.

Re:Fork'd

[Lunix Nutcase]

What would be the point? 2 versions of an irrelevant browser?

Re:Fork'd

[cratermoon]

Never ask a geek, 'why?', even if put in a wordy way like 'what's the point?'. Just nod your head and back away slowly.

Re:Fork'd

[cratermoon]

Would that be more, or less, insulting than the people who had nothing to do with the creation of the work taking it over to use it as their own personal blood-giving turnip?

Re:Fork'd

[hkmwbz]

Are you saying that Jon has been writing Opera all by himself until now, or that they've fired all the developers now and are just going to squeeze money out of the product without maintaining development? I'm confused.

Re:Fork'd

[hkmwbz]

So you think Jon single-handedly wrote every single line of code? That he's still working on actually coding? That the hundreds of other programmers don't matter?

The guy took the company public. He made bucketloads of money that way. And we should somehow feel sorry for him for being filthy rich?

Re:Fork'd

[Lunix Nutcase]

What does the fact that you bite the heads off of chickens have to do with my question?

Re:Fork'd

[cratermoon]

I'm confused, too. Why don't you ask the linux geek who suggested that telling von Tetzchner how to license Opera was an insult. Did the commenter meant to suggest von Tetzchner the only person who stood to lose or gain from the choice of license?

Re:Fork'd

[cratermoon]

Where did anyone say anything about feeling sorry for him von Tetzchner? Those hundreds of other programmers and the millions of users are getting the worst of it as the direction of development for Opera turns away from "let's make a really good browser that clobbers all the rest in standards compliance and performance" to "how can investors and management squeeze the most blood out of the work of other people who actually worked hard contributing code or supported Opera through the years as users?".

Re:Fork'd

[cratermoon]

What do you mean, "what do you mean?"?

Re:Fork'd

[hkmwbz]

Those hundreds of other programmers and the millions of users are getting the worst of it as the direction of development for Opera turns away from "let's make a really good browser that clobbers all the rest in standards compliance and performance" to "how can investors and management squeeze the most blood out of the work of other people who actually worked hard contributing code or supported Opera through the years as users?".

What makes you think the direction is going to change?

And as for those working hard to contribute code, these people are getting paid to write that code. Do you really feel sorry for them?

I'm really wondering where you are getting all this nonsense from. You talk about a "changed direction" even though you have no clue what Opera's direction has been, or what it will be.

Re:Fork'd

[hkmwbz]

Opera is the dominant mobile browser. I guess you think the mobile market is irrelevant, then?

Yes, though it's a little more complex

[Xaedalus]

Basically you are correct. However, you're overlooking that companies have to rely on funding from outside sources in order to manage their cash flow. This means creditors, and creditors are all intensely fixated on quarterly financial targets due to the covenants they have in place with their lendees. They don't care about competition leap-frogging, they care about whether or not the company can hit their EBITDA targets, as well as payments on capital, senior, and other kinds of debt. A company has to take this into account, especially if they want to manage their cashflow and be able to pay their employees plus their rent and everything else. It's a lofty goal to focus on strategic long-term objectives, but that has to be balanced by quarterly financial obligations, or else something important is going to be shafted.

Re:Yes, though it's a little more complex

[Hijacked Public]

Right. It is also a lofty goal to focus on hitting budget numbers for the next quarter, but that has to be balanced by long term strategy, or the long term goals will get shafted.

OP left out a fairly important 'more', suggesting Tetzchner and the board disagreed over the balance between the two rather than either of them wanting 100% of one or the other.

Re:Yes, though it's a little more complex

[BeanThere]

Precisely, at the extreme end there is a trivial way to 'hit EBITDA targets' and that's to liquidate assets.

Opera is going the wrong way

[Tridus]

I met Jon years ago, and found him to be a great guy. The company at the time was focused on making a good browser for power users, and they did that really well. It also helped that back then they were focused on performance and working on older systems.

At some point I noticed things changing years later. Opera got bigger, and slower. UI stuff that worked forever was broken in favor of a less flexible Firefox clone model. Attention was diverted to writing an email client. Then a BitTorrent client. Then a web server built into the browser. I only wish I was making that last one up.

