Opera's New Ads?

  • Lately Opera 25 & Opera 12.17 seem to have ads on EVERY SINGLE PAGE I visit.Google & Safari do not.Can someone give me an answer as to why? ;_;

  • Can you give an example URL where the ads are appearing in both Opera browsers and not in the other two? Are you using AdBlock-type extensions in each/any of the browsers?

  • Maybe you have an adblock extension install in Safari and Google (Chrome ?), but not any of the versions of Opera you have installed ?.

  • Speaking of ads, Firefox is giving them to users intentionally in the browser.
    ...
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/2848196/ads-officially-hit-firefoxs-new-tab-page.html

    At least they're giving users a simple way to opt out of the ads: "But Mozilla is still trying to stay true to its roots of a free and open web by making it easy to opt out of the new advertising scheme."

  • Mozilla is like a slow motion train wreck. They had millions of dollars until someone gave all the money to her feminist charities. Then they went and railroaded Eich out of the company. It's like they want to fail.

  • @ladiesman69 It is probably an extension you have installed. Disable them all and see if you still have the issue

  • Hi guys, i installed the opera ad-blocker but the adds are still showing.kindly help me with a possible solution to remove the adds totally..thanks.

  • (..) until someone gave all the money to her feminist charities. Then they went and railroaded Eich out of the company. It's like they want to fail.

    Haha, you seem to be a lonely boy searchin for appplause. Please go to Mozilla foundation and help your dudes.
    But dont tell us such nonsense and conspiracy theories about oppressed men in Mozilla foundation.

  • @ladiesman69 Install Adblock for Opera and most of ads will be blocked. In Settings of Adblock you can select filter lists for better blocking.

  • Speaking of ads, Firefox is giving them to users intentionally in the browser.
    ...
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/2848196/ads-officially-hit-firefoxs-new-tab-page.html

    At least they're giving users a simple way to opt out of the ads: "But Mozilla is still trying to stay true to its roots of a free and open web by making it easy to opt out of the new advertising scheme."

    True to its roots? Oh sure... just think how wonderfully Mozilla dealt with one of its co-founders (Brendan Eich) for making a $1000 political donation back in 2008 to campaign (successful one at that.. Proposition 8) that proposed that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California. Evidently you cannot work for Mozilla and think politically incorrect thoughts according to the Mozilla police. Ah yes... true to its roots. No thanks.

  • ...
    True to its roots? Oh sure... just think how wonderfully Mozilla dealt with one of its co-founders (Brendan Eich) for making a $1000 political donation back in 2008 to campaign (successful one at that.. Proposition 8) that proposed that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California. Evidently you cannot work for Mozilla and think politically incorrect thoughts according to the Mozilla police. Ah yes... true to its roots. No thanks.

    I can't quarrel at all with your observations, but (for the record) my PCWorld quote was included for its next-to-last clause "... making it easy to opt out... ," with its preceeding quoted text simply there for context.

  • I can't quarrel at all with your observations, but (for the record) my PCWorld quote was included for its next-to-last clause "... making it easy to opt out... ," with its preceeding quoted text simply there for context.

    I understand. I'm not taking issue with your post, Blackbird. I'm upset with Mozilla's treatment of Eich.

  • Firefox is still getting the the best reviews, and Opera, though, not bad, is still in catch-up mode.

    www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365692,00.asp

    That was written before the Firefox ads, though, blackburd71 is right -- you can get rid of them easily enough for the moment. If it's the wave of the future though, and they become mandatory, it would be bad.

  • I don't want to take things too far OT, but this goes right to the heart of an intrinsic problem with the "free" software concept, browsers included. That is, how to cover at least the costs (and perhaps make profit) for developing, distributing, and supporting one's software product - particularly when it involves something so easily pirated or reverse-engineered as digital material? If it's free, the only real pirating risk is from hackers pretending to be you, in order to distribute their malware... but as soon as a price is affixed to the item, it becomes a target for pirating (all the years of clumsy copy-protection/registration schemes notwithstanding) or for copying by erstwhile competitors.

