So what is Opera's target audience now?
-
Deleted User last edited by
Very thorough and well-thought-out presentation, blackbird71. Now if only your post would be read with an open mind I'm sure the whining and complaining would be reduced. It is what it is and it will be what it will be in good time and not before then.
-
drewfx last edited by
I can only say that I gladly payed for Opera way back when you could do so to get rid of the ads.
And isn't there a possibility that non-technical users don't have enough sophistication to understand why they should switch to a browser different than "the one that came with it"?
-
-
Deleted User last edited by
Sure, there's that possibility. And there's also the possibility that blackbird71 has hit a homerun with his analysis and you simply do not want to accept it. The fact is, Opera will do what it wants in spite of our complaints. It's their property and we're simply using it for free. Opera Presto was never popular and never would have been and it was time for a change whether you or I like it or not. That decision has been made and this late in the game it won't be altered. So you have a decision to make: accept it or find another browser. It's really as simple as that.
-
Deleted User last edited by
@lem729: I also paid for it and you're quite correct: it was almost nothing so there's no big deal in saying we "paid for it" back in the day. Geeze, I paid for an early Netscape browser and it was considerably more than Opera's cost.
-
drewfx last edited by
So you have a decision to make: accept it or find another browser. It's really as simple as that.
Why is it people keep missing another possibility - they could very add some desired functionality back in where it's feasible under the new engine. I don't see any reason why those of us who want such things shouldn't express that strongly. Successful companies have been know to listen to their user base on occasion.
But for some reason people want to confuse the "bring Presto back" argument with "bring back some features where possible".
This "just accept it or not" is a false choice. I'm arguing for making Blink Opera better by restoring some desirable features where possible, not going back to Presto. Why is that even something to argue over?
-
drewfx last edited by
@lem729: I also paid for it and you're quite correct: it was almost nothing so there's no big deal in saying we "paid for it" back in the day. Geeze, I paid for an early Netscape browser and it was considerably more than Opera's cost.
It was a loooong time ago so I don't remember what I paid, but I'm sure it wasn't a great deal.
-
-
-
blackbird71 last edited by... Why is it people keep missing another possibility - they could very add some desired functionality back in where it's feasible under the new engine. I don't see any reason why those of us who want such things shouldn't express that strongly. Successful companies have been know to listen to their user base on occasion.
But for some reason people want to confuse the "bring Presto back" argument with "bring back some features where possible".
This "just accept it or not" is a false choice. I'm arguing for making Blink Opera better by restoring some desirable features where possible, not going back to Presto. Why is that even something to argue over?While I agree that making reasoned pleas or arguments for certain features on their own merits is a good, constructive way to try to persuade Opera to incorporate or return a feature, there is no way in the "here and now" for such discussions to impact one's current browser selection or usage. In the here and now, one truly has but a three-fold choice: use Old Opera with its superior configurability but also its increasing incompatibilities, use New Opera as it currently shapes up with whatever limitations or unpleasantries result, or use a different browser with its own set of limitations and issues.
Your "missing" possibility is missing, in large measure, because Opera developers are a limited resource. In a universe of limitless resources, Opera would most likely have already added every conceivable feature and configuration tool Opera browser's ever had or could ever be imagined. But that's not reality. To add a feature or tweak/adjustment requires development time and introduces potential 'unpleasant' interactions. Moreover, it diverts scarce resources from developing features or operationality which Opera believes are more on-target for whatever it's aiming at. That is all part of whether or not the idea or suggestion is "feasible".
I agree that the only eventual real-world answer for more technically-demanding Opera users is to seek to make "Blink Opera better by restoring some desirable features where possible". But whether that's feasible depends not only on the mechanics of the feature being sought, but whether resources are available without sacrificing/complicating other critical development work and whether the result would detract from the end target that Opera is trying to hit.
-
username342342345 last edited by
Well, you have to keep in mind Opera is/was used in corporate settings in Europe as the default browser. Like how much of IE count was based on companies using base window images, which only had IE. That may explain the great dive in Opera usage before the blink version came out. Also every place will have a different percentage of opera users, but all in all the percents seem correct over the various sites.
The main problem I see with opera's usage is the version fragmentation. There usually was the current version and a few from the last version. Now it's Some from current blink version, some from old blink version, some from current presto, some from old presto. I have a feeling that fragmentation will keep getting worse since opera seems to have adopted google's agile SDLC process. Not sure if it's to sync with the development of blink, or just to hop on the fad bandwagon.
I don't think opera's main objective is browser penetration, or selling browsers to embedded device manufactures anymore. I have a feeling they're trying to switch to a service type monetization scheme. Where they have an online store where people get "opera max" or etc type services. (i have no idea what opera max or their other services do.)
-
drewfx last edited by
Then we agree.
Except it's a four-fold choice because personally I'm running 12.17 and 21 in parallel.
-
Deleted User last edited by
I have a feeling they're trying to switch to a service type monetization scheme. Where they have an online store where people get "opera max" or etc type services. (i have no idea what opera max or their other services do.)
Very perceptive.
-
blackbird71 last edited by
... I don't think opera's main objective is browser penetration, or selling browsers to embedded device manufactures anymore. I have a feeling they're trying to switch to a service type monetization scheme. Where they have an online store where people get "opera max" or etc type services. (i have no idea what opera max or their other services do.)
