

A look back and forward at Opera - tbassetto
http://my.opera.com/dstorey/blog/a-look-back-and-forward-at-opera

======
pushingbits
This makes some fair points, but I think this also suffers from some of the
general disconnect between techies and the general web browsing populace (who
probably provide the largest fraction of ad clicks, by the by).

After watching some non-technical people browse the web, I think all modern
browsers are pretty much equivalent (as far as the user is concerned). Normal
users don't install extensions, they don't care about easy bookmark access or
browser speed (as long as the difference isn't in the order of magnitudes) or
really any of the things that browsers might do differently. It's just
slightly different window dressing around websites. So I think cleaning up the
Opera user interface as the article mentions, while nice, won't make a
difference to user numbers.

When products are effectively the same, marketing is the ONLY thing that
matters (bundling aside).

Now having said all that, there is of course a big difference amongst web
browser when it comes to power users and as a long time Opera user, I find
that it enables me to browse the web in ways that are not possible in Firefox
and Chrome.

1\. Good defaults (in terms of functionality and settings). I can install
Opera on a new computer, connect to Opera Link to import bookmarks / searches,
change three settings and I have my complete web browsing experience set up on
another computer. I don't have to install ANY extensions, widgets or what have
you.

2\. The reason that I don't need extension is partially because some
functionality is already included in the browser, and partially because the
address bar in conjunction with bookmark aliases replaces a ton of extensions
I might need to have and acts in many ways like a command line to the web.
Bookmark aliases let you specify some "command" that you type in in the
address bar that invokes a bookmark. So I can type "hn" into the address bar,
hit enter and it will take me to hacker news. In addition to that, the address
bar consumes javascript. That means that you can set aliases for bookmarklets
and for multi argument quick searches. So if I type "bm" (for bookmark) into
the address bar, it will open the window to bookmark something on delicious.
The same thing that would happen if you click on a delicious bookmarklet
button... only you don't have to click on a button. And it will get synced
when you set up Opera Link on a new install. And you can hook up any old
snippet of javascript you can think of to such a command.

3\. Find on page acts as an element selector. If you see a link on a page that
you want to click on, you can do "Ctrl + F -> type in part of link name ->
enter" to "click" on the link. I know that FF has extensions (vimperator?) to
do something similar, but again... that's one less extension you need.

In short, with a very small combination of extra features, Opera will save you
a million mouse clicks with zero setup / configuration hassle.

(I once wrote a blog post about multi argument address bar searches:
[http://www.pushingbits.net/posts/google-date-range-
address-b...](http://www.pushingbits.net/posts/google-date-range-address-bar-
search/))

~~~
planckscnst
1: Firefox Sync

2: Don't really need it. When I type "h" into the address bar, Hacker News is
the first guess. Similarly for other sites I frequent.

3: Firefox has done that (with no extensions) for as long as I can remember;
it even goes a step further: you can search only links. Chrome also does this.

~~~
pushingbits
Yeah, and I know that for every feature someone cites for why they like Vim,
someone will point out how the same thing can be accomplished in Emacs (and
vice versa). But it's often just superficially equivalent, as is (part of)
this list.

1\. Last time I tried that, it didn't sync extensions, extension settings, or
bookmarklet buttons (or other settings). Unless they started doing that now
(and judging by <https://services.mozilla.com/> it seems like they don't),
it'd still be much more of a hassle to set up a new FF install to be
equivalent.

2\. This only addresses a quarter of the point I was making and even for
that... I don't like semantic search because you have to scan the suggested
result to check that the first search result is in fact whatever you expected
it to be. When I type "hn" and press enter, I don't have to wait for semantic
search to do its thing, I don't have to make sure that some other site that
starts with "h" or has an "h" in the name took the top result spot (and what
if you have multiple pages you visit often that start with "h"?), I KNOW it
will take me directly where I want to go. I can do Ctrl + T -> hn -> Enter in
a fraction of a fraction of a second, while reading something else on another
monitor.

3\. Hah, I did actually try it out in FF before writing that part of the
comment. Of course, you first have to enable it in preferences (and it was
disabled in my preferences for some reason, though judging by the
documentation that's not the default). Anyway, thanks for pointing this out.
:)

Anyway, it's the combination and integration of little things that makes a big
difference, not the little things themselves that might be replicated in some
way in the other browsers minus the synergy. I know this is probably not
obvious until you have really tried it yourself and the reflex reaction is to
squint a lot and go: "My browser can do something very much like that, too!"
or "It don't need THAT! It wouldn't make a difference."

