11 ms·
Facebook To Buy Opera? Maybe.
- mathetic 14y agoOne billion dollar? I don't think so.
- arkitaip 14y agoAgree, it should be more.
- chucknelson 14y agoI didn't see any purchase price mentioned, but would you be surprised? Billion is the new Million!
- deno 14y agoCalled it first! Or whatever… :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4021065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4021065
- stfu 14y agoI have been an Opera user for many years and truly love this browser. Somehow I can't see myself using a piece of software that is controlled by Facebook - ever.
- deno 14y agoThe same could be said about Chrome. As long as there’s Operium to Google’s Chromium, I see absolutely no problem.
- stfu 14y agoTherefore they would have to go open source first. I have my doubts that Facebook would pay top dollar just to open source the software. On the other hand that might be a move to put the current user base in a merciful mood, as the userbase is probably the least likely aspect they are interested in for that takeover.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deno 14y ago> I have my doubts that Facebook would pay top dollar just to open source the software. They wouldn’t buy it just to open source it. Facebook will buy Opera for its own strategic reasons, and they will open source it only because it’s the optimal model for them to develop this kind of project. They already open source bunch of stuff. They have the culture and the know-how.
- SkyMarshal 14y ago> and they will open source it only because it’s the optimal model for them to develop this kind of project. Why would that be? Opera already has a very optimal closed source development model.
- deno 14y agoOpera Software ASA’s product is Opera Web Browser. Facebook wouldn’t buy Opera to continue making money on licensing. And we know that Facebook uses Open Source model for developing things they don’t profit directly from[1]. It also makes everyone more easy about the privacy issues etc. The question really is, why wouldn’t they open source it? The have plenty to benefit from and nothing to lose. [1] https://developers.facebook.com/opensource/ https://developers.facebook.com/opensource/
- gcp 14y agoFacebook wouldn’t buy Opera to continue making money on licensing. Opera makes quite some money on advertising, by channeling traffic into Google.
- SkyMarshal 14y ago> and they will open source it only because it’s the optimal model for them to develop this kind of project. Why would that be? Opera already has a very optimal closed source development model.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- skylan_q 14y agoI believe I speak for every web surfer when I read this headline and say "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
- bard 14y agoI've used Opera for about ten years and have never wanted to switch. If Facebook bought it, though, I would drop it instantly. No guilt, either!
- tbundy 14y agoInterestingly I look at this news in almost the opposite way! I used Opera desktop for something like 10 years too. When I moved to Chrome (maybe 3 years ago?) I was like, "ah, this is what these websites are supposed to be like". I was actually quite sad to say goodbye and I still miss a lot of the features (sidebar!), but it always struck me that Opera was living in a bit of a dreamland where they just hoped the web was 100% standards compliant. Admirable, but unfortunately (in the short term at least) users suffered because so many sites just didn't quite work. This may have improved since I jumped ship. If a major company could give Opera the resources to catch up to Chrome in that area, then I'd be excited for the potential to create a comprehensively market leading browser.
- excuse-me 14y agoIs that a problem anymore? I haven't really noticed any site that had serious issues in Opera (or chrome) - even my bank now works. The only site with any problems is my Outlook Web Access and that only works full in IE.
- SCdF 14y agoIn terms of Opera users not being allowed into sites: mostly just experimental "Look at what we can do with random vendor extensions we've decided to call HTML5 today". In terms of performance though, Opera has some weird issues. Try to go to theverge.com and scroll.. it's not pretty.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- naner 14y agoOpera Software also owns Fastmail.fm and AdMarvel. It would be kind of sad to see Fastmail go to Facebook. Though I doubt there's much truth to this rumor.
- wib 14y agoNo way I'd renew my paid Fastmail.fm account if Facebook buys the company.
- Auguste 14y agoAgreed. If Facebook acquires Opera, I'm out of there. I'm quite fond of Fastmail, so I'm really hoping this is just a rumour.
- minikites 14y agoI agree. If this is true, hopefully they leave Fastmail alone.
- WiseWeasel 14y agoOuch, had no idea Opera owned Fastmail. Here are a few more paid accounts which would not be renewed.
- bsg75 14y agoIs Fastmail a reliable provider? Ties to Opera might give it a measure of "perceived quality". I don't mind paying a few $ for a decent service, not tied to Yahoo, Google, or Microsoft.