The company lost focus on what made Opera good in the first place as they went from trying to be a good, fast browser to trying to do everything for everybody. Finally I stopped using it when the drift got so bad that it wasn't really better then Firefox at anything.

This drift coincided with the company growing in size and it being less about how it started: Jon and a few other guys trying to make a good browser.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[afidel]

IMHO they make the best mobile browser out there, and since almost all the carriers are now going with draconian data plans it makes tons of sense to use their compression and resizing model. I was never a fan of their desktop browser, but I'm glad they were there as most of the other players stole some of their best ideas and incorporated them into browsers that fit my style better.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[MonsterTrimble]

Then a web server built into the browser.

I'll get flamed for this but I love the web server that is built in. I use it instead of throwing stuff up to websites like senduit and the like. SO much easier and cleaner from my end. I haven't really worked on the photo sharing piece of unite yet however. That's something else too. Granted, their E-mail and torrent program is shite but their RSS feeder is the best I've used by miles and miles. Nobody has come close.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[hkmwbz]

The company at the time was focused on making a good browser for power users

Actually, it was never just a browser. Even the first public version did mail, newsgroups, and more. Furthermore, site compatibility was a huge problem in the early days, and until recently. Opera now works with more sites than ever.

It also helped that back then they were focused on performance and working on older systems.

Good thing Opera is currently one of the fastest browsers, and still runs on slow hardware, them.

Opera got bigger, and slower.

On the contrary. Opera is now faster than ever. It got bigger because it now handles a lot more open web standards and technologies than it used to. You'll notice that most of the growth comes from adding support for new web standards, and adding workarounds for broken sites.

UI stuff that worked forever was broken in favor of a less flexible Firefox clone model.

Such as?

Attention was diverted to writing an email client. Then a BitTorrent client. Then a web server built into the browser. I only wish I was making that last one up.

What are you talking about? The BitTorrent hasn't received a single update in several years. Mail was there from the very first public version, but was also left nearly untouched until quite recently, when they made a new mail panel for 11.0 or something like that.

It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Unite might be a web server, but what it enables is direct communication between devices. Opera is not just a desktop browser, but actually a cross-platform browser.

The company lost focus on what made Opera good in the first place as they went from trying to be a good, fast browser to trying to do everything for everybody.

Once again you are getting it completely wrong. Opera has always been doing more than just browser.

This drift coincided with the company growing in size and it being less about how it started: Jon and a few other guys trying to make a good browser.

You must be drunk or something. Jon himself wanted Opera to be everything for everyone. He was constantly going on about how great that was in various interviews.

Clearly, you are completely clueless about Opera's history.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[hkmwbz]

What gradients? I'm not going to bother with some random data URI.

And are you saying that "render gradients" is the only standard there is? That everything else doesn't count? So even if Opera does support SVG, HTML5, etc., that's irrelevant because of perhaps one CSS property or one single bug?

Wow.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[hkmwbz]

No, but seriously. Are you really denying the fact that Opera has much better and more complete support for a lot more standards and technologies than it used to? That's the point here.

I guess you are just trolling.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[Tridus]

Actually, it was never just a browser. Even the first public version did mail, newsgroups, and more. Furthermore, site compatibility was a huge problem in the early days, and until recently. Opera now works with more sites than ever.

Opera 3 had rudimentary support, at best. Considerable effort was spent in creating M2 (the mail client in later versions) after the fact when they should have been focusing on the browser.

Good thing Opera is currently one of the fastest browsers, and still runs on slow hardware, them.

On the contrary. Opera is now faster than ever. It got bigger because it now handles a lot more open web standards and technologies than it used to. You'll notice that most of the growth comes from adding support for new web standards, and adding workarounds for broken sites.

Not in my experience. Opera lost most of its performance advantage several versions ago. They've probably regained some of it recently compared to Firefox because FF 4 is such a pig, but that's hardly a credit to them and more of a condemnation of Mozilla.

Such as?

Couple of the many that annoyed me:

In early versions if you closed the browser with multiple windows open, reopening the browser later would reload those windows from the server. They changed that later so that it would reload the cached versions, completely ignoring cache settings and bringing up stuff that could be *days* since expired. When I stopped using it, it was still doing that. Firefox does the same thing.

