Facebook To Buy Opera? Maybe.(thenextweb.com)
thenextweb.com
Facebook To Buy Opera? Maybe.
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/05/25/facebook-to-acquire-browser-maker-opera-maybe-heres-what-we-know/
145 comments
After all, none of the other data-hungry vendors address bars behave exactly like a keylogger (cough Chrome)
The omnibox gets autocomplete recommendations which is a very useful feature, how do you expect they could get autocomplete recommendations without sending the prefix to the server? You can also easily disable the feature in settings, it's even right on the front of settings not buried.
Edit: Also if you change your default search engine to Bing, then Chrome is behaving as a keylogger for Microsoft by your definition.
Edit: Also if you change your default search engine to Bing, then Chrome is behaving as a keylogger for Microsoft by your definition.
The feature as written indeed can't work without sending every keystroke. That doesn't mean it's any less intrusive. I'd even dare say it was probably not accidentally designed that way.
Besides the fact that that feature is easily disabled (actually if you don't choose Google on first start, it's never enabled).
Chromium is open source, it doesn't include these pieces, yet you still get to benefit from all of WebKit's awesomeness and Google's contributions to it. Like a modern realtime communication platform, new APIs enabling adaptive streaming, WebGL, NaCl and more.
Also, how else would the recommendations work except as described?
Chromium is open source, it doesn't include these pieces, yet you still get to benefit from all of WebKit's awesomeness and Google's contributions to it. Like a modern realtime communication platform, new APIs enabling adaptive streaming, WebGL, NaCl and more.
Also, how else would the recommendations work except as described?
Along with Instant, in an ideal world simply by not existing.
When searching online I find it vaguely insulting that my presumed default state is one of not already knowing what I'm looking for, and furthermore the question I'm asking is the same question everybody else is asking.
In the case of both features I'm treated with a flury of distracting, schizophrenic flashes where previously the UI would behave patiently and consistently while I entered my query.
Instant, suggestions, Sets, and the site preview function are begging to be hidden behind a button where you explicitly tell the engine you're confused, and need help figuring out what the vague thing you have in mind really looks like (complete with revolutionary highly visual UI that doesn't resemble a regular search). At least for a user like me.
When searching online I find it vaguely insulting that my presumed default state is one of not already knowing what I'm looking for, and furthermore the question I'm asking is the same question everybody else is asking.
In the case of both features I'm treated with a flury of distracting, schizophrenic flashes where previously the UI would behave patiently and consistently while I entered my query.
Instant, suggestions, Sets, and the site preview function are begging to be hidden behind a button where you explicitly tell the engine you're confused, and need help figuring out what the vague thing you have in mind really looks like (complete with revolutionary highly visual UI that doesn't resemble a regular search). At least for a user like me.
I wear a hat tin foil hat with a wide brim, so I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you should take it personally (my parents will probably die never knowing what a browser is, and they simply need help). Just use Chromium with certain modifications to remove all ~tracking related functions, and then add 'noscript', 'ghostery', 'better privacy' and/or other extensions to remove the more intrusive parts of the web (it's the best we can do right now, and no one party is acting significantly more intrusive).
"When searching online I find it vaguely insulting that my presumed default state is one of not already knowing what I'm looking for, and furthermore the question I'm asking is the same question everybody else is asking."
Often when I search, I have a keyword in mind, but not necessarily the wording. The autocomplete is great for helping me refine my query. I'm not really sure why Google suggesting common searches would be insulting?
Often when I search, I have a keyword in mind, but not necessarily the wording. The autocomplete is great for helping me refine my query. I'm not really sure why Google suggesting common searches would be insulting?
Exactly. Just because forgotusername values clean non-suggestive UIs doesn't mean everyone else does. If Google is to cater to the majority of their clients which they should, based on just how my non-technical friends and family enjoy Google Instant and auto-completion I'd say they've successfully solved their users' problem.
Not to say all of them. I personally don't make use of either features whatever but at least I can disable both!
Not to say all of them. I personally don't make use of either features whatever but at least I can disable both!
[deleted]
> When searching online I find it vaguely insulting that my presumed default state is one of not already knowing what I'm looking for
If you find the Google experience "insulting," you are far too emotionally attached to how you interact with Google's services.
If you find the Google experience "insulting," you are far too emotionally attached to how you interact with Google's services.
A browser is troubling but you can opt-out by using a competitor (I think that's a reason why Google still supports Firefox). It's when they start buying ISPs that you should treat it seriously because that's an attempt to control the platform from the street to the servers.
