Opera 20 - Another unhappy loyal supporter

blackbird71

blackbird71

... I mean, really, would you have us believe that if it were so easy and minimal in cost to write "good code" (the kind that should not impair performance at all, you suggest) for all the features that you want (let alone the features that all of the other disgruntled want), Opera would not gladly do it. Because they have heretofore not, I suspect it's not easy and/or cost-effective...

I nowhere stated it was either easy or cheap to write such code. I stated that the code would, if properly written, have minimal impact on its ultimate code size and host system resources required to implement the hooks and access points themselves. Do you seriously believe that employing 10 extensions to implement 10 essentially simple browser functional controls is less resource-intensive than the many fewer aggregate lines of native code required to implement those same 10 functions within a browser? That's the nature of well-written code.

But nothing well-written comes cheap. I made no argument that a fully-configurable browser would be a cheap development... I only pointed out that Blink Opera is not a fully-configurable browser, and a number of users both notice and are continuing to complain about such a lack of configurability. I'm certain that the accumulated cost of developing the configurability of the Presto browser wasn't cheap either, but abandoning it and setting course with the Blink engine with all the ramp-up demands on cost and limited resources it entailed was a decision Opera took on its own, not its users. If that decision has caused its developers to be "cramped" for the time/resources to develop configurability or if the architecture Opera chose refuses to economically support rich configurability, those are again consequences of Opera's decisions, not of anything inherently "wrong" with the desire of many of its users to see such native configurability retained in the browser.

If you want to defend Opera as trying to make the best browser it can with the very-limited resources that are the cost results of its decision to dump its already-cost-sunk past efforts in order to redesign its entire browser line and because of a mediocre-configurable engine set it has chosen, I would agree. But that does not make it a configurable browser for users, even with extensions. Employing extensions can be a useful thing to supplement browser functionality, but it is not a solid framework on which the basic browser configurability ought to be erected. At the end of the day, browsers whose configurability resides in extensions are browsers-on-the-cheap, because the cost of the functionality thereby attained is exported to outsiders. Economically that appears to be great for the browser maker, but for stability, continuity, and performance, it ends up being inferior for the user. There is simply no mechanism to assure that all extensions will work properly after a browser update... that's why they can break - and they do. The ability of an extension to attain the performance levels and details of well-integrated browser code simply does not exist without heavy interfacing modules with and through the browser APIs. These realities remain true, even if every popular browser out there were to make full usage of extensions for their configurability... though such universality is not the case, at least currently.

I too believe in the market place, but software related to the Internet has become a highly-distorted marketplace. Internet-related software revenue is writ in terms of click-counts, renting favored placements, software bundling, sale of user-tracking data, and all manner of other 'hidden' elements. Browsers are now being created simply as glitzy vehicles for bumping up such forms of revenue, not because the browser product itself is superior and commands its price in the marketplace. I've said this before and it bears repeating: a number of users, myself included, would gladly pay significant amounts of money for a browser that was configurable to the degree Presto was, but kept up to snuff in terms of site compatibility and basic web standards. However, that is not how browser makers, Opera included, currently look at the market any more... browsers are merely a vehicle to be given away freely in order to facilitate all the other modes of revenue intake. The result is that web browsers are not responding to the pressures of a 'normal' marketplace any longer, but to the peripheral revenue desires and mechanisms of their makers. This is something I decry, and while I do understand it, does not mean I accept without being critical of the browser results when genuine user functionality has been lost in that ongoing process.

A Former User

"There's a justice and beauty (and utility) to the extension model!" Indeed there is. Why else would most users flock to Firefox and Chrome?

Enormous amounts spent on advertising, favored product placements/tie-ins, financially ensuring websites code for compatibility, and marketing machinery. The same as its always been throughout all the browser wars. In the case of Firefox, it also came into its own at a time when there was an open-source reaction against IE.
edited to add And for some reason, this double-posted after an edit of the other post. Sigh...
In this I agree with you. Plus the dozens of notices of "we don't support your browser, download and use this one instead" and other issues caused by browser sniffing and bad coding from devs. And Chrome bundled (offered) in various software installers... And don't forget Google backed Firefox growth back then when they didn't have their own browser (since they were helping spread a browser where Google is the default search engine), with ads, bundles, Google Pack, etc, and it was more about IE6 sucking so bad and Fx rising as the only free alternative than any increased awareness about open source software.

