December 21, 2009 at 7:32 Low genre. Operetta - when opera fails
And again I publish an article by kiosov , who again cannot publish it himself for “known reasons,” but this time the reasons are much more serious.
The article will not help him anymore, so there is nowhere to send “thanks”, but (despite all our past disagreements with kiosov ) I considered it competent enough andflameogonous enough to be published, although I myself do not agree with some points (I will comment below). So the article:
Elephants, in fact, feel sorry - it’s unpleasant when you are surrounded by pugs who are stuck in their state of eternally barking and shattering creatures. Maybe the elephants are already used to this state of affairs and they don’t give a damn about it, or maybe they perceive it as an integral part of their existence. But from the point of view of an outside observer, they are sorry. Especially when the observed attacks are hypocritical nowhere else.
Some time ago, the Norwegian company Opera, the creator of the web browser of the same name, filed a clause with the European Commission on Microsoft, the creator of the Internet Explorer web browser, as a result of which the latter was obliged in the European version of its operating system to provide the user with a choice of a number of the most popular browsers. All the action took place under the hypocritical auspices of the fight against the monopoly and concern for users. But more on that later. First, let's plunge into history.
Opera, like its product of the same name, has been on the market for many years (since the late 90s of the last century). She is about the same age as another competitor - the Mozilla Corporation Firefox browser. At the same time, not only was Opera's product not distinguished by quality, it was also sold for money. While all of its competitors spread freely. After some time, direct payment was replaced by banner advertising. Is there any need to explain why the company’s popularity had only to be dreamed of. This did not concern only the post-Soviet space, where traditionally they did not have any respect for copyright - they hacked the Opera, cut out banner ads (that is, from our market, despite the fact that the popularity of the browser was growing here, the company did not get a penny). But this market occupies a ridiculous share of the world’s Internet. Although, of course, the fanatics of the Opera do not think so (20% seem to be a big figure, after which
I don’t want to notice anything, especially I don’t want to notice that these 20% are not from the total number, but from a small fraction). But this is lyrics. The main thing is that Opera sold its browser when other manufacturers of similar products distributed them for free - what did Norwegian marketers think about, what did they expect? The riddle.
As time went. The market share of Opera browser has not changed significantly. Even after the harsh Scandinavian guys began to distribute their product freely. Which is not surprising - after all, there was still quality that site development specialists in the process of testing code
under this browser it infuriated worse than the “donkey” of versions 5 and 6 that prevailed then, occupying a total of 90% of the market. Yes, in the days of Internet Explorer versions 5 and 6, Microsoft had a monopoly in the browser market. Just a moment - when was this monopoly and when was the complaint filed? And what was the complaint filed against?
So, Opera is trying to convince us that Microsoft, taking advantage of its monopoly position in the market of operating systems (!), Is promoting its browser (!), Preventing fair competition. This is a lie. And where is the market for operating systems, when in fact it comes to the market for other products - web browsers? These are different products and different markets. At the time of the Opera’s clause, Microsoft’s browser did not have a monopoly - moreover, it lost it long before this clause (and continues to lose, which results in Microsoft’s desperate attempts to regain user loyalty by restoring order in its browser). And he lost this monopoly in the fight against Firefox, which, for some reason, the monopoly position of the operating system Windows in the market of operating systems did not prevent him from successfully competing with the Internet Explorer browser in the browser market.
Or maybe Microsoft forbade installing third-party browsers on its operating systems? Nothing like this. Users chose and set what was more satisfying to them. Those who needed it. The problems of the Opera browser are not in the Microsoft operating system and its position in the market of operating systems, but in the fact that Opera is not able to launch a high-quality and attractive product that can compete with analogues in civilized ways (that is, on its own, without resorting to the help of politicians). And unable to provide this product with effective marketing.
Further, Opera, in the person of its Russian representatives, in the best traditions of the Russian public relations PR generously and loudly scatters the slogans in IT blocs: “Users won as a result of the European Commission’s trial against Microsoft!” Yeah, users won. You might think this was a user initiative. It was they who complained to the teacher about the bully-peer, who does not give them access. Users did not win - they used users and covered themselves to solve their own mercantile corporate interests, to which neither open web standards, nor progress are related (Opera has never been famous for this, unlike Firefox, so it successfully competes with Internet Explorer despite the monopoly of Windows in the operating system market). Opera by such positioning of "success" simply shifts responsibility to users, both for its own step and for the decision of the European Commission - no more, no less. “It's not us, it's users.”