The main reason Google provides money to Mozilla is to buy billions of search queries from them via default placement in the search bar. That's it.
Google is replacing webkit on their Android software with their own Chrome mobile browser. It may already be done.
webkit is the rendering engine used by chrome (and safari and konqueror and probably others). In what way are they replacing it with chrome?
That is the terminology used here.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9224057/Google_accele...
They're replacing the current android browser with one which is based on the (desktop) Chrome browser. It still uses webkit as the rendering engine though. It the everything-but-the-rendering-engine that they're changing.
I think the same of google and chrome, but I am almost the only one. So I think most people will not care.
Google has never tried to sell my data or show it to third-parties, though.
But you have no reason to believe they won't in the future. Honestly, thank goodness for Mozilla and I hope they can keep up with browsers for a long time because the web will be a horrible place without Firefox.
Because it's easy to verify that that isn't the case. If you don't trust the Chrome binaries, feel free to use Chromium (which is of course completely open source). Further, I'm not sure what the actual implication is here (Google is reading your HTTP traffic?), but it would be easily (dis)proven with Wireshark and would be an enormous scandal.
No less than with Google owning Chrome, and people seem to be quite used to that.
Opera is one of those browsers that stores your cache on their servers to make your browsing quicker.Your browsing habits are already going through their servers.Now add Facebook to the mix.What do you have? The mother of all profiling softwares.☼
Only if you enable Opera Turbo (http://www.opera.com/browser/turbo/), which came disabled by default on my installation.
Or on Opera Mini, but that’s a very specialized browser, like Amazon Silk. Also worth mentioning is that even if Turbo is explicitly enabled, it doesn’t ever activate for secure connections.
At least with Chrome you can just use Chromium. It would be interesting to see if FB open sourced Opera.
You're fear mongering. Facebook has certainly had its issues in the past but recently they've been very transparent about what they are doing with your personal data. To the point where the CPO has been doing a road show taking questions and asking for feedback[1]. You might not like what they do but there are no secrets.
[1] http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/11/facebook-privacy-policy-cha...
[1] http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/11/facebook-privacy-policy-cha...
I disagree. It is still very, very easy to accidentally share something you don't want to be shared on Facebook. That is intentional.
Why would that be intentional? What possible motivation does Facebook have for wanting you to accidentally reshare something?
Further, I don't even understand the accusation. You have to click "Share" on a post to share it, and even then, there's an additional, quite explicit confirmation required.
Further, I don't even understand the accusation. You have to click "Share" on a post to share it, and even then, there's an additional, quite explicit confirmation required.
Because each additional story shared add contents to your friends feed ? And some things you don't want to share are the one that would interest your friends the most.
("friends" in the Facebook sense, of course).
And you don't have to click to share. You just have to do something in one apps linked somehow to your facebook account. Or leave a comment on a third party site. Or..
Yes, you can be attentive to all these, but that's not what I would call easy for everyone.
("friends" in the Facebook sense, of course).
And you don't have to click to share. You just have to do something in one apps linked somehow to your facebook account. Or leave a comment on a third party site. Or..
Yes, you can be attentive to all these, but that's not what I would call easy for everyone.
It would be intentional because more shares = more traffic = more money for Facebook. Longer term, it means less expectation of privacy and even more opportunities to publish even more stuff to more people. Zuckerberg has pretty much explicitly stated that this is the goal.
And those explicit confirmations contain so much noise that it's often quite difficult to tell what you're confirming.
And those explicit confirmations contain so much noise that it's often quite difficult to tell what you're confirming.
[deleted]
I was just about to move my email hosting to fastmail, so this will be a significant issue for me. I hope it is confirmed or denied quickly. Any suggestions if this turns out to be true?
It would be strategically important to their growth. Opera Mini is the #1 browser in many developing countries, particularly in Africa and South East Asia. These are the regions that are also showing the most growth (and have the most potential) of new people coming online. If facebook dominates both the mobile browser and the top site in all of these countries, then for newly arriving users, facebook will be the internet. It will be their first experience, and it's where they will feel most comfortable (like AOL was back in the day).
Facebook understands the importance of mobile. If you view fb timeline on your phone, it looks great. Facebook have made the transition to the mobile web already - because mobile will be the dominant entertainment consuming screen in the future.
Facebook understands the importance of mobile. If you view fb timeline on your phone, it looks great. Facebook have made the transition to the mobile web already - because mobile will be the dominant entertainment consuming screen in the future.
