Opera sees big jump in EU users on iOS, Android after DMA update
bleepingcomputer.com
bleepingcomputer.com
> while working for one of the top-3 European IPS
What's IPS in this context, or is that a typo for ISPs?
Opera had its own browser engine (Presto) and had a native UI (or if it wasn’t, it felt like it because it was really snappy).
Vivaldi is more like Chrome (performance wise) but with loads of features.
I think for some period they used Qt on some platforms.
But early Opera was really a fast and innovative browser. Opera was one of the first (if not the first) browser with tabs and popup blocking. Opera Software even owned Fastmail for a few years (until an employee buyout).
It's sad that they have gone down the drain.
[1] https://hindenburgresearch.com/opera-phantom-of-the-turnarou...
One of the original Opera co-founders is now founder and CEO of the browser-maker Vivaldi
Now the ball is in Mozilla's court! I do wonder if they'd have to send their developers to the EU for on-device debugging as well.
For instance, Brave on iOS doesn't have built in TOR functionality like it does on non-mobile versions, so the browser is functionally limited to what Webkit allows.
- must be submitted as a separate binary, no migration path from existing WebKit version of a browser
- only available in the EU, unclear how non-EU web developers can test for compatibility
- ban on non-WebKit PWAs
I can imagine this one being really annoying as you are probably required to go through the entire app review process again (so they can make sure you didn't sneak anything cool in there)
The issue is they’ve adopted the “sell user data” profit model that is super popular in all of tech.
You should not be complaining about opera because they’re owned by a Chinese company any more than you would complain about chrome being owned by a us company.
The complaint for both (and many other companies) should be the business model of selling user data is morally corrupt.
This obsession with selling out your users to make money is gross, and the absurd belief that that is the only path to income is absurd.
Plenty of companies still exist and make money by selling products rather than users and the twisted belief that you can only make money by "giving away" your product (and then selling out your users) that you're exhibiting is just insane.
It's especially laughable to point to a company like Opera (the modern one, not the original) which is just skinning chrome, and then say "they should be able to make a profit by selling out their users". If they are adding so little value, when the overwhelming majority of the work is done for free for them, that people don't want to actually pay for it, why should they make a profit? if their sales pitch involves misleading the consumers about what they are doing, why should they be making money?
Like 1M/yr spent on sponsoring 1000 videos by top tech youtubers is nothing when they have 600M/yr revenue and it would bring in a massive audience.
It's as if they're content with coasting and/or chasing even lower single digit market share?
If I ever see a FireFox marketing campaign on YouTube I will worry about them.
The best “marketing” they can do in my opinion is something they already do: MDN.
It was a sad day when Opera was bought over. Current Opera, like current Nokia, is not the same company.
The list should only include browsers that meet certain security and privacy criteria in the default install.
The EU law should not be abused to give the new data stealing Opera more downloads.
All in all, despite coming from the pirate party culture of the early Internet, I have started to be wary of this dynamic and the legal quagmire it started to produce...
Opera seems to kicking up their sales channels everywhere.
It's funny how if you actually provide useful functionality to the users, your marketshare increases (even if there is malware/spyware/user-hostility under the hood).
Mozilla should take note, but enough people have been banging that drum for long enough that we already know they won't.
https://www.androidcentral.com/opera-accused-offering-predat...
There was a better one on HN but of course I can't find it any more.
Or that users select the first option in the list.
Instead, I wish they just showed the browsers in popularity order. Sure, that means Apple and Google get to be on top. But it makes it a lot more viable for a decent browser to fight to get up to #5, #4, #3, and get rewarded for that improvement.
Having it be random avoids that and Apple can clearly point to the "the order is random, we cannot favor or disfavor ourselves or anyone unfairly."
I'm happy to see the change that has hit Android and iOS as a result, and I like that it's drawing attention to other browsers and opening the market more, I just really dislike useless and potentially misleading percentages that suggest things may be dramatically different instead of negligibly so.
It's only indicative that popups work and users without any idea of whats going on click on pretty icons.
A custom WebKit browser can collect/sell/lose your personal data just as easily, assuming that's your concern.
A trivial and EU-proof solution against spyware is to make GDPR compliance a requirement for App Store submission. The reason they wouldn't do it is because it would have to apply to themselves as well.