PS. I can't reproduce the problem with duplicating the post after editing here, though I saw your duplicated comments and deleted them.

blackbird71

blackbird71

"There's a justice and beauty (and utility) to the extension model!" Indeed there is. Why else would most users flock to Firefox and Chrome?

Enormous amounts spent on advertising, favored product placements/tie-ins, financially ensuring websites code for compatibility, and marketing machinery. The same as its always been throughout all the browser wars. In the case of Firefox, it also came into its own at a time when there was an open-source reaction against IE.
In this I agree with you. ... and it was more about IE6 sucking so bad and Fx rising as the only free alternative than any increased awareness about open source software.

Perhaps. But in my own fairly wide circle of browser users (among friends and at work places) the Firefox thinking at the time was dominated mostly by those who were especially enamored of open-source software because Firefox (or Firebird in the earlier days) was such an outstanding example of what could be created via open source techniques. The "spirit" of that day was that, at last, the users could influence the design of a browser to do what they wanted, instead of what suited out-of-touch 'corporate' interests somewhere. That, enhanced by effective marketing and placements, meant one ran across free Firefox download icons on countless web and forum pages... and the product reviews, aided greatly by aggressive Mozilla marketing, ran hot and heavy in favor of the browser, specifically because it was open source and thus somehow magically free of Microsoft or Netscape corporate-ish influences.

In any case, Firefox's rise to popularity orbited around all of that (marketing and open-source cachet) rather than users worshipping at the altar of "extensions".

lem729

lem729

In any case, Firefox's rise to popularity orbited around all of that (marketing and open-source cachet) rather than users worshipping at the altar of "extensions">

No way. Why does it have to be black/white, either/or. Just like in a dream where an image can have dual motives, the rise of Firefox was always the two -- open source AND extensions. In a way both were a symbols of a "power for the people," a revolution of sorts, in reaction to the closed nature of Internet Explorer, run by Microsoft, the dominant oligarch of the industry. Open source meant a sharing of the code for every man/woman. And extensions provided a delightful exercise of control by the user. Put onto your browser what you choose, and it only affects you, not another. For years Opera ignored at its own peril the "pleasure of power" that extensions gave to users. Google was far more perceptive, and adopted the extensions model for Chrome, whereupon its browser share skyrocketed.

Deleted User

Deleted User

The kind of thinking that "it's all marketing" is a diversion, lem. It's ALL about extensions today and THAT is why Chrome and Firefox (and now hopefully Opera) have succeeded. Initially marketing may have played a role in drawing people away from IE but that would not sustain users over these many years. The idea of adding to the browser just what you need and want as opposed to having everything already there and simply activating what you want is a huge help for the developing team. But my suspicions are that you're not going to convince Opera die-hards (and die hard they will) so in the final analysis: what does it matter what they believe? Opera will continue as it sees fit whether they agree or disagree. And new users will be added as word spreads about this awesome new browser.

drewfx

drewfx

My argument is that MORE IS MORE. Believe me, Opera Blink offers more! The Speed Dial with folders is more (far more) AND better than what Opera Presto offered in a Speed Dial. Stash is more. Discover is more.

It's only "more" if it's useful. Folders in Speed Dial is somewhat useful, but I've yet to find any use for Stash. And Discover is the just a link page like Yahoo or a bazillion others that I can see absolutely no advantage to having it built into the browser (regardless of whether you like it better than any of the bazillion other link sites).

And the ability to utilize a hugely greater number of extensions is also far more. There are a near infinite number of configurability permutations via the extension route, that were not available before. Maybe all the extensions aren't there right now.

The problem is many extensions are limited by the extension API and rather than elegant built in functionality, you end up with something that feels like a workaround or a complete kluge. And that's after you've wasted much time searching for, installing and then uninstalling extensions that don't work well, work intermittently or just don't really do what you want.

That's not to say that there aren't some great extensions as there are. It's just that extensions are inconsistent, are inherently limited by the API and just aren't the miracle solution you paint them to be.

And with each new release, the users kept asking -- in the name of innovation -- for more in the native/basic "free" browser.

