(continued from previous page)
I think they've gotten to a certain market share in the United States that it's starting to help them, but there are still a number of sites that don't work.
You still find a lot of sites like that?
Von Tetzchner: Yeah, I don't know why this is the case. Some of these sites are just very bad at getting things to work. We try to make all the major sites work with Opera, but sometimes we really have to jump through hoops to make them work.
Typically, if there is a problem, maybe they have programmed the site around a bug in IE. Then they'll change the site so it works with the IE bug and then it doesn't work in Firefox and Opera. So there's a bit of that. Then there are sites like Microsoft sites that explicitly send bad code and things like that but...
Have you had any serious discussions with any of the big PC vendors about incorporating your browser with their machines?
Von Tetzchner: There hasn't been too much of that.
Will that affect Opera's growth potential?
Von Tetzchner: Well, for 10 years we had 30 to 50 percent growth in revenue from the desktop. I'm hoping we can increase that and we can also increase our market share. Our goal was to increase our market share and then be the No. 2 browser on the desktop. I think that, realistically, being No. 1 on the desktop requires something more dramatic to happen than what has already happened.
How did you choose the name Opera for the company?
Von Tetzchner: We wanted a short, international name. There's a lot of hard work that goes into making Opera. There's multimedia in Opera and we felt that that is a good combination. Later on we actually found out that Opera means work (in Italian), which we also think is correct, because we spend a lot of time tuning the browser.
Looking ahead, do you see the bulk of your growth coming from Europe, Asia, Africa--in other words, markets outside of the U.S.?
Von Tetzchner: No, we're going to grow in the U.S. It's just taking a little bit of time. We are setting up to be more aggressive in the United States. We'll be doing things in the United States that will make people notice us more. It takes time. For instance, in the Japanese market we didn't even have a Japanese version in 2002. Now we have a very significant brand, which is being used in all the products on the mobile side.
Besides the desktop, where do you see the potential growth coming from?
Von Tetzchner: Mostly mobile, but I think there's a lot of potential in all the markets. The set-top box and TVs and cars and planes--there's a lot of different places where using Web technology makes a lot of sense.
What exactly are your plans to really build out your presence here in the American market?
Von Tetzchner: We're putting more and more people on the ground here in the United States....The mobile market in this country has been trailing the rest of the world. But we expect that there's going to be a total change in the next five years when it comes to browsers and phones.
See more CNET content tagged:
Opera Software, Mozilla Corp., Web browser, security, Microsoft Corp.
Explorer is not only antiquated, it uses many proprietary features. People seem to forget microsoft did not invent the internet. That they can be a johnny come lately and impose their standards on the net is fascinating and now every browser should somwehow conform to microsoft abitrary standards is even more ludicrous. Websites that blindly code for microsoft explorer are doing themselves a disservice really. They are holding themselves hostage to microsoft whims because microsoft will change explorer someday and then you'll be saying "why don't the sites change to conform to IE?".
Explorer is not only antiquated, it uses many proprietary features. People seem to forget microsoft did not invent the internet. That they can be a johnny come lately and impose their standards on the net is fascinating and now every browser should somwehow conform to microsoft abitrary standards is even more ludicrous. Websites that blindly code for microsoft explorer are doing themselves a disservice really. They are holding themselves hostage to microsoft whims because microsoft will change explorer someday and then you'll be saying "why don't the sites change to conform to IE?".
Explorer is not only antiquated, it uses many proprietary features. People seem to forget microsoft did not invent the internet. That they can be a johnny come lately and impose their standards on the net is fascinating and now every browser should somwehow conform to microsoft abitrary standards is even more ludicrous. Websites that blindly code for microsoft explorer are doing themselves a disservice really. They are holding themselves hostage to microsoft whims because microsoft will change explorer someday and then you'll be saying "why don't the sites change to conform to IE?".