- WiseWeasel 14y agoI've been using them for 10+ years, with no complaints. Their webmail is good, never any problems with their IMAP, a bunch of domains to choose from for their free accounts, and relatively cheap paid plans with decent quotas. Plus, they don't read my mail to sell me ads like Gmail does.
- 14y ago
- amitamb 14y agoI bet something similar is going to happen sooner than later. But what is stopping Facebook from forking Chromium(/Webkit) for their own use? Or for that matter even Mozilla might be open for partnership.
- deno 14y agoWith Chrome Google added some real value to Webkit (V8, sandboxing, etc.), and in the process they created a unique product. Just forking Chromium will make it look like Oracle’s Unbreakable Enterprise Linux, i.e. a cheap knockoff of Redhat. If Facebook wants to enter the game they need something more. At that point doing new frontend for Webkit from scratch is probably not going to be any cheaper than buying Opera. And they’d need to hire people to do that, which buying Opera would also solve.
- krrrh 14y ago> At that point doing new frontend for Webkit from scratch is probably not going to be any cheaper than buying Opera The article notes that Opera's current estimated market cap is $670M, which is a lot of money for a browser frontend. I think it's more likely that they want to lock-in the feature phone user base.
- Aqwis 14y agoIt's not just a browser front-end, it's also a browser engine. If they acquired Opera and pushed it to increase its market share Facebook could gain a lot of influence on HTML and the adoption of web technologies.
- gcp 14y agoThis would actually be an awesome outcome. A bigger Opera marketshare, particularly if they eat into Webkit's, would mean that there will be stronger pressure to keep web development standards compliant. I'm not sure it would promote the standards itself faster though. At least the WebKit side (Apple, Google), has like the exact opposite incentives for that to happen. The Facebook-Opera push would have to be quite hard.
- markessien 14y agoIt would be strategically important to their growth. Opera Mini is the #1 browser in many developing countries, particularly in Africa and South East Asia. These are the regions that are also showing the most growth (and have the most potential) of new people coming online. If facebook dominates both the mobile browser and the top site in all of these countries, then for newly arriving users, facebook will be the internet. It will be their first experience, and it's where they will feel most comfortable (like AOL was back in the day). Facebook understands the importance of mobile. If you view fb timeline on your phone, it looks great. Facebook have made the transition to the mobile web already - because mobile will be the dominant entertainment consuming screen in the future.
- ajross 14y agoSurely Opera has that position because those markets are dominated by the cheaper "feature phones" that don't run iOS or Android. That's not a tenable market share: as real platforms push down into the commidity price range, so will Mobile Safari and Chrome for Android. Is Opera actually winning against "real" browsers anywhere it's competing in a browser-choice-based environment?
- markessien 14y agoFeature phones will continue to exist as a cheaper alternative to expensive phones, but they just become more 'featured'. Don't forget that they have a much smaller screen, and chrome/safari may not want to accomodate the huge diversity of screen sizes and platforms out there. Opera has been doing it. In the software game, there is no point planning 10 years ahead. 10 years ago, software was very different from now. But 5 years from now, there will still be feature phones and africa/se asia will continue to be growing. Facebook would have purchased the basic platforms it needs for future software, and would be in a good position for whatever comes next.
- ajross 14y agoI'm not sure I follow the logic. Why will they have "feature phones" and not, say, cheap Android phones (maybe a cost-reduced Galaxy S, for example)? Obviously developing markets will always desire cheaper devices. But that's not the same thing as saying they don't desire the standard platforms. They just haven't had the choice yet, because the platforms have been evolving too quickly and aren't workable on the hardware available.
- mtkd 14y agoImpatient acquisitions when stressed to try and fix numbers/strategy can make any issues 10x worse down the line. Better to do nothing for 3 months. Take some time out of the office and do some deep thinking.
- robin_reala 14y agoMakes sense. Facebook’s next expansion is going to be developing markets. These are heavily invested in mobile internet, and the way you access the internet on low-end mobiles is Opera Mini. They have a very large group of potential customers and the wherewithal to buy access to them.
- WiseWeasel 14y agoAs a web developer, it's been great not having to worry about supporting/testing with Opera's rendering engine, (or simply another rendering engine, nothing against Opera in particular) thanks to its low market share. I hope this doesn't mean I have to start testing with yet another browser. Can't FB use Webkit like everyone else?