Surely Opera has that position because those markets are dominated by the cheaper "feature phones" that don't run iOS or Android. That's not a tenable market share: as real platforms push down into the commidity price range, so will Mobile Safari and Chrome for Android. Is Opera actually winning against "real" browsers anywhere it's competing in a browser-choice-based environment?
You forget that Mini is a proxy browser that does a large amount of data compression. When your mobile network is constricted and data locally expensive then you want to use the minimum possible.
Of course. But you're not controlling your variables. The developing markets are "constricted" in precisely the same way that the first world markets were about 6-9 years ago. So they need different hardware and software.
Opera was doing very well in the first world markets 6-9 years ago, for exactly that reason. They lost the market almost entirely. So, why would the developing world be any different?
Opera was doing very well in the first world markets 6-9 years ago, for exactly that reason. They lost the market almost entirely. So, why would the developing world be any different?
The argument was the browser as gateway to Facebook. So it wouldn't matter if the browser was ultimately doomed. As long as those users became Facebook users and stuck with Facebook even after they upgraded to newer phones/browsers.
AOL, Compuserve, et al hung in for a very long time, even after people begrudgingly ditched their dialup for broadband, solely because they were so comfortable with AOL from that first experience.
Experience suggests it could very well work.
I think the bigger question is whether it would be cost-effective. i.e. to what degree would that be effective in capturing social network market share in those regions, is it the most cost-effective way to capture that share, would it be enough to simply pay Opera to 'partner' with Facebook, etc.
AOL, Compuserve, et al hung in for a very long time, even after people begrudgingly ditched their dialup for broadband, solely because they were so comfortable with AOL from that first experience.
Experience suggests it could very well work.
I think the bigger question is whether it would be cost-effective. i.e. to what degree would that be effective in capturing social network market share in those regions, is it the most cost-effective way to capture that share, would it be enough to simply pay Opera to 'partner' with Facebook, etc.
Opera was doing very well years ago because it was a much better desktop browser than IE or Netscape. It didn't do Turbo than and it declined as Mozilla got it's act together and chrome appeared.
Opera is popular in the developing world for an entirely different reason - the Turbo/mini compression - it may lose that market if other browsers also do compression.
Opera is popular in the developing world for an entirely different reason - the Turbo/mini compression - it may lose that market if other browsers also do compression.
My experience is actually that 3G service is a lot cheaper in poor countries than in rich countries. They can't overprice it, they wouldn't get any customers then.
For example - here in Cambodia I subscribe to a 2GB 3,5G package for just $5 a month. The reception and speed is great in urban areas.
However, if you're just talking about extremely poor countries without any 3G service, then you're absolutely correct. There's not too many of them left though, just some countries in Africa and the Middle East.
Mobile data is getting cheap incredibly fast and betting a company on providing data compression is stupid. It has worked out well for Opera so far (kudos to them, I'm Norwegian), but continuing to base their income on it is a losing battle. They have to pivot in order to still be relevant and being bought by Facebook is, in my opinion, a good way of doing it.
For example - here in Cambodia I subscribe to a 2GB 3,5G package for just $5 a month. The reception and speed is great in urban areas.
However, if you're just talking about extremely poor countries without any 3G service, then you're absolutely correct. There's not too many of them left though, just some countries in Africa and the Middle East.
Mobile data is getting cheap incredibly fast and betting a company on providing data compression is stupid. It has worked out well for Opera so far (kudos to them, I'm Norwegian), but continuing to base their income on it is a losing battle. They have to pivot in order to still be relevant and being bought by Facebook is, in my opinion, a good way of doing it.
Feature phones will continue to exist as a cheaper alternative to expensive phones, but they just become more 'featured'. Don't forget that they have a much smaller screen, and chrome/safari may not want to accomodate the huge diversity of screen sizes and platforms out there. Opera has been doing it.
In the software game, there is no point planning 10 years ahead. 10 years ago, software was very different from now. But 5 years from now, there will still be feature phones and africa/se asia will continue to be growing.
Facebook would have purchased the basic platforms it needs for future software, and would be in a good position for whatever comes next.
In the software game, there is no point planning 10 years ahead. 10 years ago, software was very different from now. But 5 years from now, there will still be feature phones and africa/se asia will continue to be growing.
Facebook would have purchased the basic platforms it needs for future software, and would be in a good position for whatever comes next.
I'm not sure I follow the logic. Why will they have "feature phones" and not, say, cheap Android phones (maybe a cost-reduced Galaxy S, for example)? Obviously developing markets will always desire cheaper devices. But that's not the same thing as saying they don't desire the standard platforms. They just haven't had the choice yet, because the platforms have been evolving too quickly and aren't workable on the hardware available.