They also changed from the nice windowing model Opera 6 had to a less functional tab style version around Opera 9 (or maybe 10) where you couldn't layer things around inside the same window anymore, instead you had to split the tab off into its own window and then do it. Hell, Opera 3's MDI was more capable of that.

What are you talking about? The BitTorrent hasn't received a single update in several years. Mail was there from the very first public version, but was also left nearly untouched until quite recently, when they made a new mail panel for 11.0 or something like that.

The BitTorrent client was built before it was ignored, which was attention spent on something that was never needed. And really, ignoring stuff that needs work is the Opera way in some things. They had a great custom search functionality years before anybody else, but had no UI to edit it and sent people off to edit ini files instead. That's certainly fine in the first version it appears, but they left it that way for years to play around with other stuff instead.

Mail was there in some form in Opera 3, then totally redone in later versions, then ignored for a while.

It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Really? You're the one telling me the same mail client has been there all along when it really wasn't. They called it "M2" for a reason, and it wasn't because it was the first version.

Unite might be a web server, but what it enables is direct communication between devices. Opera is not just a desktop browser, but actually a cross-platform browser.

Unite is a web server stuck inside a web browser. It'd make more sense as a standalone app so that people could A) not install it, and B) keep it running after closing the browser. (Maybe they fixed B since I stopped using Opera, the first time they didn't fix windowing issues and instead announced a web server I decided I was done with them.)

You must be drunk or something. Jon himself wanted Opera to be everything for everyone. He was constantly going on about how great that was in various interviews./quote?

Jon was the CEO until last year. Have you EVER heard a CEO go on an interview and say "yeah we're doing this shit all wrong"?

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[hkmwbz]

Opera 3 had rudimentary support, at best. Considerable effort was spent in creating M2 (the mail client in later versions) after the fact when they should have been focusing on the browser.

There was a full e-mail client in Opera 4. M2 came with Opera 7, and has barely been touched for extended periods. For example, until the recent mail panel facelift, it had been dormant for a long time. So yes, Opera has indeed been doing more than just a browser since day 1, and the non-browser parts have often suffered.

Opera lost most of its performance advantage several versions ago.

Yes, because others became faster. They did so by using JIT and such. Then Opera did the same thing, and now all browsers are basically the same performance wise.

But the point here is that Opera is faster than ever. So the claim I was responding to is false. Opera has been focusing a lot on performance, especially since 10.50.

Couple of the many that annoyed me:

Um, Firefox reloads tabs when you start it. Opera uses its cache, as it always has. MDI is useless these days.

The BitTorrent client was built before it was ignored, which was attention spent on something that was never needed.

Whether it was needed or not is none of your business, and not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the fact that you made false claims about how "everything used to be so great", when the fact is that the things you are complaining about all happened when JvT was in charge.

And really, ignoring stuff that needs work is the Opera way in some things.

So basically, you are contradicting your "Opera was so wonderful when Jon was in charge" claim.

Really? You're the one telling me the same mail client has been there all along when it really wasn't. They called it "M2" for a reason, and it wasn't because it was the first version.

Are you blind or something? I never claimed that it was the same mail client. I pointed out that Opera has been doing mail all along. Please pay attention.

Unite is a web server stuck inside a web browser.

...and something Jon pushed for...

Jon was the CEO until last year. Have you EVER heard a CEO go on an interview and say "yeah we're doing this shit all wrong"?

So what you are saying is that your claims about how wonderful Opera used to be under Jon are false?

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[6031769]

You'll notice that most of the growth comes from adding support for new web standards, and adding workarounds for broken sites.

And therein lies the rub. A browser should never, never incorporate workarounds for broken sites. The broken sites should be fixed. End. Of. Story.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[soodoo]

I would tend to agree with the parent post.

The web server is a nice idea, but it would've been better as a separate program. Same for the bittorrent client, which isn't even needed. Won't even waste time with widgets. But that's probably it as far as questionable extra features go (which is subjective, I guess). IF they didn't waste too much development time with these 3 I don't have big objections.
But if they did waste time instead of fixing some known bugs, it's harder to accept. And some "stable" releases (10.50, 11.10..) have definitely been rushed out prematurely. And some old power users' suggestions haven't gotten enough attention, IMO.
I did get the feeling that they started targeting "casual" users more in the last versions, but that market is conquered by advertisement as well and Opera can't compete with Google or Microsoft there. So it could perhaps be better if they focus on power users instead and build a solid base of happy users.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[hkmwbz]

The web server doesn't need to be a separate program. It's convenient to be able to set it up through the browser, and after all, it's all web pages.