This is irrelevant. Because something is "free" doesn't mean users aren't allowed to have an opinion. Expressing our opinions is how Blink can be improved and useful features can be added back in (where feasible).

The extension vehicle for configurability in a free browser is a far better vehicle.

In the many areas where it's limited by the extension API it's not capable of being "better".

Opera Presto was at a dead end. It had nowhere to go.

I'm not sure if it was at a dead end, but they made a decision to go in a different direction. And personally I can understand that decision, and some of the advantages it brings them, despite my preference for Presto's functionality.

But that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't restore some of Presto's functionality over time.

lem729

lem729

@drewfx, In chess a brilliancy is a spectacular game or maybe a move or series of them. In my humble opinion, Opera's adoption of the Chromium-Blink engine which in one fell swoop took a share of the goose that lays the golden egg, and gave Opera users access to all of the Chrome extensions is nothing less than a brilliancy. Say what you will about the extensions API, limitations of Blink, etc., I see the access to the extensions (which catapulted Chrome ahead of Firefox in browser share) a huge, dazzling plus, that way more than offsets any negatives. Now, you say, that's "not to say that there aren't some great extensions as there are. It's just that extensions are inconsistent, are inherently limited by the API and just aren't the miracle solution you paint them to be." Well, isn't that the nature of extensions. Some will be good, others less so . . . Who ever said that every one had to be a wonder? More and better ones will come in the future. Though I have quite a few working for me now that are making my browser sing, in ways Opera Presto never sang for me.

Let's celebrate a few things in the new Opera. And for one, isn't it also enlightened self interest to do just that? If we focus on some of the good (and really, it is there just try to see, look, be fair, instead of always viewing the glass half empty, some of the lurkers, and others passing by, may sense positivity and vibrancy here, and think to give the new Opera a try. I believe -- and is this crazy? -- if Opera starts to have in its desktop a success, the company is far more likely to invest time and energy into providing a bit more of the "stuff" that some are clamoring for in the native browser. If it goes nowhere, they could easily cut and run from desktop -- divert their energies to the mobile market entirely. In that regard, lol, I wouldn't characterize the Speed Dial with folders as "just something useful," though I must admit I"m attracted to Speed Dials as a moth is to light, so this is easy enough for me :))) I call it one of the 7 Wonders of the Browsing World! Now really, it is a wonderful breakthrough Speed Dial, that makes me smile, and whistle a happy tune, whenever I'm on the Speed Dial Page.

As for the rest: Stash? Give it some time to simmer. It's like closet space, where you haven't maybe quite found the use. I bought a chest with three drawers recently, and a couple are still mostly empty. It's no big deal. (I'm still happy about the purchase). One day, the use will come. And it's a feature -- Stash -- that could still be furthered through add-on enhancements by Opera, like accessing what's been saved alphabetically, chronologically, through folders etc. Maybe Discover, you have to really like or not like. I've never seem something with the click or two of a button that gives you perspectives from 30-40 different countries and multiple languages (on such a wide range of subjects). It puts the Google and Yahoo portals to shame, is in my view tantamount to an RSS feed that I rate up there with Feedly (which is quite good). Off-Road Mode (Turbo was in Opera 12) (with its compression of web pages for quicker loading) is a feature that can be extremely useful, particularly on web pages, like the forum here, that are not graphics intense. And I don't see any of the other major browsers yet providing something like this.

As for what Opera should provide in the native browser (and you want to restore some of Presto's functionality over time), okay, why not think about what's good for the users AND Opera (a small company, trying to make a free browser without anywhere near the financial resources of a Google or Microsoft. We ought to focus on features in the basic browser that the vast bulk of users could instantly benefit from -- like enhanced bookmarking (ability to put the bookmark in a folder/subfolder, create a new folder for it, as a seamless part of taking the bookmark, or the import/export bookmarking manager) (truly essential if we want to attract users from other browsers), maybe some keyboard shortcuts (to move from tabs -- control 1,2, 3, 4) or to move to locations on the speed dial -- (all of these, I believe, could really help, not just me, but Opera) as opposed to some of the more exotic customization features that a small power-user klatch/group constantly laments the loss of in Blink and asks for as a sort of restoration.

samkook

samkook

His point wasn't that there are good and bad extensions, it was that even the best extension is limited in what it can do by what the browser let them modify which means that there are things that are completely impossible to do with extensions.

blackbird71

blackbird71

... In chess a brilliancy is a spectacular game or maybe a move or series of them. In my humble opinion, Opera's adoption of the Chromium-Blink engine which in one fell swoop took a share of the goose that lays the golden egg, and gave Opera users access to all of the Chrome extensions is nothing less than a brilliancy. Say what you will about the extensions API, limitations of Blink, etc., I see the access to the extensions (which catapulted Chrome ahead of Firefox in browser share) a huge, dazzling plus, that way more than offsets any negatives. ...