Because feature phones are like mechanical wrist watches. They just don't go away.
Personally I'm using only a dumb phone, I think it's going to be at least my daily phone forever.
Longer battery life. More durable screen. Mature technology. Cheaper. Lighter and smaller. Faster to call people. You can replace keys if they go broke. Doesn't look nasty if you have greasy fingers. And the bottom line: I don't need anything but sms and calling.
Personally I'm using only a dumb phone, I think it's going to be at least my daily phone forever.
Longer battery life. More durable screen. Mature technology. Cheaper. Lighter and smaller. Faster to call people. You can replace keys if they go broke. Doesn't look nasty if you have greasy fingers. And the bottom line: I don't need anything but sms and calling.
OK, but that's a digression. Clearly some people like feature phones, but most prefer platforms. The discussion was about Opera being able to preserve their market share in a market where people increasingly have access to Android and iOS.
Mechanical wrist watches still exist in appreciable numbers because they've become fashion items. Feature phones aren't fashion items.
I'm sorry, but in a few years you won't be able to buy a feature phone. Smartphones will get better battery life, screens etc as costs come down (and the third world gets richer) and technology marches on.
I'm sorry, but in a few years you won't be able to buy a feature phone. Smartphones will get better battery life, screens etc as costs come down (and the third world gets richer) and technology marches on.
I use opera mini on dual core 1.2Ghz Android with 4" screen because pages load faster on edge mini than on uncompressed 3g. and mini is very good at saving battery for you, which is very important on Android, unless you have a pocket nuclear reactor. and don't forget crappy internet speeds on AT&T because there are too many iphones. so much for real life usability of expensive smartphone in a developed country.
It might be a while before we get something other than feature phones in the developing markets and the pre-pay market. Pre-pay phones with "Facebook" might be a rather large seller.
> "because mobile will be the dominant entertainment consuming screen in the future."
I remember hearing that 12 years ago.
It won't.
I remember hearing that 12 years ago.
It won't.
I have been an Opera user for many years and truly love this browser. Somehow I can't see myself using a piece of software that is controlled by Facebook - ever.
I believe I speak for every web surfer when I read this headline and say "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I've used Opera for about ten years and have never wanted to switch. If Facebook bought it, though, I would drop it instantly. No guilt, either!
Interestingly I look at this news in almost the opposite way!
I used Opera desktop for something like 10 years too. When I moved to Chrome (maybe 3 years ago?) I was like, "ah, this is what these websites are supposed to be like". I was actually quite sad to say goodbye and I still miss a lot of the features (sidebar!), but it always struck me that Opera was living in a bit of a dreamland where they just hoped the web was 100% standards compliant. Admirable, but unfortunately (in the short term at least) users suffered because so many sites just didn't quite work. This may have improved since I jumped ship.
If a major company could give Opera the resources to catch up to Chrome in that area, then I'd be excited for the potential to create a comprehensively market leading browser.
I used Opera desktop for something like 10 years too. When I moved to Chrome (maybe 3 years ago?) I was like, "ah, this is what these websites are supposed to be like". I was actually quite sad to say goodbye and I still miss a lot of the features (sidebar!), but it always struck me that Opera was living in a bit of a dreamland where they just hoped the web was 100% standards compliant. Admirable, but unfortunately (in the short term at least) users suffered because so many sites just didn't quite work. This may have improved since I jumped ship.
If a major company could give Opera the resources to catch up to Chrome in that area, then I'd be excited for the potential to create a comprehensively market leading browser.
Is that a problem anymore?
I haven't really noticed any site that had serious issues in Opera (or chrome) - even my bank now works.
The only site with any problems is my Outlook Web Access and that only works full in IE.
The only site with any problems is my Outlook Web Access and that only works full in IE.
In terms of Opera users not being allowed into sites: mostly just experimental "Look at what we can do with random vendor extensions we've decided to call HTML5 today".
In terms of performance though, Opera has some weird issues. Try to go to theverge.com and scroll.. it's not pretty.
In terms of performance though, Opera has some weird issues. Try to go to theverge.com and scroll.. it's not pretty.
The same could be said about Chrome. As long as there’s Operium to Google’s Chromium, I see absolutely no problem.
Therefore they would have to go open source first. I have my doubts that Facebook would pay top dollar just to open source the software. On the other hand that might be a move to put the current user base in a merciful mood, as the userbase is probably the least likely aspect they are interested in for that takeover.