- Zirro 14y agoHaving around three-four rendering engines on the market is a good thing, they each separately fuel development of new standards and other projects. We don't want Webkit to become the new IE6.
- mibbitier 14y agoWebkit is open, and actively developed. IE6 was closed, and laid stagnant for years.
- gcp 14y agoWebkit by itself can't fuel the development of new standards. You need several competing parties for that.
- WiseWeasel 14y agoHow does FB buying Opera change the number of rendering engines on the market? As a user, I wouldn't touch FB Opera with a 10-foot pole, but I do at least consider using Opera as the product of an independent company.
- pcwalton 14y agoI think your proposed cure (a rendering engine monoculture) is worse than the disease (having to test in multiple engines).
- WiseWeasel 14y agoI'm not saying it would be good for humanity or anything; I'm just saying I'm lazy and content with not supporting Opera.
- zvrba 14y agoNoooo! But if it happens, I'll have an excuse for trying IE once more.
- tfb 14y agoWhy not Chrome, Safari, or Firefox?
- zvrba 14y agoFirefox = bloat and I don't like it. Safari is affiliated with Apple and I won't touch products of a company whose products and way of running business are antithesis to openness, freedom and hacker culture. Chrome.. no special reason. I don't particularly like it, nothing I could point the finger at, but.. blah. Is there a way of disabling plugins in Chrome, as in: a placeholder is displayed on the page and the plugin is activated when I click the placeholder? IE, on the other hand, has "suggested sites" feature which I'd like to test more. Maybe it helps me with discovering some new content on the net.
- duaneb 14y ago> Is there a way of disabling plugins in Chrome, as in: a placeholder is displayed on the page and the plugin is activated when I click the placeholder? Yes, I use this all the time. it's built into the browser.
- ivanbernat 14y agoIt's not bloat that moved me away from FF, it's their lack of HTML5 video support on Mac, which makes it completely utterly useless.
- gcp 14y agoTo this I can only say "Huh"? Or do you mean they don't bundle patented codecs like H264? They support HTML5 video just fine AFAIK.
- wickedchicken 14y ago
- smashing 14y agoThis reminds me of when Palm bought Be Inc. Everyone thought Palm would start using BeOS instead of Palm OS 5, but really Palm just wanted the patents. So my guess here is, if Facebook really does make a purchase, it will to acquire intellectual property as either patents or evidence of "prior art".
- deno 14y agoFacebook doesn’t have a browser already. They don’t need patents. Your analogy works if you replace Facebook with Google.
- smashing 14y agoI think it is becoming increasing clear, especially with the Yahoo patent suit, that Facebook desperately needs a patent portfolio. Additionally, what makes you so certain Facebook doesn't needs patents? Please, explain.
- mike-cardwell 14y agoGreat. That's exactly what the World needs. Another browser controlled by an Advertising company.
- flexeble 14y agoLet’s face® it the company behind Opera could use the money that this purported acquisition would bring. Facebook on the other hand could use Opera to build a better user experience on the holy grail of social media engament, mobile!
- damoncali 14y agoCan you imagine the privacy issues of Facebook owning a browser? I'd be afraid to install the damn thing. Edit: For those who point out Google, I would argue that Google has demonstrated only a desire to show me ads (which I actually like). Facebook has demonstrated a desire to show everyone everything.
- forgotusername 14y agoAfter all, none of the other data-hungry vendors address bars behave exactly like a keylogger (cough Chrome)
- esrauch 14y agoThe omnibox gets autocomplete recommendations which is a very useful feature, how do you expect they could get autocomplete recommendations without sending the prefix to the server? You can also easily disable the feature in settings, it's even right on the front of settings not buried. Edit: Also if you change your default search engine to Bing, then Chrome is behaving as a keylogger for Microsoft by your definition.
- gcp 14y agoThe feature as written indeed can't work without sending every keystroke. That doesn't mean it's any less intrusive. I'd even dare say it was probably not accidentally designed that way.
- 14y ago
- rjsamson 14y agoHere's the source link for those of you not wantint to give TNW pageviews: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/45795/facebook-browser-opera-software-buyout http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/45795/facebook-browser-opera...
- robinwauters 14y agoWe have our own sources on top of what Pocket-lint reports, for what it's worth.