Explorer is not only antiquated, it uses many proprietary features. People seem to forget microsoft did not invent the internet. That they can be a johnny come lately and impose their standards on the net is fascinating and now every browser should somwehow conform to microsoft abitrary standards is even more ludicrous. Websites that blindly code for microsoft explorer are doing themselves a disservice really. They are holding themselves hostage to microsoft whims because microsoft will change explorer someday and then you'll be saying "why don't the sites change to conform to IE?".
(did I mention I really hated the advertisements?)
As for who needs it, pretty much everybody. It has many of the features of FF and Many FF doesn't. It is the second most secure engine, behind (don't laugh... I know its hard to believe but it is true) IE's engine. However the rest of IE is set up and stripped down in ways that comprimise many of it's own engines defensive features. Opera has a sliker more configurable interface. The lists of features keep growing.
All the features of Opera, minus voice navigation, take up less space than the featureless install of FF and is independant of all other programming libraries. It uses less system resources than anyother browser.
In my expierience, Opera doesn't crash, something crashes Opera.
(did I mention I really hated the advertisements?)
As for who needs it, pretty much everybody. It has many of the features of FF and Many FF doesn't. It is the second most secure engine, behind (don't laugh... I know its hard to believe but it is true) IE's engine. However the rest of IE is set up and stripped down in ways that comprimise many of it's own engines defensive features. Opera has a sliker more configurable interface. The lists of features keep growing.
All the features of Opera, minus voice navigation, take up less space than the featureless install of FF and is independant of all other programming libraries. It uses less system resources than anyother browser.
In my expierience, Opera doesn't crash, something crashes Opera.
(did I mention I really hated the advertisements?)
As for who needs it, pretty much everybody. It has many of the features of FF and Many FF doesn't. It is the second most secure engine, behind (don't laugh... I know its hard to believe but it is true) IE's engine. However the rest of IE is set up and stripped down in ways that comprimise many of it's own engines defensive features. Opera has a sliker more configurable interface. The lists of features keep growing.
All the features of Opera, minus voice navigation, take up less space than the featureless install of FF and is independant of all other programming libraries. It uses less system resources than anyother browser.
In my expierience, Opera doesn't crash, something crashes Opera.
(did I mention I really hated the advertisements?)
As for who needs it, pretty much everybody. It has many of the features of FF and Many FF doesn't. It is the second most secure engine, behind (don't laugh... I know its hard to believe but it is true) IE's engine. However the rest of IE is set up and stripped down in ways that comprimise many of it's own engines defensive features. Opera has a sliker more configurable interface. The lists of features keep growing.
All the features of Opera, minus voice navigation, take up less space than the featureless install of FF and is independant of all other programming libraries. It uses less system resources than anyother browser.
In my expierience, Opera doesn't crash, something crashes Opera.
The interviewee conventiently ducked the first question about whether their market is driven by anti-MS users. With Firefox available for free, it seems Opera is the ultimate non-conformist's browser. You can always get the fringe 5% to buy your product on the sake of different or anti-MS alone, but beyond that, it's a dicey proposition for a successful long-term business.
Standards can be good, but the more standard-based web sites and web browsers become, the more commoditized the market for browsers becomes. If, a few years from now, 99% of the web works equally well in Firefox and Opera on account of greater standards adoption, who would buy Opera when Firefox is free and just as good?
Lastly, to those who bash IE for its lack of a standards approach, try using IE + Outlook Web Access from Exchange 2003. It's a fairly incredible interface (allows right click context menus, drag and drop mail between panes and folders, etc.), it's fast as hell (no JVM overhead) and it simply works. Guaranteed application functionality and interoperability like this is why a lot of companies standardize on IE, even if it's not always the best solution for all users.
Has any major company standardized on Opera?
-Mister Winky
I also dont have to spend a lot of time tweaking Opera, as opposed to Firefox. Opera is much more efficient in its handling of, well, everything, and is well worth the 30$ i paid for it. (Even tough how anyone can find the ads in the free version intrusive is beyond me - it is a small text add at the top of the browser for pete's sake!)
Besides that Opera offers integrated email-app and a irc client, which basically means I just need one app for all my web needs.