So... where does Opera earn revenue from the online store service-type scheme? (Assuming, of course, that they continue respecting privacy per their FAQ comments regarding Opera Max, and don't market the user data associated with thngs like the O-Max compression product). For revenue to appear, somebody somewhere's got to pay them for something.
Free browsers generate revenue in ways other than the sale of the browser itself. If one monetizes the elements provided through a store by selling them, those additional (but often key) "features" of the browser will no longer be free; if one monetizes through selling the user data associated with whatever's in the store, user privacy can be violated - which may not play too well especially in the European community. While selling services or subscriptions seems like a good revenue-generating idea, you first have to have something to sell that buyers both want and can't get elsewhere for "free"... and that implies changing more than a company's business strategy - it implies changing the entire current Internet-related paradigm.
-
lem729 last edited by
I think the goal is the browser market and the income there. Opera has a long history of innovative design. If it can offer a browser as fast as Chrome, with less of a footprint on the computer, and that can handle Chrome extensions, but also offer extras, like the extensions in the Opera store (which could yet grow), its distinctive unique Speed Dial with Folders (Chrome has nothing like that), Discover, Off-Road mode for users who don't have all of the computer resources, etc. why can't they eat into Chrome's huge market domination. I don't see the big advantage for a user right now in choosing Chrome over Opera. (Right now, I personally prefer Opera, as I like the added features, and Chrome was using more of my computer resources). Opera doesn't have to beat Chrome. All it has to do is increase its market share significantly. Wouldn't people rather identify with and help Opera . . . (the same mentality that pushed Netscape over Internet Explorer years ago) than identify with and help "big bad ohhhh so loose with your privacy" Google :)) and it's Behemoth (at least in terms of having eaten up and grown fat on market share) "Chrome." Maybe the mentality is with those who root for the underdog, but it is a phenomenon. Also, Coast for the Ipad is an example of how Opera can use another's engine, in this case, the Apple required engine (web-kit based), and come up with something totally out-of-the box, creative, and award winning. Analogously, for its desktop browser, Opera could still add a few goodies, the way the company did with its speed dial, and that puts on the browser with a Bing engine its unique imprimatur.
-
username342342345 last edited by
I'm assuming companies pay them to transfer content. People pay to get the content, or get it for free.
I feel they are moving in that direction since services like apple app store, google play, amazon prime, xbox live, PSN, steam are very popular now. Everybody has their own store.
-
alreadybanned last edited by
I'm assuming companies pay them to transfer content. People pay to get the content, or get it for free.
I feel they are moving in that direction since services like apple app store, google play, amazon prime, xbox live, PSN, steam are very popular now. Everybody has their own store.From what I've read, Opera's main source of income is, wait for it, Google. They, like other browsers receive a monetary return for searches that one would do through the Opera browser. The search engines generate revenue through the countless ads you are subjected to. So more search traffic results in more ad revenue and hence the payment for referrals. This the reason why Xbox and IE will only have Bing.
-
lem729 last edited by
alreadybanned,
You must be talking about Firefox which received $1 billion from Google, in exchange for which Mozilla made Google the default search engine. Now there's an incestuous relationship. Now that's not "chump change" :))
They all have deals to make money from what Google will pay. Why? Because if a browser's developer-owner doesn't raise some income, it can't exist -- at least off the earnings of the browser. Surely it would not be getting the money to pay for research and development to produce the browser product from users like you. These companies that make browsers offer the product to you free (and yet you would complain that they take money from Google? You want something akin to an immaculate conception. It just isn't real. It doesn't and can't happen that way. Either you as user pay for the browser, or the owner-developer has to raise money elsewhere. That lucrative relationship with Google doesn't make Firefox any less a competitor of Google's. The same as to Opera. Now I would think Opera receives something from Google (in connection with using the latter's search engine), but far less that Firefox got, because Opera's market share is so much smaller than Firefox's.
-
drewfx last edited by
Does Opera get referrer fees for the (ad supported) sites linked to by Discover?
I had that thought, because to me Discover seems kind of pointless since the Yahoo's of the world, seemingly every internet provider and a zillion other "make us your homepage" sites already link to similar content with even more user customization. Why build it into the browser?
-
alreadybanned last edited by
alreadybanned,
You must be talking about Firefox which received $1 billion from Google, in exchange for which Mozilla made Google the default search engine. Now there's an incestuous relationship. Now that's not "chump change" :))
http://dottech.org/25695/google-to-pay-mozilla-nearly-1-billion-to-stay-default-search-engine-in-firefox/
They all have deals to make money from what Google will pay. Why? Because if a browser's developer-owner doesn't raise some income, it can't exist -- at least off the earnings of the browser. Surely it would not be getting the money to pay for research and development to produce the browser product from users like you. These companies that make browsers offer the product to you free (and yet you would complain that they take money from Google? You want something akin to an immaculate conception. It just isn't real. It doesn't and can't happen that way. Either you as user pay for the browser, or the owner-developer has to raise money elsewhere. That lucrative relationship with Google doesn't make Firefox any less a competitor of Google's. The same as to Opera. Now I would think Opera receives something from Google (in connection with using the latter's search engine), but far less that Firefox got, because Opera's market share is so much smaller than Firefox's.I specifically said "They(Opera), like other browsers". And considering that the question was about Opera's revenue sources it seems rather defensive to bring up Firefox.