- melvinmt 14y ago> Its market cap currently hovers around $670 million Ah, should be a piece of cake right? Mark simply needs to bid $1 bn overnight.
- rch 14y agoThough obviously impossible, I'd prefer it if Opera were to purchase Yahoo.
- cpeterso 14y agoI'm surprised Facebook has not acquired RockMelt. Like Instagram, Marc Andreessen is an investor in both companies. From Day 1, RockMelt seemed like its business plan was "Get acquired by Facebook." Presumably Facebook is more interested in Opera's mobile browsers and users.
- Achshar 14y agoMaybe because opera's market share and reputation is alot better than rocklmelt?
- eblackburn 14y ago- Access mandated via FB connect - Mini (proxy) allow integration between opt in site on FB platform via http headers? - Proxy sniffs traffic and gets a hi-fi profile of users. Super targeted advertising, avoiding cookies. - Emerging markets; FB account is used to transfer money, for those without bank accounts.
- nextparadigms 14y agoFacebook will ruin Opera if they buy it.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Rudism 14y agoI stopped using Facebook around a year ago due to the crazy privacy issues. Just recently (as in days ago) I also switched from using Google Apps for my email to FastMail.fm for the same reason. If Facebook buys Opera (who own FastMail.fm), I might as well just quit the Internet.
- zobzu 14y agoWhat about lynx, links, w3m you insensitive clod?! Or you know, just Firefox. Not cool enough for you? The above 3 are very trendy.
- marekmroz 14y agoI think you missed the OP's point. He was complaining about email provider/service, and you gave web browser alternatives...
- GeneralMaximus 14y agoFWIW, Rackspace has paid email plans. So do some other large web hosts. If push comes to shove, you could always host your own.
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoI tried this not too long ago and gave up. You need 6 or 7 different daemons running, most of which give very little in terms of debugging information. You actually need a decent sized VM to host everything needing to run.
- Rudism 14y agoI've also become heavily reliant on a decent webmail interface and good spam filtering, which create additional layers of complexity. I'd really rather just pay a reputable company to do all that stuff for me. Basically I want gmail but without all the evilness.
- mossplix 14y agohow hard would it be to build their own on top of webkit?
- drivebyacct2 14y agoAre headlines that ask and answer questions dumb? Yes.
- Flow 14y agoI wonder when we instead of having incognito modes have separate sandboxes per domain. Say one domain that only have data from facebook.com and is only reachable if you are actually visiting facebook.com. Yes, this will make the web less hyper, but right now some behaviors is out of control for the user.
- dredmorbius 14y agoThat's a discussion I'd really like to see expanded. There are various sandboxing models out there, none of which really suitably address my privacy concerns. And most of which will break large portions of the transactional Web as it exists today (that is: websites which interact with other systems, and/or specifically transact commerce). Of course, there's little to pushing the data sharing from the client to the server either. This is a fluid in a balloon. It tends to spill out elsewhere when squeezed in any given spot.
- kijin 14y agoSeparate sandboxes per domain sounds a bit extreme. A lot of websites are made up of content from different domains, like images pulled from CDNs. Whitelisting each of them would be an even bigger headache than managing NoScript. What I'd like to see in the short term is per-tab isolation. If I'm logged into Google/Facebook/etc in one tab and browse other sites in another tab, I want to have the ability to prevent the second tab from knowing which user I'm logged into in the first tab. This could also solve a lot of CSRF problems. Unfortunately, Firefox -- the only browser that is likely to support such behavior either as a built-in feature or as an add-on -- doesn't even run tabs in separate processes. One tab freezes, the whole browser freezes. Urgh.
- harrylove 14y agoFacebook: The Opera. Sounds about right. And then create an off-Broadway play and they've hit the trifecta. Do you know what's coooooooooooool? Coo-hoo-hoo, hoo-hoo-hoo, hoo-hoo-hooooooollll-ah?
- metatronscube 14y agoThe browser wars appear to be heating up again. Its happened before and will no doubt happen again. I think this will be a bad thing because I could see each browser becoming a weapon to control privacy and the Internet in the way they see fit. Imagine installing a browser that forces you to have a facebook account! and facebook logins for websites all over the place. yikes.
- dm8 14y agoI like Opera. It needs some serious design love. It would be great if FB's all-star design team do overhaul of design if they buy Opera
- g8oz 14y agoIt would be a great ending for a brave little company. For the company, not its users.