Having used both Firefox and Opera extensively I really can't see how anyone can find Firefox to be a better, or even just as good browser - it simply is inferior. The only thing Firefox has going for it is a slight advantage in web site compatability, but from Opera 8 onwards I hardly ever find pages that wont work properly.
As for your example of an MS-only solution that's fast... on what hardware? And operating system? Believe it or not, the world doesn't run WinXP with 1Gb of Ram available on the desktop. The MS-only world is slowly shrinking, and when Linux or some other OS model comes to fore, Opera and Firefox will be there... and IE won't.
Good luck with that Exchange Server, too.
-R
The interviewee conventiently ducked the first question about whether their market is driven by anti-MS users. With Firefox available for free, it seems Opera is the ultimate non-conformist's browser. You can always get the fringe 5% to buy your product on the sake of different or anti-MS alone, but beyond that, it's a dicey proposition for a successful long-term business.
Standards can be good, but the more standard-based web sites and web browsers become, the more commoditized the market for browsers becomes. If, a few years from now, 99% of the web works equally well in Firefox and Opera on account of greater standards adoption, who would buy Opera when Firefox is free and just as good?
Lastly, to those who bash IE for its lack of a standards approach, try using IE + Outlook Web Access from Exchange 2003. It's a fairly incredible interface (allows right click context menus, drag and drop mail between panes and folders, etc.), it's fast as hell (no JVM overhead) and it simply works. Guaranteed application functionality and interoperability like this is why a lot of companies standardize on IE, even if it's not always the best solution for all users.
Has any major company standardized on Opera?
-Mister Winky
I also dont have to spend a lot of time tweaking Opera, as opposed to Firefox. Opera is much more efficient in its handling of, well, everything, and is well worth the 30$ i paid for it. (Even tough how anyone can find the ads in the free version intrusive is beyond me - it is a small text add at the top of the browser for pete's sake!)
Besides that Opera offers integrated email-app and a irc client, which basically means I just need one app for all my web needs.
Having used both Firefox and Opera extensively I really can't see how anyone can find Firefox to be a better, or even just as good browser - it simply is inferior. The only thing Firefox has going for it is a slight advantage in web site compatability, but from Opera 8 onwards I hardly ever find pages that wont work properly.
As for your example of an MS-only solution that's fast... on what hardware? And operating system? Believe it or not, the world doesn't run WinXP with 1Gb of Ram available on the desktop. The MS-only world is slowly shrinking, and when Linux or some other OS model comes to fore, Opera and Firefox will be there... and IE won't.
Good luck with that Exchange Server, too.
-R
The interviewee conventiently ducked the first question about whether their market is driven by anti-MS users. With Firefox available for free, it seems Opera is the ultimate non-conformist's browser. You can always get the fringe 5% to buy your product on the sake of different or anti-MS alone, but beyond that, it's a dicey proposition for a successful long-term business.
Standards can be good, but the more standard-based web sites and web browsers become, the more commoditized the market for browsers becomes. If, a few years from now, 99% of the web works equally well in Firefox and Opera on account of greater standards adoption, who would buy Opera when Firefox is free and just as good?
Lastly, to those who bash IE for its lack of a standards approach, try using IE + Outlook Web Access from Exchange 2003. It's a fairly incredible interface (allows right click context menus, drag and drop mail between panes and folders, etc.), it's fast as hell (no JVM overhead) and it simply works. Guaranteed application functionality and interoperability like this is why a lot of companies standardize on IE, even if it's not always the best solution for all users.
Has any major company standardized on Opera?
-Mister Winky
I also dont have to spend a lot of time tweaking Opera, as opposed to Firefox. Opera is much more efficient in its handling of, well, everything, and is well worth the 30$ i paid for it. (Even tough how anyone can find the ads in the free version intrusive is beyond me - it is a small text add at the top of the browser for pete's sake!)
Besides that Opera offers integrated email-app and a irc client, which basically means I just need one app for all my web needs.
Having used both Firefox and Opera extensively I really can't see how anyone can find Firefox to be a better, or even just as good browser - it simply is inferior. The only thing Firefox has going for it is a slight advantage in web site compatability, but from Opera 8 onwards I hardly ever find pages that wont work properly.