Users (thank heaven, not everything - the European Commission’s decision will concern only the European version of Windows) have acquired hemorrhoids in the form of the need to make meaningless choices for many, which it will be difficult for them to make, because they do not have sufficient qualifications for it (see www.youtube.com/ watch? v = o4MwTvtyrUQ) True, they will come to the aid of computer manufacturers who, pre-installing Windows on their hardware, will immediately put what is familiar to most, namely Internet Explorer, because it is familiar to users and is a product of the same company as the operating system. Who will fall for the bumps in case of problems with the Opera browser that the user selected when installing the Windows system from Microsoft? A user in search of support will rush between the computer manufacturer, Microsoft (the manufacturer of the operating system) and the manufacturer of the Opera. Although he does not have to know what a browser is, he just needs the Internet in his Windows. And he just chose the first one he got (or liked anything,
“This decision can be called a victory for open web standards that are necessary for the further development of the Internet and future innovations on the Web,” Opera tells us. This is a lie. Microsoft did not interfere with anything: it did not interfere with the development of other products and did not prevent their developers from communicating their own products to users along with their advantages. We look at Firefox, the peer of the Opera, which ate its 30% of the market - the monopoly of the Windows operating system (which has nothing to do with web standards, like the rest of the operating systems, is a completely different market). Moreover, the competition of Firefox and the rapid loss of audience forced Microsoft to take up their browser and turn to face the same open web standards. Where was Opera at that moment? She had as much time as Firefox. Moreover, as the Opera browser is inferior to its competitors, it makes sense to take care of web standards and innovations on the Web when your product is inferior to all competitors. It's time to beat the bells and complain to the European Commission, when there is no ability to do well, but you want a market share.
Well, there is also ethics, which is not the place in business. Only this depends, of course, on. When Microsoft takes dubious steps, it’s bad. When Opera has been messing around at every step in its own marketing (if you can call it that at all) for many years, it’s quite kosher and Orthodox to point a finger at a neighbor and say “it's not me, it's him!”, While you yourself and put in his own pants. All the same, you can hide behind users in the end: they say that is their victory. But here the ethical point in general is different - how can the manufacturer of product X be obliged to promote someone else’s product Y? Who should promote their own product? Can calculator developers now complain to Microsoft that they, taking advantage of the monopoly position of their operating system, promote your own calculator? This is generally some enchanting nonsense, which can only be explained by the commitment of the European Commission, which protects (only ridiculously) the interests of the European manufacturer in the competition with overseas manufacturers. And Microsoft (Internet Explorer), and Mozilla Corporation (Firefox), and Apple (Safari), and Google (Chrome) - all competitors of Opera from the United States. And this protected manufacturer is not at all capable of releasing a competitive product (into something digestible, with large and Google (Chrome) are all US rivals. And this protected manufacturer is not at all capable of releasing a competitive product (into something digestible, with large and Google (Chrome) are all US rivals. And this protected manufacturer is not at all capable of releasing a competitive product (into something digestible, with large
reservations, which turned only 10 years later to version 10), nor promote it on the market on its own. And how can one make such a decision when there is an example of Firefox in front of my eyes that clearly demonstrates the insolvency of Opera’s complaints - the exclusive position of the operating system cannot prevent the browser from competing in the browser market.
The article will not help him anymore, so there is nowhere to send “thanks”, but (despite all our past disagreements with kiosov ) I considered it competent enough and
Elephants, in fact, feel sorry - it’s unpleasant when you are surrounded by pugs who are stuck in their state of eternally barking and shattering creatures. Maybe the elephants are already used to this state of affairs and they don’t give a damn about it, or maybe they perceive it as an integral part of their existence. But from the point of view of an outside observer, they are sorry. Especially when the observed attacks are hypocritical nowhere else.
Some time ago, the Norwegian company Opera, the creator of the web browser of the same name, filed a clause with the European Commission on Microsoft, the creator of the Internet Explorer web browser, as a result of which the latter was obliged in the European version of its operating system to provide the user with a choice of a number of the most popular browsers. All the action took place under the hypocritical auspices of the fight against the monopoly and concern for users. But more on that later. First, let's plunge into history.
Opera, like its product of the same name, has been on the market for many years (since the late 90s of the last century). She is about the same age as another competitor - the Mozilla Corporation Firefox browser. At the same time, not only was Opera's product not distinguished by quality, it was also sold for money. While all of its competitors spread freely. After some time, direct payment was replaced by banner advertising. Is there any need to explain why the company’s popularity had only to be dreamed of. This did not concern only the post-Soviet space, where traditionally they did not have any respect for copyright - they hacked the Opera, cut out banner ads (that is, from our market, despite the fact that the popularity of the browser was growing here, the company did not get a penny). But this market occupies a ridiculous share of the world’s Internet. Although, of course, the fanatics of the Opera do not think so (20% seem to be a big figure, after which
I don’t want to notice anything, especially I don’t want to notice that these 20% are not from the total number, but from a small fraction). But this is lyrics. The main thing is that Opera sold its browser when other manufacturers of similar products distributed them for free - what did Norwegian marketers think about, what did they expect? The riddle.
As time went. The market share of Opera browser has not changed significantly. Even after the harsh Scandinavian guys began to distribute their product freely. Which is not surprising - after all, there was still quality that site development specialists in the process of testing code
under this browser it infuriated worse than the “donkey” of versions 5 and 6 that prevailed then, occupying a total of 90% of the market. Yes, in the days of Internet Explorer versions 5 and 6, Microsoft had a monopoly in the browser market. Just a moment - when was this monopoly and when was the complaint filed? And what was the complaint filed against?