The "access to all of the Chrome extensions" already existed for Chrome/Chromium itself; Opera's "goose" provided nothing in that regard that users could not already get by just using Chrome/Chromium. You mention "gave Opera users" as if Opera Blink provided the same rich performance as it always had for 'Opera users' and then added Chrome extensions on top of it, like icing on a cake. Therein lies the kernel of the problem: that is not what happened. Instead, users were suddenly presented a bare-bones, alien browser that had stripped out most of Opera's former features and dumped users entirely into the realm of Chrome extensions in an attempt to recover their necessary functionality. You've closely followed much of the ongoing negative reactions from users, so I know you've seen the many posts where users ask that exact rhetorical question: "why should I stick with Opera and not simply migrate to Chrome or Chromium?" Each time that question was asked, Opera 'loyalists' rallied to ridicule the poster, but unfortunately missed the whole point being made.

Now I grant that Opera has added some elements over the Blink version progression thus far, "features" if you will, that are unique to its browser and useful for a number of users. But nothing that was added returned Opera to anything approaching the native flexibility of the browser itself as it had been before... so that rhetorical question remains: why should an Opera user employ Opera and not simply migrate to Chrome if the rich features they needed all require Chrome extensions anyway? There's a product-identity price to be paid for using (and promoting) a competitor's accessories.

The simple reality is that at heart, Opera is Chrome/Chromium, uses the same extensions, and is subject to most of the same foundational, architectural limitations. While Opera's own GUI can give the browser some unique "feel" characteristics, the DNA underlying the entire browser remains the same as Chrome/Chromium - and Opera cannot escape that any more than we can escape our own lineage. Which means Opera has abandoned every one of the built-in distinctives that set it apart as a browser in bygone days, and now instead seeks to lure users by creating some kind of distinctive GUI "feel" that resides alone in cosmetic things like Stash or Discover or tab gee-gaws... but which fall well short of the true functional distinctives that used to exist under Presto. This is what troubles many of us who used Opera for those genuine distinctives, now missing... it's like Opera has traded its birthright for a mess of pottage.

Whether Opera's move is a "brilliancy" or a "blunder" remains to be seen... the match is still developing, and Opera has given away a lot of pawns in its opening gambits thus far.

A Former User

In any case, Firefox's rise to popularity orbited around all of that (marketing and open-source cachet) rather than users worshipping at the altar of "extensions">
No way. Why does it have to be black/white, either/or. Just like in a dream where an image can have dual motives, the rise of Firefox was always the two -- open source AND extensions. In a way both were a symbols of a "power for the people," a revolution of sorts, in reaction to the closed nature of Internet Explorer, run by Microsoft, the dominant oligarch of the industry. Open source meant a sharing of the code for every man/woman. And extensions provided a delightful exercise of control by the user. Put onto your browser what you choose, and it only affects you, not another. For years Opera ignored at its own peril the "pleasure of power" that extensions gave to users. Google was far more perceptive, and adopted the extensions model for Chrome, whereupon its browser share skyrocketed.
You two are romanticizing the history too much...

I was younger, but I saw the "first" Fx ads. I became a Firefox user back then because of them (before I met Opera)!
The market speech was ambiguous as it used the world "freedom". I can tell you none of the Firefox users I know care about open source, most of them don't even know what it means nor know about anything "evil" Microsoft has done. The other ads were about speed and things like that, and all the reviews/pages/something praising the tabbed browsing Microsoft failed to deliver in Internet Explorer for a long time, yes there were themes that people like and many extensions that sites reviewed/wrote about/recommended but they're only part of the reason Firefox became so successful at that time.