> I have my doubts that Facebook would pay top dollar just to open source the software.
They wouldn’t buy it just to open source it. Facebook will buy Opera for its own strategic reasons, and they will open source it only because it’s the optimal model for them to develop this kind of project.
They already open source bunch of stuff. They have the culture and the know-how.
They wouldn’t buy it just to open source it. Facebook will buy Opera for its own strategic reasons, and they will open source it only because it’s the optimal model for them to develop this kind of project.
They already open source bunch of stuff. They have the culture and the know-how.
> and they will open source it only because it’s the optimal model for them to develop this kind of project.
Why would that be? Opera already has a very optimal closed source development model.
Why would that be? Opera already has a very optimal closed source development model.
Opera Software ASA’s product is Opera Web Browser. Facebook wouldn’t buy Opera to continue making money on licensing. And we know that Facebook uses Open Source model for developing things they don’t profit directly from[1]. It also makes everyone more easy about the privacy issues etc. The question really is, why wouldn’t they open source it? The have plenty to benefit from and nothing to lose.
[1] https://developers.facebook.com/opensource/
[1] https://developers.facebook.com/opensource/
Facebook wouldn’t buy Opera to continue making money on licensing.
Opera makes quite some money on advertising, by channeling traffic into Google.
Opera makes quite some money on advertising, by channeling traffic into Google.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Opera Software also owns Fastmail.fm and AdMarvel. It would be kind of sad to see Fastmail go to Facebook.
Though I doubt there's much truth to this rumor.
Though I doubt there's much truth to this rumor.
Ouch, had no idea Opera owned Fastmail. Here are a few more paid accounts which would not be renewed.
Is Fastmail a reliable provider? Ties to Opera might give it a measure of "perceived quality".
I don't mind paying a few $ for a decent service, not tied to Yahoo, Google, or Microsoft.
I don't mind paying a few $ for a decent service, not tied to Yahoo, Google, or Microsoft.
I've been using them for 10+ years, with no complaints. Their webmail is good, never any problems with their IMAP, a bunch of domains to choose from for their free accounts, and relatively cheap paid plans with decent quotas. Plus, they don't read my mail to sell me ads like Gmail does.
Same experience here, although I'm a newer user who just switched from Gmail a few months ago. Spent a couple of weeks researching alternatives before settling on Fastmail and would not be happy to repeat the process.
> Plus, they don't read my mail to sell me ads like Gmail does.
The primary reason I am interested in them.
The primary reason I am interested in them.
I agree. If this is true, hopefully they leave Fastmail alone.
Delete your mailboxes soon, because they will be "unforgettable" once facebook has them.
I bet something similar is going to happen sooner than later.
But what is stopping Facebook from forking Chromium(/Webkit) for their own use? Or for that matter even Mozilla might be open for partnership.
But what is stopping Facebook from forking Chromium(/Webkit) for their own use? Or for that matter even Mozilla might be open for partnership.
With Chrome Google added some real value to Webkit (V8, sandboxing, etc.), and in the process they created a unique product.
Just forking Chromium will make it look like Oracle’s Unbreakable Enterprise Linux, i.e. a cheap knockoff of Redhat.
If Facebook wants to enter the game they need something more. At that point doing new frontend for Webkit from scratch is probably not going to be any cheaper than buying Opera. And they’d need to hire people to do that, which buying Opera would also solve.
Just forking Chromium will make it look like Oracle’s Unbreakable Enterprise Linux, i.e. a cheap knockoff of Redhat.
If Facebook wants to enter the game they need something more. At that point doing new frontend for Webkit from scratch is probably not going to be any cheaper than buying Opera. And they’d need to hire people to do that, which buying Opera would also solve.
> At that point doing new frontend for Webkit from scratch is probably not going to be any cheaper than buying Opera
The article notes that Opera's current estimated market cap is $670M, which is a lot of money for a browser frontend. I think it's more likely that they want to lock-in the feature phone user base.
The article notes that Opera's current estimated market cap is $670M, which is a lot of money for a browser frontend. I think it's more likely that they want to lock-in the feature phone user base.
It's not just a browser front-end, it's also a browser engine. If they acquired Opera and pushed it to increase its market share Facebook could gain a lot of influence on HTML and the adoption of web technologies.
This would actually be an awesome outcome. A bigger Opera marketshare, particularly if they eat into Webkit's, would mean that there will be stronger pressure to keep web development standards compliant.