    The bottom-line question facing users is whether they will adopt:

    1. free software with paid ads that produce revenue for the software maker
    2. free software that has some kind of "hook" to produce revenue for the maker (as a loss-leader for other paid services/products from the maker, as a portal to acquire marketable user data, or that comes pre-packaged with other software which pays for that placement)
    3. low-cost software that has a low paid ad presence in it
    4. high-cost software with no ads or hooks attached
    5. some combination of the first three

    There are few, if any, other choices, since the costs of the software have to be covered or the maker will eventually burn out or fail as a business. TANSTAAFL applies here as it does everywhere. Right now, the digital universe has settled largely on 1. and 2. for browsers.

    Personally, and with my other software, I prefer to choose 3. or 4. ... but I realize and understand why most folks probably won't. And, with browsers, there seem today to only be options 1, 2, or their combination. But what is frankly unrealistic is for users to believe there is some magic, durable option 7: totally free software, with no price, hooks, or ads involved. It's unrealistic, because such an option simply cannot recover its cost... hence such products quickly evaporate from the marketplace. I just wish more software companies would provide users the option of paid-software in return for greatly reducing or eliminating ads and/or 'hooks'. I don't want ads or hooks... but I also don't want software makers to go out of business.

  • This is a good analysis of the software situation. I am also inclined towards paying for my software (option 4) which is why I use paid-for AV as well as my Office software (Office 365). Years ago I paid for Opera and I would be willing to do this again but I suspect most today would refuse. There is an entitlement philosophy held by many of the younger generation and I see this all the time in comments here regarding Opera's new direction wherein many believe Opera has no right to mess with "their" browser.

  • There are some disadvantages of being open-source which was said here. And it is easy to see. Except Chromium, Mozzila, LibreOffice etc the updates are not very often.

  • @bolt01. Ithink your ad-blocker is for chrome or another browser. But whatever the case may be, try uninstalling all ur ad blockers and then install a new opera ad blocker...i tried this procedure and most of the adds have disapeared.

  • @blackbird71

    I thought they also make money based on the number of people who use the browser -- more hits on sites. And selling space for the search engine. Firefox just entered a long term five year relationship with yahoo, dropping google.

    http://searchengineland.com/yahoo-becomes-default-search-engine-firefox-browser-209267?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed-main

    So these extra ads aren't necessarily an essential. And if they drive people away from the browser, they can hurt browser share, and negatively affect revenues that way.

  • @lem729, you make good points. But in my thinking, I tend to lump renting 'favored' placements in a browser (search engines, news feeds, etc) in my category 2. I believe such rented placements equate to somebody paying the software maker for the user data which indirectly derives from the use of such a feature (which is the only real way the placement-renter can derive tangible benefit from such placements).

    I strongly doubt that click-count rebates by themselves can financially underwrite the cost any software product for very long... which is why so many "free" software products are being driven to find stronger revenue-raising methods, be they bundled tie-ins, ads, placements, or whatever.

    In some ways, I think Opera stands closer to Microsoft and Apple in all this, in that they have long utilized their desktop browser product to enhance the positioning of their other, more-profitable products. Whereas, Google uses Chrome to enhance its main business of harvesting/marketing user data and Mozilla is trying to largely go it alone with mainly just a browser product.

    I agree that the presence of ads devalues a product in many users' eyes... but that remains relevant only so long as they have effective alternative browsers without ads, an option which seems to be teetering on the edge of extinction. Conversely, there are also many users who simply don't care all that much about ads... a fact borne out by the nature of all kinds of print media, in which "users" seem to willingly accept far more ads than genuine content - even when they're paying for the product. I hesitate to describe this all as a "dumbing-down" or desensitizing of the user population regarding ads... but it does seem to be a direct consequence of cost realities resulting from the "free" software product paradigm.

Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Opera forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.