Opera happens to be one of the most standards compliant browsers, and the "traditional apps back in charge" thing is pure and utter nonsense. Opera wants you to use the web as much as possible, because when you do, you will likely search the web a lot, and when you do, they make money. So the whole article is based on a total misunderstanding. Opera wants people to browse the web, not use traditional apps. Which is why Unite can replace many traditional apps like chat clients, MSN/Skype for sending files, etc.
Personally I don't think it will catch on simply because Opera has too small a market share to make it worth people writing a lot of software that depends on it
You are forgetting Opera's buddies (customers), major OEMs and operators. Just recently, Vodafone offerered tens of thousands of dollars in a compo to write the best widget for them. And their widget solution is basically Opera.
Also, people will definitely write Unite apps. There are hundreds if not thousands of user made widgets at widgets.opera.com.
In case you think Opera "didn't make it", it has been around for 15 years, is growing like crazy, is making money, and has a huge pile of cash. It's setting new revenue and profit records all the time, even in the middle of the economic crisis. It basically dominates the mobile browser market. You can bet they already have deals with OEMs or operators based Unite coming up. They already said they are working on a mobile version.
when there was a chance to become dominant on the non-MS platforms, they focused MS Platform and competing directly with MS, instead of filling a hole that existed at the time in the non-MS platforms
You mean like on mobile phones where Opera started before anyone else? Oh, and Firefox's success came because it focused on the "MS Platform".
Really? So you know for a fact that "these people" dismiss that explanation from Microsoft? How do you know exactly what "these people" would say about Microsoft?
So anyone who reports a crime to the authorities is a parasite? Interesting logic.
Opera can sell its products just fine. It's the dominant mobile browser, after all. The company is doing very well. But Microsoft is still a pain the ass because Opera needs to keep emulating IE bugs because sites are designed for IE instead of open standards.
Geez. This has been discussed to death. If you RTFA, you will see that Microsoft will supply free browser CDs. In addition, new PCs will have a browser bundled by the OEM. And so on. There are lots of solutions. Including an "app store" like interface to easily select between browsers. Linux distributions can do this, so why can't Microsoft?
This has been discussed to death. If you RTFA, you will see that Microsoft will supply free browser CDs. In addition, new PCs will have a browser bundled by the OEM. And so on. There are lots of solutions. Including an "app store" like interface to easily select between browsers. Linux distributions can do this, so why can't Microsoft?
However, there are some differences here. For example, Safari is actually one of the most standards compliant browsers. It can also be removed from the OS. And so on. There are many such differences from the Microsoft case, so it is not absolutely certain that Apple would be forced to unbundle if they were dominant. Conclusion: I just don't know. Depends on the circumsances.
Before answering your final question (and it is a good one), I'm just going to comment about Opera on the mobile phone. I downloaded Opera on my own because the bundled version of mobile IE sucked. It was practically unusable. The phone marker didn't give Opera a penny and there wasn't any cost to me to get Opera on the phone.
So? Your point being? Are you trying to claim that Opera can't be making money because you didn't pay for it?
Guess what, they can. Apparently the most popular site in Opera Mini is Google. Every time you use the Google search in Opera or Opera Mobile/Mini, Opera makes money. In addition to that, Opera gets paid for letting companies bundle their browser with their phones and devices.
You really need a display to get a browser too, should it be bundled with the OS? You really need a CPU to use an OS, should it be bundled with the OS? If Microsoft were to come out with their own brand of CPU tomorrow and required all PC makers to buy a bundle of Windows with their CPU, instead of just Windows would you support that? After all, a OS won't work without a CPU. And PC makers can always throw away the MS brand CPU and buy one from Intel or AMD right? And if you wanted to run Windows on a PC you were building you could just throw away the CPU too right? And just because MS pays to create that CPU and deliver it does not mean the price of Windows was raised to include it, does it? After all, it comes "free" with the OS.
You seem to conveniently skip the fact that the US has competition laws as well, and that Microsoft was convicted there in the late 90s. But hey, I guess it's only bad if the EU enforces its own laws, eh?
Actually, this is something Microsoft decided to do, not something the EU ordered them to do. Please pay attention. The punishment from the EC has not yet been handed out.
And where does the Streisand Effect enter the picture?
The more people who know that alternative browsers exists, the better for Opera. In addition to that, Chrome is standards compliant, so if it became the dominant browser, even more sites would be standards compliant, which would be good for Opera. Remember, Opera reported a massive increase in downloads after Chrome was launched because of the renewed interest in alternative browsers.
Actually, this will help Opera. The more people know they have a choice, the more possible Opera users there are. When Chrome was launched, Opera actually reported that downloads increased massively. All the attention alerted even more people to the existence of alternative browsers, and many of them found Opera and Firefox.
Cue hundreds of comments like "why can Apple bundle a browser but not Microsoft" (Apple is not in the same dominant position, and didn't break the law), "EU is a bunch of commie bastards" (ignoring the fact that the US has the exact same antitrust laws as well), and so on. It's the same old drivel every single time. It's as if there is a legion of Microsoft shills just waiting in line to post the same fallacies over and over again every time someone posts about the EU antitrust case. I can't believe that some people still don't get the basic facts of this case.
The point here is that the evidence should be rejected. If he is willing to behave unethically in the first place, why wouldn't he be able to plant the evidence as well?
A: They need the driver for the dvd drive and open up his browser, go to google, type "S" to search for 'Sony DVD rom Driver' and the auto complete history pops up 100 variations on 'sex with kids'.