I'm not sure it would promote the standards itself faster though. At least the WebKit side (Apple, Google), has like the exact opposite incentives for that to happen. The Facebook-Opera push would have to be quite hard.
I'm not sure it would promote the standards itself faster though. At least the WebKit side (Apple, Google), has like the exact opposite incentives for that to happen. The Facebook-Opera push would have to be quite hard.
And even more: a first-class, very innovative developer team. How many now common browser features originate from Opera?
For those not familiar: tabbed browsing (complete with closed page history and undo), whole page zoom, a search engine search bar (and then address bar searching), a download manager, middle click to open in new tab, speed dial/"top sites" for quick navigation in new tabs, and restoring open pages/tabs after the browser has closed or crashed are some of the features "Opera had first."
NetCaptor had tabs before Opera, and that probably wasn't the first browser to have tabs either.
That's chump change compared to doing it in house, especially with the IPO in FB's pocket.
Also, I wasn't even aware that opera ran on phones, so it doesn't strike me as something they care about, unless they're looking at 3rd-world countries.
Also, I wasn't even aware that opera ran on phones, so it doesn't strike me as something they care about, unless they're looking at 3rd-world countries.
According to this article Opera Mini has 169 million users.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/29/opera-mini-now-has-169-mill...
Considering that many of the users only access the Internet via their mobile devices I think Facebook would care about them.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/29/opera-mini-now-has-169-mill...
Considering that many of the users only access the Internet via their mobile devices I think Facebook would care about them.
> many of the users only access the Internet via their mobile devices
Do you have a source for that? I'm finding it a little hard to believe, especially since getting a cheap computer + internet for two years is (much) less expensive than a phone + wireless. Granted, I'm in the US, which is probably very different from the demographics in Opera Mini's user base.
Do you have a source for that? I'm finding it a little hard to believe, especially since getting a cheap computer + internet for two years is (much) less expensive than a phone + wireless. Granted, I'm in the US, which is probably very different from the demographics in Opera Mini's user base.
> Do you have a source for that?
The article I linked says the following:
"The study, which was conducted between November 2010 and November 2011, found that globally, 56% of Opera users and 43% of those who use another browser only access the Internet via their mobile devices. In some countries, including Egypt (72%), Bangladesh (69%), Brazil (65%) and South Africa (61%), these numbers for Opera users are significantly higher."
> Granted, I'm in the US, which is probably very different from the demographics in Opera Mini's user base.
I can only speculate to why they prefer using a mobile, but I think that the infrastructure is so different from our countries that we shouldn't necessarily base our assumptions on what we would have done.
The article I linked says the following:
"The study, which was conducted between November 2010 and November 2011, found that globally, 56% of Opera users and 43% of those who use another browser only access the Internet via their mobile devices. In some countries, including Egypt (72%), Bangladesh (69%), Brazil (65%) and South Africa (61%), these numbers for Opera users are significantly higher."
> Granted, I'm in the US, which is probably very different from the demographics in Opera Mini's user base.
I can only speculate to why they prefer using a mobile, but I think that the infrastructure is so different from our countries that we shouldn't necessarily base our assumptions on what we would have done.
Or for that matter even Mozilla might be open for partnership.
If they buy Opera they can do what they want. Partnering with Mozilla would probably be a more stressful affair as the goals of the Foundation and Facebook probably don't quite align everywhere. It's like the partnership with Google, but even worse.
If they buy Opera they can do what they want. Partnering with Mozilla would probably be a more stressful affair as the goals of the Foundation and Facebook probably don't quite align everywhere. It's like the partnership with Google, but even worse.
Doesn’t appear that Facebook think much of Webkit: https://www.facebook.com/unsupportedbrowser
Called it first! Or whatever… :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4021065
I wonder when we instead of having incognito modes have separate sandboxes per domain. Say one domain that only have data from facebook.com and is only reachable if you are actually visiting facebook.com.
Yes, this will make the web less hyper, but right now some behaviors is out of control for the user.
Yes, this will make the web less hyper, but right now some behaviors is out of control for the user.
Separate sandboxes per domain sounds a bit extreme. A lot of websites are made up of content from different domains, like images pulled from CDNs. Whitelisting each of them would be an even bigger headache than managing NoScript.
What I'd like to see in the short term is per-tab isolation. If I'm logged into Google/Facebook/etc in one tab and browse other sites in another tab, I want to have the ability to prevent the second tab from knowing which user I'm logged into in the first tab. This could also solve a lot of CSRF problems.
