(continued from previous page)
You'll have full browsers like Opera on the phone, and we think we have the strongest product in that market. We're going to push very hard to make sure that we have the market share that we should be having.
In Europe, are you seeing that shift?
Von Tetzchner: There's a significant movement toward this...It's taken a few years, but it's happening now.
Are you seeing real consumer applications yet?
Von Tetzchner: Well, I mean, we were on 8.8 million phones last year, and that's up from 2 million the year before and 200,000 the year before that. So I think there's a definite trend.
Do you expect companies will stop making WAP Web sites and just start doing HTML?
Von Tetzchner: I think that makes a lot of sense. I mean WAP doesn't really have a future. I think most people realize that. With WAP 1, it was a totally separate thing, right. With WAP 2, it's still close to the Web but it's still incompatible. So why have this separate network?
What's likely to change in five years from what we see today in the average browser?
Von Tetzchner: I think there's going to be added a lot of features, but there's going to be more standards and there's going to be more things happening. Microsoft has been stifling this for a long time because in a way, if we add something new, even though it's a standard, it doesn't change anything. Our market share, whether it's 1 percent, or 5 percent or whatever, it doesn't really matter. In that way, we can't change the standards, but now we have a possibility to do so.
This is why Firefox is positive for us, because when the two of us implement a new standard, maybe even together with Apple, then we actually have the possibility to change.
So, are you saying then that the same metaphor for a browser is not really going to radically change?
Von Tetzchner: There are more and more applications coming up. You can actually write full programs with the Web browser. That's one of the changes that have been happening. We want to make it possible to do more advanced things....One of the changes that's going to be happening in the next few years is all these mobile devices and set-top box devices--they don't have the standard screen size of a PC and don't have the standard resolution. Web designers may not have been willing to actually gather for people with accessibility issues, but they will have to gather for this, and the good part is that the side effect of that will be that it will help for accessibility as well.
What's life as a public company like?
Von Tetzchner: I think you can say it's been good. Some of the investors want short-term gains, but I think most of the investors we have are long-term. They understand that what we're doing is something that takes time, that you have to build on things and it's important that we position ourselves correctly.
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