Whether BitTorrent is needed or not is not up to you.

Widgets are getting huge. Opera is selling widgets solutions to mobile manufacturers, operators, TV manufacturers, etc. It's a waste of time to make money now?

Lots of power user suggestions have gotten attention. But Opera has limited resources, and they can't spend their time only listening to a tiny group of hardcore geeks.

Opera can indeed compete with Google and Microsoft. Opera is currently the dominant mobile browser, and the market share is increasing.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[Vectronic]

For the most part, if not entirely, the only thing that is incorporated are codes/methods/etc that can crash/freeze the browser, which is entirely expected.

The website fixing parts are done by BrowserJS (currently a 106KB JS file) which can be disabled.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[Vectronic]

lol, that is to say fixing those things... although yes, they do incorporate their own bugs too.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[rs79]

I've used Opera since version 3 and agree completely with the above post. I still use it, but have to use Chrome with facebook; no other browser works (at least for me) if you leave it open for hours and hours, it just gets slower and slower until it's unusably slow. I use Chrome for FB. But I still use Opera for everything else because it's the only browser that gets complex forms right under all circumstances.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[rs79]

"Yes, because others became faster. They did so by using JIT and such. Then Opera did the same thing, and now all browsers are basically the same performance wise."

For everything except Javasctipt, sure. But Chrome is head and shoulders faster for JS than anything else.

Stuff like this is why that's significant: http://rs79.vrx.net/interests/computers/sw/js/demos/year/20/1/1/

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[DrBoumBoum]

That's ridiculous, of course the browser need to strive as much as it can to render correctly as many sites as possible; they're not here as a showcase of technology, they're here to be used as a tool.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[A Friendly Troll]

Their RSS reader used to be the best until someone had a seriously dumb idea - to start storing items into a bunch of small files, instead of keeping giant consolidated MBX archives as it used to be. That's the unfortunate result of previously pairing the RSS storage with the email storage, as they wanted every email to be separately stored so that AV can scan and kill bad stuff easily.

As the end result, someone who likes his RSS and is subscribed to lots of high-frequency channels can easily get hundreds of files per day. That can translate to tens of thousands per month.

That... Just isn't very good for your common file system. Just because NTFS can handle a lot of files doesn't mean that it should.

I solved it in a hacky way - I created a TrueCrypt drive in a big file and placed Opera's email/RSS store there, since I didn't want to repartition my drives at work. I'll check the amount of files next week, but I'll be damned if it's below half a million.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[hkmwbz]

Browser JS is just used temporarily, until it can be fixed in the actual engine. Most site fixes are part of Opera itself.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[hkmwbz]

No, the current browsers (even IE!) are basically about the same when it comes to JS performance. You can cherry-pick specific benchmarks, but if you look at the big picture, your cherry-picked benchmarks do not represent reality.

Re:Opera is going the wrong way

[hkmwbz]

And therein lies the rub. A browser should never, never incorporate workarounds for broken sites. The broken sites should be fixed. End. Of. Story.

Right. Then it wouldn't work anywhere, basically. Opera is a business. The company can't afford to ignore the real world.

Re:Sad news

[hkmwbz]

How so? Businesses need to make money to stay in business. After JvT stepped down as CEO, the profits started accelerating. Even Mozilla needs to make money. Is making money a bad thing?

Short term vs long term.

[bmo]

"the Board and Management is more quarterly focused than me."

That's it. Stick a fork in it. Opera is done.

It will go up for sale within the year, get bought out, and disappear. Because the board needs its golden parachutes.

--
BMO

Re:Short term vs long term.

[falken0905]

Heh, I bet Symantec has already approached them about a purchase. It makes sense since Symantec is in fact "The place where good software goes to die".

Re:Short term vs long term.

[hkmwbz]

Why would Opera be done? Just because someone buys it doesn't mean that the browser will disappear.

Re:Short term vs long term.

