How "free" is Opera?

--On September 24, 2005 10:36:57 PM -0700 Edward Reid <edwardpaleo.org>
wrote:

> Personally I have qualms about this, because it means that Opera Software
> is now beholden to Google and the other, unnamed "search and service
> partners" rather than to the end user.
>
> http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/show.dml/22892
> http://www.newsweb.no/index.asp?melding_ID=113673

I believe Mozilla also receives money from searches done through the Google
search window in it's browsers. Not sure about Apple.

<http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39189475,00.htm>

If you do a search in Camino or Firefox you'll see the url includes some
extra varaiables. I believe the sourceid is the identifier as to who gets
money for that search. Firefox, but not Camino, has a variable rls (set to
org.mozilla:en-US:official) not sure what that stands for, although from
the format I'd guess either reverse lookup something, or something language
something.

Safari doesn't have either of those identifiers, it only has a client
variable (Firefox has a client variable too, but Camino doesn't) so I'm not
sure Apple makes money off of Safari searches.

Kevin

If Opera being "beholden" to Google, etc. bothers you, I presume you are also similarly disturbed, and have been for your entire life, by the broadcast TV networks being "beholden" to ad agencies representing Proctor & Gamble and every other consumer products company in existence. Opera is simply saying that they are advertiser-supported (as the earlier "free" version was).

Do you ONLY watch HBO and other pay channels, and avoid all others? Have you stopped going to the movies entirely, now that the theater owners are "beholden" to advertising as well?

At 10:31 AM 09/25/2005 -0700, you.send.me wrote:
>If Opera being "beholden" to Google, etc. bothers you, I presume you are
>also similarly disturbed, and have been for your entire life, by the
>broadcast TV networks being "beholden" to ad agencies representing Proctor
>& Gamble and every other consumer products company in existence. Opera is
>simply saying that they are advertiser-supported (as the earlier "free"
>version was).

The difference is that with TV etc the advertising support is explicit. By
contrast, probably 99% or more of Opera users will have no idea that it's
supported by advertising. Though Glenn's note wasn't clear on this, it
appeared that even he was unaware of the new revenue model. The changes can
be subtle -- it will be interesting to see if Opera retains the ease of
enabling and disabling image display, animation, plug-ins, and Java, which
is far easier in Opera than in any other browser I've seen.

But yes, I have qualms about the conflict of interest in TV, magazines,
newspapers. Doesn't mean I always avoid them. I have qualms about a lot of
things that I participate in nonetheless, often because I think my
participation will improve the overall system. Life is complex. Often
making conflicts explicit is the best way to handle them, and that's what I
did here.

>Do you ONLY watch HBO and other pay channels, and avoid all others?

I don't watch TV.

>Have you stopped going to the movies entirely, now that the theater owners
>are "beholden" to advertising as well?

See above. In any case, I went to two movies last week and didn't see any
advertising except for other movies (trailers) and the theater itself. And
now that you mention it, movie theaters have always depended on advertising
to some extent, even when it was only to advertise upcoming movies.

Making conflicts explicit is generally a better way to deal with them than
trying to make life perfect. The former has a chance of helping us; the
latter is a waste of effort.

Edward
Art Works by Melynda Reid: http://paleo.org

--On September 26, 2005 12:42:47 PM -0700 Edward Reid <edwardpaleo.org>
wrote:

> The difference is that with TV etc the advertising support is explicit. By
> contrast, probably 99% or more of Opera users will have no idea that it's
> supported by advertising. Though Glenn's note wasn't clear on this, it
> appeared that even he was unaware of the new revenue model. The changes
> can
> be subtle -- it will be interesting to see if Opera retains the ease of
> enabling and disabling image display, animation, plug-ins, and Java, which
> is far easier in Opera than in any other browser I've seen.

Opera's current business model is along the lines of product placement in
retail stores. Manufacturers will pay for product placement on the eye
level shelves and the end-cap displays. I know Microsoft pays Apple a fee
for prominent display of Mac Office in the Apple stores (I was the only
person in the store once when they had to do their verification that X
number of boxes were on display around the Genius bar and the display
computers. It was entertaining. I also found out the employee game of the
week was to see who scored highest on the Sponge Bob typing game.)

Google isn't paying for advertising so much as it's paying Opera to be the
default search engine (is it possible to change this default? I know you
can in Mozilla). It's paying for traffic. Google probably considers
encouraging a variety of free browsers to be another pin-prick in the
Microsoft dinosaur.

Should they be more upfront about it? Not sure, perhaps I'm jaded but this
doesn't bother me that much.

Kevin

probably 99% or more of Opera users will have no idea that it's supported by advertising

I think I'd prefer it if while watching television, reading newspapers and magazines and driving down streets and freeways I too had "no idea" there was any advertising. Invisible advertising sounds like a godsend. It might even be mistaken for no advertising at all!

The main concern seems to be that features which aren't in the advertisers' interests (pop-up blockers, ad blockers, and others less obvious) may be removed from Opera. If that happens Opera will probably lose users--who no doubt will turn to Firefox or other alternatives. As long as the Internet itself is built on open standards, then there most likely will always be available to end users some variant of a free client for access.

I didn't like the earlier "free" Opera, with all its [visible] advertising. The new "free" Opera looks cleaner, doesn't distract me from browsing, and if there is advertising I suppose I could avoid it by not using it for search. But when I tried to search directly on the web I'd find waiting for me... advertising!

On Sep 27, 2005, at 3:32 PM, Kevin van Haaren wrote:

> Google isn't paying for advertising so much as it's paying Opera to
> be the
> default search engine (is it possible to change this default?
> Should they be more upfront about it? Not sure, perhaps I'm jaded
> but this
> doesn't bother me that much.
>

I certainly didn't believe that the Opera folks were suddenly cutting
off their revenue stream, after 10+ years of being a pay-for (or
annoying-banner) product. So their being paid by Google doesn't
bother me. Opera not being paid by me also doesn't bother me.

   --John (who has the new free Opera but hasn't done anything with it)

On Sep 27, 2005, at 6:32 PM, you.send.me wrote:

> probably 99% or more of Opera users will have no idea that it's
> supported by advertising

And they also won't realize that the eBay and Amazon search tools
that are built in aren't free services either. Opera gets a small %
of the sales, and these arrangements have been in place for a few
years. But now that the ostensibly ad free browsers are being given
away at no cost, the potential to increase affiliate sales will grow
if the number of people who use Opera increases.

And if this source is to be believed (and I'm rather dubious that it
is entirely accurate), Firefox is bringing in about $30 million per
year from it's Google search box:

http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2005/06/07/firefox_foxy_cash_cow.html

  Though Opera's user base is much smaller, they do have a majority
share of market in a few countries, and even if the number quoted is
really smaller, Opera stands to gain a lot of revenue by giving the
ad free browser away.

BTW, I wonder how much Apple makes from the Google search in Safari?

Marilyn