Give it a try. It does.

~~~
capnrefsmmat
In Firefox, you can set keywords for bookmarks and achieve exactly what you
describe in 2.

------
halo
Very insightful blog post, which is very much in tune with my opinion on
Opera. It's rare for someone who worked at a company to have such good
perspective.

It's definitely true that the main reason why Opera has struggled on the
desktop is because of a lack of polish. The UI has always felt clunky, non-
native and awkward.

That is a major reason why I switched from Opera to Firefox (née Phoenix) many
years ago and haven't looked back since. UI has always been their weak link,
while their performance and rendering engine has always been top-notch.

Having tried Opera 11.5 for the first time, it's certainly a huge leap
forward. It's not perfect, but it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb like
previous versions. The downside is that it's a bit too close to Firefox/Chrome
to provide a compelling reason to switch, and it still has too much irrelevent
crap front-and-centre coupled with its own UI quirks (e.g. why is "Show menu"
in the "File" menu and not in 'View'?). Even so, a vast improvement.

I think it's far too easy to blame their low marketshare on their miniscule
marketing budget. Mozilla faced similar problems. Mozilla failed when they had
a crap product in SeaMonkey (née Mozilla Suite) and succeded when they had a
compelling product in Firefox. If Opera can create a similarly compelling
product, I have no doubt that many people would happily switch.

I think Opera's best approach would be to focus on Opera Mobile. Mobile is the
browser growth market, I suspect it's easier to convince users to try a mobile
browser than a desktop one, and they should be able to translate mobile
marketshare into desktop marketshare.

~~~
gnosis
_"I think it's far too easy to blame their low marketshare on their miniscule
marketing budget. Mozilla faced similar problems. Mozilla failed when they had
a crap product in SeaMonkey (née Mozilla Suite) and succeded when they had a
compelling product in Firefox."_

This is an important point, but I'm not sure that it's clear exactly why
Firefox was so "compelling".

I remember when Firefox first came out, it was billed as a "faster Mozilla". I
gave it a try, because I'd found that the original Mozilla browser was bloated
and slow, and I was hoping Firefox might live up to the hype. But, no. Firefox
was just as slow and bloated as Mozilla. In fact, from an end-user's
perspective, they seemed pretty identical, except for the name. Yet people
jumped all over Firefox like it was the Second Coming.

Now, I understand that Firefox does have one great advantage over Opera, which
is that it's open source, while Opera is closed source. But the original
Mozilla browser was also open source, and it didn't get a fraction of the
interest Firefox got. Another advantage was that Firefox had extensions, but
(if I recall correctly) the original Mozilla browser had them too.

So, can Firefox's success over the original Mozilla browser be chalked up
completely to the name change? Would Opera have been more successful had they
simply rebranded it with a sexier name, or claimed that the "new" browser
they'd released was a "faster Opera"?

~~~
halo
I'd argue that the key difference in Firefox was the UI. It was slimmed down
and tidied up, with all the unnecessary clutter removed.

Firefox also shamelessly copied and polished up the best features from Opera
(i.e. tabs and integrated search), attracting many early adopter Opera users,
plus the fact it was free rather than ad-supported gave the browser a wider
audience than Opera ever could.

Changing the name, the theme and the unused Communicator bloat (Mail,
Composer, Chatzilla) was more symbolic in distancing Mozilla from the negative
associations of the mostly terrible Communicator than anything else.

It's interesting to read the comments from Phoenix 0.2 on Slashdot
([http://developers.slashdot.org/story/02/10/07/1739241/Phoeni...](http://developers.slashdot.org/story/02/10/07/1739241/Phoenix-02-Web-
Browser-Lean-Mean-Mozilla)). Their comments system is terrible these days,
though.

------
Dysiode
While Opera is arguably ahead of the curve in many areas I've always felt they
lack the polish everyone else brings. Be it Safari's glossy SpeedDial or
Chromes fancy tear-away tabs Opera has a great idea and then consistently
falls short of the mark.

Worse the areas they didn't pioneer they still fall short. For example I go
really excited about some of the parts of their extension API... until I read
Chrome's API which is significantly more fleshed out.

I still can't tear myself away from Opera though. I just can't get used to the
extension-based replacements for much of the native functionality, be it mouse
gestures, the RSS reader, notes (oh gosh. notes.). It would be nice if, as
David points out in his article, they focused more on polish than on new
features. At the moment Opera feels a lot like "old" Google with a whole bunch
of creative, yet half-baked, ideas.

~~~
gnosis
_"While Opera is arguably ahead of the curve in many areas I've always felt
they lack the polish everyone else brings. Be it Safari's glossy SpeedDial or
Chromes fancy tear-away tabs Opera has a great idea and then consistently
falls short of the mark."_

Do most users actually comparison shop browsers? Do they try out Opera,
Chrome, and Safari and then decide they'd prefer one over the other because of
some eye candy the others lack?

I'm sure some power users do, but I would bet that the average user just uses
whatever's already installed at work, or whatever browser sounds like what
they've heard other people talk about.