[bmo]

Because it will be bought out by a company to "increase its holdings" whereupon it will be milked for what it's worth and be left to die. No updates, nothing. This is especially true if it is a financial company or a "group of investors." - R&D and development are "overhead." It is "better" for them to get what they can and run with the profits.

Because actually running a company requires work.

A rather infamous example is Partition Magic. It was bought by Symantec and never received an update in its entire life (hah) there. It was bought at version 8.0 and Symantec stopped selling it at version 8.0 - not even a point release update.

Solaris, under the thumb of Larry Ellison, looks to be something that will disappear. Among other things that they bought while acquiring Sun. We know he has no love for SuSE. Will SuSE be spun off or will it be shut down? He's already got his "Unbreakable Linux" from Redhat.

What's to stop Microsoft from buying Opera and making it disappear then "integrating its technologies" into IE10? They are no longer being watched as a "criminal monopolist."

--
BMO

Re:Short term vs long term.

[ergean]

Please don't do this... It gives me nightmares!!!

(All Power Quest Suite - Drive Image, Magic...etc; @Guard just to name just a few tools I loved and ended in the Symantec graveyard.)

Re:Short term vs long term.

[hkmwbz]

Yes, because that happens to all companies that are bought up. Not.

What's to stop Microsoft from buying your house and burning it down? Got more pointless comments?

you might describe this development as

[circletimessquare]

operatic

Should have seen it coming

[TheGreatGraySkwid]

I mean, what could one really expect from Opera if not Drama?

Re:Quarterly Focused?

[game kid]

That, or Opera's execs want to join hands and start a version-inflation train, a version-inflation train...

(Yes, I know those make terrible lyrics; they go well with the terrible trendy strategy.)

Re:Sad news

[hkmwbz]

Opera is a free download. They are not making money by charging end users.

Re:Quarterly Focused?

[hkmwbz]

Quarterly Focused means that they are looking to hit their quarterly financial targets rather than the strategic long-term objectives.

Really? So how do you explain their soaring profits and fast growth in all areas? What long-term objectives are they ignoring, exactly?

Re:Sad news

[garyebickford]

As I recall, the free downloaded version includes some hooks for Opera to make money from advertisers. IIRC they are discreet and don't get in the way much but I haven't used it for a while. In fact I just started it up and looked around, and can't find any advertising-type things, so it must be very discreet. If you pay for it, those advertising things disappear.

Re:Sad news

[icebraining]

It is when you're more interested in short term profits than long term costumer satisfaction.

Re:Sad news

[yuhong]

Yea, FYI from http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/862816-opera-ceo-steps-down-immediately-replaced/ :

After delivering strong results over over several quarters, Opera slumped to a surprise loss in the third quarter of 2009.

Re:Sad news

[yuhong]

MS certainly didn't help by making IE free, helped by the Windows monopoly.

Re:Sad news

[yuhong]

Not always.

Re:Sad news

[yuhong]

Not always. FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_(web_browser)#History

Re:Sad news

[abbamouse]

In fairness to the parent, Opera used to require payment. Then they gave you the choice to download a free but ad-supported client. There could still be some cruft from that edition hanging around in the current code.

Re:Sad news

[bonch]

He's talking about the ad-supported version of Opera that existed for years.

Re:Quarterly Focused?

[hkmwbz]

There already is a new CEO. Hand-picked by JvT himself. He started in early 2010. JvT stepped down at that time, and continued only in an advisory role. Basically, he hasn't had any real power in the company for more than a year.

Re:Sad news

[hkmwbz]

Sorry, what?

Re:Sad news

[hkmwbz]

Sure, but what does that have to do with anything? JvT stepped down as CEO a year and a half ago, and the products keep getting better.

Re:Sad news

[hkmwbz]

Not always? What are you talking about?

Re:Opera A Colossal Piece of Sh!t

[hkmwbz]

Opera "just" lost a loyal user? I don't get it. What does JvT's departure have to do with the product's quality (except the fact that it was under JvT's time that 10.5 was released prematurely).

You seem to be very confused indeed. Compare 11.5 (the new CEO) to 10.5 (JvT). It's a world of difference. 10.5 was buggy. 11.5 is nearly bug-free.

Re:Sad news

[yuhong]

FYI, I mentioned this source in another comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_(web_browser)#History

Re:Sad news

[hkmwbz]

I still don't understand what you are trying to say.