The kind of thinking that "it's all marketing" is a diversion, lem. It's ALL about extensions today and THAT is why Chrome and Firefox (and now hopefully Opera) have succeeded.
I remember Chrome's launch very well, and its success has nothing to do with the extensions! The Chrome extension catalog was shit compared to Mozilla Firefox's, the APIs were a lot more limited than Fx's so they couldn't do many things. It was all about it being the fastest browser around (until Opera 10.50! :D).

drewfx

drewfx

Let's celebrate a few things in the new Opera. And for one, isn't it also enlightened self interest to do just that? If we focus on some of the good (and really, it is there just try to see, look, be fair, instead of always viewing the glass half empty, some of the lurkers, and others passing by, may sense positivity and vibrancy here, and think to give the new Opera a try.

I AM giving it a try, and agree that it has some advantages. I just don't think Stash and Discover are among them.

But it is also lacking in many ways, and glossing over all the (obvious) shortcomings is not "fair" either. It's not in one's "enlightened self interest" to pretend everything is great when some key features (IMO) have been dropped.

Why can't we express that there are things missing that we'd like back without every point we make being argued?

It's a work in progress. Does every feature added with subsequent releases have to be "new" to be considered worthwhile when there is no shortage of "old" features missing that can still be implemented in the new engine and are actually useful to some of us?

blackbird71

blackbird71

You two are romanticizing history too much...
I was younger, but I saw the "first" Fx ads. I became a Firefox user back then because of them (before I met Opera)!
The market speech was ambiguous as it used the world "freedom". I can tell you none of the Firefox users I know care about open source, most of them don't even know what it means nor know about anything "evil" Microsoft has done. The other ads were about speed and things like that, and all the reviews/pages/something praising the tabbed browsing Microsoft failed to deliver in Internet Explorer for a long time, yes there were themes that people like and many extensions that sites reviewed/wrote about/recommended but they're only part of the reason Firefox became so successful at that time.
...

I guess your experience was considerably different than mine. I first installed Firefox as Phoenix/Firebird when it was evolving away from Mozilla Suite. Finally it emerged as Firefox, and the first other 'Firefox' users I knew back in the early 2000's adopted it because they viewed IE with utter hatred since it was Microsoft's baby and Microsoft was evincing "attitude" toward browser users; at the same time, they viewed Netscape as having 'sold out' because it had been bought by AOL. In those days, Firefox exuded the allure (to most of those in my circle) of being coded by "rebels" outside the mega-corporate empires, and thus more creative and responsive to users - that was what the "freedom" slogan tied into for a lot of adopters. Perhaps not all the users I knew fully grasped 'open source', but they understood Mozilla was non-profit with a lot of non-commercial coders, and that appealed to them. In those days, I was circulating in some very high-tech arenas, so perhaps my circle of users was more 'geeky' than what you encountered. In any case, it was because of those 'geeky' acquaintances that I got ultimately turned on to Opera in the first place.

A Former User

perhaps my circle of users was more 'geeky' than what you encountered
Definitely. I'm talking about the mainstream users that were actually responsible for bringing Firefox to its pinnacle of 32% market share. And open source / fight against Microsoft didn't play the role you're thinking there, it was all about Firefox being 1. advertised, 2. free, 3. faster than IE, 4. things that IE6 lacked and beyond: tabbed browsing / UI, integrated web search field, all kinds of awesomebar matches and "I'm feeling lucky"-like behavior, themes, extensions...

lem729

lem729

Yes, thank you, "extensions." and not deserving of being listed last. Believe me. I was there at the time. I wasn't in Blackbird' 71's group , all enamoured with open source. The lure in my circles were extensions first, and second, open source. I remember it quite well. The extensions were vital and a breath of fresh air. If Opera were to once again somehow ignore thus, it would be at its peril. It would appear, though, that this time they have not. One can try to re-write history, but it was what it was.

Rafaelluik, you suggest that Chrome made it because of speed, not extensions. Hmmmm.. it also announced right at the beginning that it was going the extensions route. It did okay at the beginning, partly because the public was excited that it would take on Firefox, the extensions master. The public didn't expect numerous extensions right away, but they did expect them. Chrome took off, and passed Firefox, only when its extensions became quite numerous. And if it was only speed , not extensions, that made Chrome the hot browser, why did they end up going the extensions route. Listen they went that route because they knew that's what the public wanted. Surely Chrome has the financial resources to put tons of stuff in the native browser. They chose extensions as the way to go.