As for your example of an MS-only solution that's fast... on what hardware? And operating system? Believe it or not, the world doesn't run WinXP with 1Gb of Ram available on the desktop. The MS-only world is slowly shrinking, and when Linux or some other OS model comes to fore, Opera and Firefox will be there... and IE won't.
Good luck with that Exchange Server, too.
-R
- Not sure I understand their business model
- by Mister Winky September 8, 2005 9:41 AM PDT
- Opera claims substantial year to year growth, but it still doesn't add up to much total market share. With Firefox in the picture, I don't see why people would pay for Opera unless it has one or two *killer app* features that Firefox (or IE7) doesn't. And even then, it's just a matter of time before the others catch up.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Well, Opera IS better
- by September 8, 2005 10:42 AM PDT
- Opera is a superior browser to Firefox, simply because its faster and all of its features are integrated. With Firefox I have to install several plugins to get the feature-set I'm looking for, and those plugins generally work less well than Operas already implemented features. And when a new Firefox version is released it sometimes breaks existing plugins and I have to hunt down new ones. It's a really messy system. Besides - Opera with all the features included is a smaller download than plain Firefox, another reason Opera simply is superior.
- Like this View reply
Processing -
- As long as you stay home, you're safe?
- by Remo_Williams September 8, 2005 10:57 AM PDT
- You don't understand the business model from the interview, perhaps, but it's a public company, so they aren't hiding earnings. They're there, and the company is doing well.
- Like this View all 2 replies
Processing -
- Tsc .. tsc..
- by Rodrigo Paines September 8, 2005 11:41 AM PDT
- tsc.. tsc ..ms-users ...
- Like this
-
- You've got it.
- by David Arbogast September 8, 2005 11:57 AM PDT
- Its a silly article... the Opera guy has learned to duck Microsoft? How? By answering every question with a wordy "MS Sucks" statement, and maintaining market share so small that Microsoft doesn't consider you a threat.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (172 Comments)The interviewee conventiently ducked the first question about whether their market is driven by anti-MS users. With Firefox available for free, it seems Opera is the ultimate non-conformist's browser. You can always get the fringe 5% to buy your product on the sake of different or anti-MS alone, but beyond that, it's a dicey proposition for a successful long-term business.
Standards can be good, but the more standard-based web sites and web browsers become, the more commoditized the market for browsers becomes. If, a few years from now, 99% of the web works equally well in Firefox and Opera on account of greater standards adoption, who would buy Opera when Firefox is free and just as good?
Lastly, to those who bash IE for its lack of a standards approach, try using IE + Outlook Web Access from Exchange 2003. It's a fairly incredible interface (allows right click context menus, drag and drop mail between panes and folders, etc.), it's fast as hell (no JVM overhead) and it simply works. Guaranteed application functionality and interoperability like this is why a lot of companies standardize on IE, even if it's not always the best solution for all users.
Has any major company standardized on Opera?
-Mister Winky
I also dont have to spend a lot of time tweaking Opera, as opposed to Firefox. Opera is much more efficient in its handling of, well, everything, and is well worth the 30$ i paid for it. (Even tough how anyone can find the ads in the free version intrusive is beyond me - it is a small text add at the top of the browser for pete's sake!)
Besides that Opera offers integrated email-app and a irc client, which basically means I just need one app for all my web needs.
Having used both Firefox and Opera extensively I really can't see how anyone can find Firefox to be a better, or even just as good browser - it simply is inferior. The only thing Firefox has going for it is a slight advantage in web site compatability, but from Opera 8 onwards I hardly ever find pages that wont work properly.
As for your example of an MS-only solution that's fast... on what hardware? And operating system? Believe it or not, the world doesn't run WinXP with 1Gb of Ram available on the desktop. The MS-only world is slowly shrinking, and when Linux or some other OS model comes to fore, Opera and Firefox will be there... and IE won't.
Good luck with that Exchange Server, too.
-R