They don't have the time or interest to comparison shop (and probably wouldn't
even know what to look for, or even that other browsers exist).

~~~
justincormack
Someone in the office or wherever will switch people slowly. People do rely on
the office geek to tell them whats best as they dont know, and that person
probably does the preinstall or technical induction for new users...

------
TheCowboy
Marketing is probably a major issue for Opera. I suggest Opera and people have
never heard of it most of the time, or I get a response like, "I don't want a
browser that has ads in it." Opera hasn't had ads in their browser for years
now. They're basically the untrusted store brand of a commodity people already
receive for free.

Another issue for Opera is that 'stability' fluctuates significantly with each
release.* I'm talking about how some websites will stop functioning properly.
I'll try upgrading to the beta. Sometimes the site I wanted to work will work,
and then it's another site that stops working. I always have to use Opera as a
complementary browser. Opera will find some new way to freeze or crash as a
result of a certain webpage trying to load.

*(This can be attributed to poor web design, but it's just part of the reality of being the underdog that they should pay more attention to this.)

------
teaneedz
My "Go To" browser journey has taken me from Opera to Safari, Safari to
Firefox, Firefox to Opera, Opera back to Firefox and now Firefox to Opera
11.5. Chrome is one browser that I'm not interested in making my Go To list
for a number of reasons.

I'm becoming more happy with Dragonfly. I do wish that a color picker option
existed outside of it though. I don't need or want widgets. Extensions for me
are nice. Just a ruler and tweet button give me all that I need though - color
picker would be nice.

I do believe that polishing the UI will help overall. I like the more
minimalistic approach of 11.5 and the ability to fine tune so much (always an
Opera feature). I think I will hang around Opera for awhile since I've added
mini to iOS too and see how it can make life easier for me with the links
syncing feature. However, there are many areas that would be certainly benefit
from some UI and UE attention.

------
grotos
I think users are not interested in widgets and unite. The newest opera unite
application was realesed in may 2011
(<http://unite.opera.com/application/722/>) whereas there are new extensions
everyday. Of course, API is not updated (vide:
[http://www.opera.com/docs/apis/extensions/windowsandtabsguid...](http://www.opera.com/docs/apis/extensions/windowsandtabsguide/))
In my opinion, Opera focuses too much on creating new things instead of
improving support, especially of google services (eg. G+)

~~~
vetler
Opera has always been wanting to do _more_ with its product, and widgets and
Unite are examples of this, not to mention the Opera Platform (a mobile phone
UI implemented with HTML, CSS and JavaScript, that unfortunately never made it
anywhere). Oh, and BitTorrent, which I just remembered, because you sure don't
see it in the user interface anywhere.

You're not alone thinking Opera has focused too much on creating new things
... internally people have also been thinking and saying this. I remember
people complained regularly about Opera crashing when I worked there, although
I personally have never had much problems with stability.

The lack of polish on the desktop version could also be because they have been
putting a lot more resources on the mobile version ... after all, they bring
in a lot more money. Opera is also a lot more successful in the mobile market,
as the original article mentions. Opera Mobile is a great product, and Opera
Mini is just amazing.

~~~
grotos
Do you think if it is possible that Opera could do some cleanup of its product
lines? There were some successful things, such as Opera Mail client. But there
is a lot of unused gadgets. It would be great if Opera had some statistics
about usage of specific features. I personally don't know anyone using
bittorent, widgets, unite. (I'm from Poland, Opera is quite popular here)

~~~
vetler
There was a project on collecting usage statistics, but I don't know what the
current status is, or how the data was used. I doubt the features you mention
will disappear anytime soon, that would probably be seen as a little too
drastic.

Opera probably still wants to push the browser as a platform, especially on
devices (<http://www.opera.com/business/devices/>), and widgets and Unite are
important for this.

------
lovamova
Opera should do an OS like Chrome OS. Opera Unite will work well on such OS
and they will also start making direct contact with hardware manufactures
which will bring more polish to the browser.

------
jorangreef
Sometimes a company gets so focused on innovation that the developers are put
on an "innovation-drip" to the exclusion of service. A symptom of this is
when, in the name of innovation, a hundred open bug tickets are ignored
because they relate to short-term issues rather than visionary strategic
plans. Yet true visionaries are short-sighted in nature, they see one day at a
time and they fix whatever is at hand to be fixed.

------
rch
Opera is one of the few applications that I am consistently happy with - and I
don't limit my comparison to just other browsers. But I don't like the
comparative dialog in general, so here's a few things that impress me:

\-- Having the panel toggle set to the left edge of the screen is absolutely
perfect. If I were to transplant one feature from Opera to Eclipse, for
instance, that would be it.

\-- Also, being able to set the tab cycle order (for alt-tab and when closing)
is indispensable. Having to cycle in tab-bar order feels downright archaic.

\-- The little features, like having notes sync between machines via opera
link and integrated bit torrent, are similarly difficult to imagine going
without.

There's plenty more...

------
nomdeplume
I've tried Opera a couple of times but keep coming back to Firefox. Firefox
has a much larger extensions library; the UI is more intuitive IMO (I found it
a pain to bookmark with Opera. For some reason, Opera seemed to render better-
looking pages but there was nothing there that justified switching over from
Firefox.

------
dkrich
I remember a while back I was doing some browser testing in Opera and images
resized in CSS were completely destroyed. This was probably two years ago. It
seems that they have since sorted that out, but that alone turned me off
enough to go to Chrome and never look back.