So, Opera is trying to convince us that Microsoft, taking advantage of its monopoly position in the market of operating systems (!), Is promoting its browser (!), Preventing fair competition. This is a lie. And where is the market for operating systems, when in fact it comes to the market for other products - web browsers? These are different products and different markets. At the time of the Opera’s clause, Microsoft’s browser did not have a monopoly - moreover, it lost it long before this clause (and continues to lose, which results in Microsoft’s desperate attempts to regain user loyalty by restoring order in its browser). And he lost this monopoly in the fight against Firefox, which, for some reason, the monopoly position of the operating system Windows in the market of operating systems did not prevent him from successfully competing with the Internet Explorer browser in the browser market.
Or maybe Microsoft forbade installing third-party browsers on its operating systems? Nothing like this. Users chose and set what was more satisfying to them. Those who needed it. The problems of the Opera browser are not in the Microsoft operating system and its position in the market of operating systems, but in the fact that Opera is not able to launch a high-quality and attractive product that can compete with analogues in civilized ways (that is, on its own, without resorting to the help of politicians). And unable to provide this product with effective marketing.
Further, Opera, in the person of its Russian representatives, in the best traditions of the Russian public relations PR generously and loudly scatters the slogans in IT blocs: “Users won as a result of the European Commission’s trial against Microsoft!” Yeah, users won. You might think this was a user initiative. It was they who complained to the teacher about the bully-peer, who does not give them access. Users did not win - they used users and covered themselves to solve their own mercantile corporate interests, to which neither open web standards, nor progress are related (Opera has never been famous for this, unlike Firefox, so it successfully competes with Internet Explorer despite the monopoly of Windows in the operating system market). Opera by such positioning of "success" simply shifts responsibility to users, both for its own step and for the decision of the European Commission - no more, no less. “It's not us, it's users.”
Users (thank heaven, not everything - the European Commission’s decision will concern only the European version of Windows) have acquired hemorrhoids in the form of the need to make meaningless choices for many, which it will be difficult for them to make, because they do not have sufficient qualifications for it (see www.youtube.com/ watch? v = o4MwTvtyrUQ) True, they will come to the aid of computer manufacturers who, pre-installing Windows on their hardware, will immediately put what is familiar to most, namely Internet Explorer, because it is familiar to users and is a product of the same company as the operating system. Who will fall for the bumps in case of problems with the Opera browser that the user selected when installing the Windows system from Microsoft? A user in search of support will rush between the computer manufacturer, Microsoft (the manufacturer of the operating system) and the manufacturer of the Opera. Although he does not have to know what a browser is, he just needs the Internet in his Windows. And he just chose the first one he got (or liked anything,
“This decision can be called a victory for open web standards that are necessary for the further development of the Internet and future innovations on the Web,” Opera tells us. This is a lie. Microsoft did not interfere with anything: it did not interfere with the development of other products and did not prevent their developers from communicating their own products to users along with their advantages. We look at Firefox, the peer of the Opera, which ate its 30% of the market - the monopoly of the Windows operating system (which has nothing to do with web standards, like the rest of the operating systems, is a completely different market). Moreover, the competition of Firefox and the rapid loss of audience forced Microsoft to take up their browser and turn to face the same open web standards. Where was Opera at that moment? She had as much time as Firefox. Moreover, as the Opera browser is inferior to its competitors, it makes sense to take care of web standards and innovations on the Web when your product is inferior to all competitors. It's time to beat the bells and complain to the European Commission, when there is no ability to do well, but you want a market share.
Well, there is also ethics, which is not the place in business. Only this depends, of course, on. When Microsoft takes dubious steps, it’s bad. When Opera has been messing around at every step in its own marketing (if you can call it that at all) for many years, it’s quite kosher and Orthodox to point a finger at a neighbor and say “it's not me, it's him!”, While you yourself and put in his own pants. All the same, you can hide behind users in the end: they say that is their victory. But here the ethical point in general is different - how can the manufacturer of product X be obliged to promote someone else’s product Y? Who should promote their own product? Can calculator developers now complain to Microsoft that they, taking advantage of the monopoly position of their operating system, promote your own calculator? This is generally some enchanting nonsense, which can only be explained by the commitment of the European Commission, which protects (only ridiculously) the interests of the European manufacturer in the competition with overseas manufacturers. And Microsoft (Internet Explorer), and Mozilla Corporation (Firefox), and Apple (Safari), and Google (Chrome) - all competitors of Opera from the United States. And this protected manufacturer is not at all capable of releasing a competitive product (into something digestible, with large and Google (Chrome) are all US rivals. And this protected manufacturer is not at all capable of releasing a competitive product (into something digestible, with large and Google (Chrome) are all US rivals. And this protected manufacturer is not at all capable of releasing a competitive product (into something digestible, with large
reservations, which turned only 10 years later to version 10), nor promote it on the market on its own. And how can one make such a decision when there is an example of Firefox in front of my eyes that clearly demonstrates the insolvency of Opera’s complaints - the exclusive position of the operating system cannot prevent the browser from competing in the browser market.