Linked by Kroc Camen on Fri 18th Sep 2009 18:51 UTC
Opera Software You all know that I don't particularly like Opera. I find the product to be lacking polish, over-complicated and without the marketing pizazz that has made Firefox a household name. That's just my personal opinion, and that opinion has garnered many complaints of unjustness. To that end, to present a fairer discussion I would like to put a simple question to the community: "What should Opera do?".
Permalink for comment 384978
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
IE history and rationale for browsers today
by malxau on Sat 19th Sep 2009 02:07 UTC
malxau
Member since:
2005-12-04


The situation in America during the 90's was vastly different though. Many people's experiences of computers, and the web was through corporate desktops that they had no control over. Due to IE being easier to manage in a networked environment, a culture of IE-based infrastructure sprang up, including the dreaded Intranets and IE-only websites.

As a general rule, corporations are slow to adopt any piece of new technology. In the late 90s, IE was evolving at a break-neck pace. It was bundled with updates to the shell, clearly aimed at end users. I don't think it's really true to say that people were "forced" to use IE4/5 due to corporate environments on any scale. They were nice browsers for their time - assuming you had the hardware to run them, which was more likely true in the US than many other places.


It was Firefox (and more-so the grass-roots movement to unseat the stagnant IE and the severe damage to the web that it had caused) that changed that IE-dominant mindshare.

Again, remember timelines. IE entered hibernation with IE6 in 2001. In 2002, Mozilla 1.0 launched, and was largely ineffectual. FireFox 1.0, which was really the first to attack a "stagnant" IE, didn't start until November 2004 - prior to that point, IE was not stagnant.

For a time - a long time - IE was the best browser on the market. This is what helped to maintain it on top of usage for such a long period.


If Opera had had the right marketing at the right time, they could be where Firefox is now.


Opera was the only player in the market trying to monetize the browser. This put it at a serious disadvantage to Mozilla, which transitioned at the time from an AOL-funded venture to a nonprofit. It is hard to get market share with commercial (or ad supported) browsers when competitors have no such restrictions; and it is hard to have a good business without market share.

Opera ended up chasing market share and relying on indirect revenue instead. Its current financials imply that revenue is dominated by search agreements and mobile products; desktop browsers are merely an enabler to better mobile support. (If this sounds familiar, consider why Safari was ported to Windows.)

Which brings us to...

Microsoft (IE) - Ultimate goal, sell Windows; IE required to prevent web commoditization
Apple (Safari) - Ultimate goal, sell iPhones/Macs; Safari required to ensure support for platforms with low market share (both direct, and from web authors)
Opera (Opera) - Ultimate goal, sell phones; Opera on desktop required to provide support for web authors to be compatible with Opera phones
Google (Chrome) - Ultimate goal, sell web services; Chrome required to commoditize web, enable Google to sell internet devices, and to influence direction of web standards/support in its favor
Mozilla (FireFox) - Ultimate goal, ?; FireFox required to continue Mozilla/Netscape legacy...?

Reply Score: 2