You can market something, and spend money in it -- just look at Microsoft with Internet Explorer, though they were fortunate to have their product bundled with Windows, that saved them a terrible fall -- but in the end, (unless you're bundled with Windows you have to have a product the public wants.

linuxmint7

linuxmint7

but in the end, (unless you're bundled with Windows you have to have a product the public wants.

Or shove it down their throats like google did, and pretty much still does.

lem729

lem729

Do you mean the Google Search bar? Or better yet maybe their thoroughly nasty (invasion of . . . ) privacy policy. The public seems to generally like Chrome. In any event, they have passed Firefox in usage data if that can be deemed evidence of popularity.

linuxmint7

linuxmint7

No, bundling it (as an extra download) with almost every piece of software (mainly freeware) that can be downloaded. Plugging it on almost every site that one can visit. Installing it on peoples machines usually without them knowing or without their consent. Acts that could almost be bordering on malware or the actions of a virus.

lem729

lem729

It's foul, nasty . . .

lem729

lem729

Why can't we express that there are things missing that we'd like back without every point we make being argued?
It's a work in progress. Does every feature added with subsequent releases have to be "new" to be considered worthwhile when there is no shortage of "old" features missing that can still be implemented in the new engine and are actually useful to some of us?>

Feature additions don't have to be be new to be desireable. However, let's recognize that Opera has changed track and is clearly a browser that now makes major use of extensions. Some of the requests for power-user feature-exotica (making a near fetish of infinite customability) in the native, "free" browser are just far out. We all have personal views. Mine is that I don't want Opera spending-wasting time right now on my total control over all aspects of my browser, or of, maybe, tabs on the bottom, tabs on the side, tab stacking, tab tiling, tab dancing, tab genuflecting ;))))) (forgive my gibes). Those type of features are fine for extensions (tab dancing? hmmm, now maybe if it's a sexy tab in a miniskirt), but that's about it. Or for a browser that people will be willing to buy ( like maybe pay $100 a year?) but not a free one. It has to be real money, because how can a company afford to build and keep current and fast an exotica-browser, if it isn't. A free browser has to find a real market. How many power users would pony up that kind of money?

And I don't think it's phony to be positive about good things about the Opera Blink browser, including the awesome Speed Dial, (the Discover feature, if you like it) (one can't lie, though one could change views ;)))) and the huge number of extensions Opera users suddenly have access too, not through the Chrome browser, but in the Opera browser, run by a company I trust far more, and which I know to have a track record of creativity and innovativeness. Maybe I see the positive more because I generally like this browser, but the complainers (and I'm not knocking anyone's discussing features the user thinks would be good) . . . but the complainers with their negativism (who always lament the glass is half empty, and never see the half-full) and "the world is coming to an end, Opera has betrayed us menatlity" are unhealthy, destructive really. Didn't Beethoven once say, "There's something about a tone." And it's nice when people have a good tone in the forum that helps people, and encourages them with the new browser.

Opera is a small company competing against economic giants. In additon to being positive about the good parts of the browser, of which there are, in my humble opinion, at least a few, what's wrong with people focussing more on additions to the basic browser that would benefit nearly everyone? Because if the additon is widely popular, it will help Opera survive -- which from the perspective of a user who likes this browser (and has always appreciated what Opera has added to the market), it's a benefit (that Opera is doing well) for me. I don't think they help themselves when the put time, energy, expense in providing a feature where only a tiny universe of users, would benefit. And maybe in the back of my (sometimes shaky) mind is an issue of trust. I have a decade long experience with Opera. I still think that they will contine in the future to do innovative, creative things with the desktop browser, even as they recently have in the mobile market with Coast for Ipad, and now for Ipod too.

samkook

samkook

Some of their choices are very questionable though, especially the decision to force auto-updates(something almost unheard of) with only exotic ways of disabling it.

If I didn't have such a long history with them, this would have been enough to make me run away without trying anything further and never install any of their product ever again.

Normal user don't see the problem with this since they don't want to know how things work, but the threat is very real and someone with enough computer experience will see it.

There's already people having trouble with it around here.