Unfortunately, Firefox -- the only browser that is likely to support such behavior either as a built-in feature or as an add-on -- doesn't even run tabs in separate processes. One tab freezes, the whole browser freezes. Urgh.
What I'd like to see in the short term is per-tab isolation. If I'm logged into Google/Facebook/etc in one tab and browse other sites in another tab, I want to have the ability to prevent the second tab from knowing which user I'm logged into in the first tab. This could also solve a lot of CSRF problems.
Unfortunately, Firefox -- the only browser that is likely to support such behavior either as a built-in feature or as an add-on -- doesn't even run tabs in separate processes. One tab freezes, the whole browser freezes. Urgh.
That's a discussion I'd really like to see expanded.
There are various sandboxing models out there, none of which really suitably address my privacy concerns. And most of which will break large portions of the transactional Web as it exists today (that is: websites which interact with other systems, and/or specifically transact commerce).
Of course, there's little to pushing the data sharing from the client to the server either. This is a fluid in a balloon. It tends to spill out elsewhere when squeezed in any given spot.
There are various sandboxing models out there, none of which really suitably address my privacy concerns. And most of which will break large portions of the transactional Web as it exists today (that is: websites which interact with other systems, and/or specifically transact commerce).
Of course, there's little to pushing the data sharing from the client to the server either. This is a fluid in a balloon. It tends to spill out elsewhere when squeezed in any given spot.
Makes sense. Facebook’s next expansion is going to be developing markets. These are heavily invested in mobile internet, and the way you access the internet on low-end mobiles is Opera Mini. They have a very large group of potential customers and the wherewithal to buy access to them.
Great. That's exactly what the World needs. Another browser controlled by an Advertising company.
This reminds me of when Palm bought Be Inc. Everyone thought Palm would start using BeOS instead of Palm OS 5, but really Palm just wanted the patents. So my guess here is, if Facebook really does make a purchase, it will to acquire intellectual property as either patents or evidence of "prior art".
Facebook doesn’t have a browser already. They don’t need patents. Your analogy works if you replace Facebook with Google.
I think it is becoming increasing clear, especially with the Yahoo patent suit, that Facebook desperately needs a patent portfolio. Additionally, what makes you so certain Facebook doesn't needs patents? Please, explain.
Here's the source link for those of you not wantint to give TNW pageviews: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/45795/facebook-browser-opera...
We have our own sources on top of what Pocket-lint reports, for what it's worth.
Let’s face® it the company behind Opera could use the money that this purported acquisition would bring. Facebook on the other hand could use Opera to build a better user experience on the holy grail of social media engament, mobile!
Facebook: The Opera. Sounds about right. And then create an off-Broadway play and they've hit the trifecta.
Do you know what's coooooooooooool? Coo-hoo-hoo, hoo-hoo-hoo, hoo-hoo-hooooooollll-ah?
Do you know what's coooooooooooool? Coo-hoo-hoo, hoo-hoo-hoo, hoo-hoo-hooooooollll-ah?
The browser wars appear to be heating up again. Its happened before and will no doubt happen again. I think this will be a bad thing because I could see each browser becoming a weapon to control privacy and the Internet in the way they see fit.
Imagine installing a browser that forces you to have a facebook account! and facebook logins for websites all over the place. yikes.
Imagine installing a browser that forces you to have a facebook account! and facebook logins for websites all over the place. yikes.
As a web developer, it's been great not having to worry about supporting/testing with Opera's rendering engine, (or simply another rendering engine, nothing against Opera in particular) thanks to its low market share. I hope this doesn't mean I have to start testing with yet another browser. Can't FB use Webkit like everyone else?
I think your proposed cure (a rendering engine monoculture) is worse than the disease (having to test in multiple engines).
I'm not saying it would be good for humanity or anything; I'm just saying I'm lazy and content with not supporting Opera.
Having around three-four rendering engines on the market is a good thing, they each separately fuel development of new standards and other projects. We don't want Webkit to become the new IE6.
How does FB buying Opera change the number of rendering engines on the market? As a user, I wouldn't touch FB Opera with a 10-foot pole, but I do at least consider using Opera as the product of an independent company.
> I hope this doesn't mean I have to start testing with yet another browser. Can't FB use Webkit like everyone else?
If you're not testing in more than 2-3 browsers, I seriously have to question your acumen as a "web developer". Browsers do exist outside of the Webkit bubble.
If you're not testing in more than 2-3 browsers, I seriously have to question your acumen as a "web developer". Browsers do exist outside of the Webkit bubble.