So what if he has searched for that? Irrelevant. It could mean anything. It doesn't necessarily mean that he has sex with kids or has any child porn.
B: They want to test the DVD drive so they fire up Roxio Bloatware Creator and figure the easiest thing to do is to burn a picture dvd, since there may not be music or video but there are images on every computer. At this point they discover that My Pictures is full of 10 gigs of nasty.
There's no reason for them what so ever to look at the pictures.
Would you really take your car to the garage with a 100lbs bag of cocaine on the back seat and then complain that the garage employee looked through the window and reported you?
What if it was just normal flour? None of the repair man's business.
if I install or update software (anything from a video editor to the latest version of word) and test it using the "recent files" list, you are crazy if you think I'm not going to call the police if I see something about the user being a terrorist or other kind of a criminal.
None of your business. What if those bomb recipes are merely for his own curiosity? What if the plans to blow up the president were just for fun, or something he found online and was merely curious about? You have no business taking the law into your own hands like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Opera happens to be one of the most standards compliant browsers, and the "traditional apps back in charge" thing is pure and utter nonsense. Opera wants you to use the web as much as possible, because when you do, you will likely search the web a lot, and when you do, they make money. So the whole article is based on a total misunderstanding. Opera wants people to browse the web, not use traditional apps. Which is why Unite can replace many traditional apps like chat clients, MSN/Skype for sending files, etc.
You are forgetting Opera's buddies (customers), major OEMs and operators. Just recently, Vodafone offerered tens of thousands of dollars in a compo to write the best widget for them. And their widget solution is basically Opera.
Also, people will definitely write Unite apps. There are hundreds if not thousands of user made widgets at widgets.opera.com.
In case you think Opera "didn't make it", it has been around for 15 years, is growing like crazy, is making money, and has a huge pile of cash. It's setting new revenue and profit records all the time, even in the middle of the economic crisis. It basically dominates the mobile browser market. You can bet they already have deals with OEMs or operators based Unite coming up. They already said they are working on a mobile version.
You mean like on mobile phones where Opera started before anyone else? Oh, and Firefox's success came because it focused on the "MS Platform".
Really? So you know for a fact that "these people" dismiss that explanation from Microsoft? How do you know exactly what "these people" would say about Microsoft?
You don't have to swing your arms. A flick of the wrist works as well. You can choose.
Opera can sell its products just fine. It's the dominant mobile browser, after all. The company is doing very well. But Microsoft is still a pain the ass because Opera needs to keep emulating IE bugs because sites are designed for IE instead of open standards.
Geez. This has been discussed to death. If you RTFA, you will see that Microsoft will supply free browser CDs. In addition, new PCs will have a browser bundled by the OEM. And so on. There are lots of solutions. Including an "app store" like interface to easily select between browsers. Linux distributions can do this, so why can't Microsoft?
This has been discussed to death. If you RTFA, you will see that Microsoft will supply free browser CDs. In addition, new PCs will have a browser bundled by the OEM. And so on. There are lots of solutions. Including an "app store" like interface to easily select between browsers. Linux distributions can do this, so why can't Microsoft?
Your point being? Is this supposed to be an argument against bundling other browsers?
However, there are some differences here. For example, Safari is actually one of the most standards compliant browsers. It can also be removed from the OS. And so on. There are many such differences from the Microsoft case, so it is not absolutely certain that Apple would be forced to unbundle if they were dominant. Conclusion: I just don't know. Depends on the circumsances.
So? Your point being? Are you trying to claim that Opera can't be making money because you didn't pay for it?
Guess what, they can. Apparently the most popular site in Opera Mini is Google. Every time you use the Google search in Opera or Opera Mobile/Mini, Opera makes money. In addition to that, Opera gets paid for letting companies bundle their browser with their phones and devices.
Monopolies aren't illegal. Abusing one's monopoly to undermine the market is.
You didn't answer his question, though. Why are you reposting the same questions even though you have received a reply to them before?
You seem to conveniently skip the fact that the US has competition laws as well, and that Microsoft was convicted there in the late 90s. But hey, I guess it's only bad if the EU enforces its own laws, eh?
Actually, this is something Microsoft decided to do, not something the EU ordered them to do. Please pay attention. The punishment from the EC has not yet been handed out.
The more people who know that alternative browsers exists, the better for Opera. In addition to that, Chrome is standards compliant, so if it became the dominant browser, even more sites would be standards compliant, which would be good for Opera. Remember, Opera reported a massive increase in downloads after Chrome was launched because of the renewed interest in alternative browsers.
Actually, this will help Opera. The more people know they have a choice, the more possible Opera users there are. When Chrome was launched, Opera actually reported that downloads increased massively. All the attention alerted even more people to the existence of alternative browsers, and many of them found Opera and Firefox.
Sigh.
The point here is that the evidence should be rejected. If he is willing to behave unethically in the first place, why wouldn't he be able to plant the evidence as well?
If the tech wants to test the media player, he should insert a DVD with his own media files. He should not look at the customer's media.
So what if he has searched for that? Irrelevant. It could mean anything. It doesn't necessarily mean that he has sex with kids or has any child porn.
There's no reason for them what so ever to look at the pictures.
What if it was just normal flour? None of the repair man's business.
None of your business. What if those bomb recipes are merely for his own curiosity? What if the plans to blow up the president were just for fun, or something he found online and was merely curious about? You have no business taking the law into your own hands like that.