No, rafalluik is correct.
Vendor Lock-ins are always wrong. Never ever shall a feature be provided by only one vendor. Either it becomes open to all people, or freedom will be endangered. It has been the same with IBM, Microsoft, Apple, now Google. Also EMC², HP (personal experience on the storage side), you name it. Everybody tries to lock you into his jail.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the new Opera 20 either. But freedom is always more important than convenience. Instead of teaching the next generation to give in to convenience, we should teach it to fight for freedom. That is at least my personal opinion.
By calling it "slavery", rafalluik has chosen some harsh words, but I do understand that actually. I have called the same name on different users of Apple software, Google cloud services, even Microsoft users (and for gods sake, I partially am one myself still even if it's just XP x64, and I DON'T LIKE myself for that).
Whenever a way is harder than the other one, it seems it's the right one these days. For whenever "free" becomes too easy, it seems it's more like turning the user into the product being sold.
But that's market philosophy... Probably the wrong thread for that.
A good feature in Chrome (I think) is not just a good feature. It's a lure to draw you into a non-free environment.. with promises of GPL tacked on. And the backstabbing starts after you join..
Maybe I'm seeing things in a too dramatic fashion. I dunno. Maybe I should just go back to pure "free as in free beer" software and use FireFox/WaterFox/Iceweasel..