- Access mandated via FB connect
- Mini (proxy) allow integration between opt in site on FB platform via http headers?
- Proxy sniffs traffic and gets a hi-fi profile of users. Super targeted advertising, avoiding cookies.
- Emerging markets; FB account is used to transfer money, for those without bank accounts.
Facebook will ruin Opera if they buy it.
I'm surprised Facebook has not acquired RockMelt. Like Instagram, Marc Andreessen is an investor in both companies. From Day 1, RockMelt seemed like its business plan was "Get acquired by Facebook." Presumably Facebook is more interested in Opera's mobile browsers and users.
Maybe because opera's market share and reputation is alot better than rocklmelt?
I stopped using Facebook around a year ago due to the crazy privacy issues. Just recently (as in days ago) I also switched from using Google Apps for my email to FastMail.fm for the same reason.
If Facebook buys Opera (who own FastMail.fm), I might as well just quit the Internet.
If Facebook buys Opera (who own FastMail.fm), I might as well just quit the Internet.
FWIW, Rackspace has paid email plans. So do some other large web hosts. If push comes to shove, you could always host your own.
I tried this not too long ago and gave up. You need 6 or 7 different daemons running, most of which give very little in terms of debugging information. You actually need a decent sized VM to host everything needing to run.
I've also become heavily reliant on a decent webmail interface and good spam filtering, which create additional layers of complexity. I'd really rather just pay a reputable company to do all that stuff for me. Basically I want gmail but without all the evilness.
I like Opera. It needs some serious design love. It would be great if FB's all-star design team do overhaul of design if they buy Opera
> Its market cap currently hovers around $670 million
Ah, should be a piece of cake right? Mark simply needs to bid $1 bn overnight.
Ah, should be a piece of cake right? Mark simply needs to bid $1 bn overnight.
It would be a great ending for a brave little company. For the company, not its users.
Though obviously impossible, I'd prefer it if Opera were to purchase Yahoo.
Noooo! But if it happens, I'll have an excuse for trying IE once more.
Why not Chrome, Safari, or Firefox?
Firefox = bloat and I don't like it.
Safari is affiliated with Apple and I won't touch products of a company whose products and way of running business are antithesis to openness, freedom and hacker culture.
Chrome.. no special reason. I don't particularly like it, nothing I could point the finger at, but.. blah. Is there a way of disabling plugins in Chrome, as in: a placeholder is displayed on the page and the plugin is activated when I click the placeholder?
IE, on the other hand, has "suggested sites" feature which I'd like to test more. Maybe it helps me with discovering some new content on the net.
Safari is affiliated with Apple and I won't touch products of a company whose products and way of running business are antithesis to openness, freedom and hacker culture.
Chrome.. no special reason. I don't particularly like it, nothing I could point the finger at, but.. blah. Is there a way of disabling plugins in Chrome, as in: a placeholder is displayed on the page and the plugin is activated when I click the placeholder?
IE, on the other hand, has "suggested sites" feature which I'd like to test more. Maybe it helps me with discovering some new content on the net.
> Is there a way of disabling plugins in Chrome, as in: a placeholder is displayed on the page and the plugin is activated when I click the placeholder?
Yes, via extensions and a native browser option
Yes, via extensions and a native browser option
> Is there a way of disabling plugins in Chrome, as in: a placeholder is displayed on the page and the plugin is activated when I click the placeholder?
Yes, I use this all the time. it's built into the browser.
Yes, I use this all the time. it's built into the browser.
It's not bloat that moved me away from FF, it's their lack of HTML5 video support on Mac, which makes it completely utterly useless.
To this I can only say "Huh"?
Or do you mean they don't bundle patented codecs like H264? They support HTML5 video just fine AFAIK.
Or do you mean they don't bundle patented codecs like H264? They support HTML5 video just fine AFAIK.
how hard would it be to build their own on top of webkit?
Are headlines that ask and answer questions dumb? Yes.
[deleted]
One billion dollar? I don't think so.
I didn't see any purchase price mentioned, but would you be surprised? Billion is the new Million!
Agree, it should be more.
Impatient acquisitions when stressed to try and fix numbers/strategy can make any issues 10x worse down the line.
Better to do nothing for 3 months. Take some time out of the office and do some deep thinking.
Better to do nothing for 3 months. Take some time out of the office and do some deep thinking.
Edit: For those who point out Google, I would argue that Google has demonstrated only a desire to show me ads (which I actually like). Facebook has demonstrated a desire to show everyone everything.