4 ms·

It would be strategically important to their growth. Opera Mini is the #1 browser in many developing countries, particularly in Africa and South East Asia. Thes

It 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 ago
Surely 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 ago
  Feature 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 ago
    I'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.
    - nosse 14y ago
      Because feature phones are like mechanical wrist watches. They just don't go away. Personally I'm using only a dumb phone, I think it's going to be at least my daily phone forever. Longer battery life. More durable screen. Mature technology. Cheaper. Lighter and smaller. Faster to call people. You can replace keys if they go broke. Doesn't look nasty if you have greasy fingers. And the bottom line: I don't need anything but sms and calling.
      - ajross 14y ago
        OK, but that's a digression. Clearly some people like feature phones, but most prefer platforms. The discussion was about Opera being able to preserve their market share in a market where people increasingly have access to Android and iOS.
      - kalleboo 14y ago
        Mechanical wrist watches still exist in appreciable numbers because they've become fashion items. Feature phones aren't fashion items. I'm sorry, but in a few years you won't be able to buy a feature phone. Smartphones will get better battery life, screens etc as costs come down (and the third world gets richer) and technology marches on.
        solnyshok 14y ago
        I use opera mini on dual core 1.2Ghz Android with 4" screen because pages load faster on edge mini than on uncompressed 3g. and mini is very good at saving battery for you, which is very important on Android, unless you have a pocket nuclear reactor. and don't forget crappy internet speeds on AT&T because there are too many iphones. so much for real life usability of expensive smartphone in a developed country.
- robin_reala 14y ago
  You forget that Mini is a proxy browser that does a large amount of data compression. When your mobile network is constricted and data locally expensive then you want to use the minimum possible.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Of course. But you're not controlling your variables. The developing markets are "constricted" in precisely the same way that the first world markets were about 6-9 years ago. So they need different hardware and software. Opera was doing very well in the first world markets 6-9 years ago, for exactly that reason. They lost the market almost entirely. So, why would the developing world be any different?
    - roc 14y ago
      The argument was the browser as gateway to Facebook. So it wouldn't matter if the browser was ultimately doomed. As long as those users became Facebook users and stuck with Facebook even after they upgraded to newer phones/browsers. AOL, Compuserve, et al hung in for a very long time, even after people begrudgingly ditched their dialup for broadband, solely because they were so comfortable with AOL from that first experience. Experience suggests it could very well work. I think the bigger question is whether it would be cost-effective. i.e. to what degree would that be effective in capturing social network market share in those regions, is it the most cost-effective way to capture that share, would it be enough to simply pay Opera to 'partner' with Facebook, etc.
    - excuse-me 14y ago
      Opera was doing very well years ago because it was a much better desktop browser than IE or Netscape. It didn't do Turbo than and it declined as Mozilla got it's act together and chrome appeared. Opera is popular in the developing world for an entirely different reason - the Turbo/mini compression - it may lose that market if other browsers also do compression.
  - kristofferR 14y ago
    My experience is actually that 3G service is a lot cheaper in poor countries than in rich countries. They can't overprice it, they wouldn't get any customers then. For example - here in Cambodia I subscribe to a 2GB 3,5G package for just $5 a month. The reception and speed is great in urban areas. However, if you're just talking about extremely poor countries without any 3G service, then you're absolutely correct. There's not too many of them left though, just some countries in Africa and the Middle East. Mobile data is getting cheap incredibly fast and betting a company on providing data compression is stupid. It has worked out well for Opera so far (kudos to them, I'm Norwegian), but continuing to base their income on it is a losing battle. They have to pivot in order to still be relevant and being bought by Facebook is, in my opinion, a good way of doing it.
- protomyth 14y ago
  It might be a while before we get something other than feature phones in the developing markets and the pre-pay market. Pre-pay phones with "Facebook" might be a rather large seller.
mibbitier 14y ago
> "because mobile will be the dominant entertainment consuming screen in the future." I remember hearing that 12 years ago. It won't.

ajross 14y ago

Surely 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 ago
Feature 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 ago
  I'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.
  - nosse 14y ago
    Because feature phones are like mechanical wrist watches. They just don't go away. Personally I'm using only a dumb phone, I think it's going to be at least my daily phone forever. Longer battery life. More durable screen. Mature technology. Cheaper. Lighter and smaller. Faster to call people. You can replace keys if they go broke. Doesn't look nasty if you have greasy fingers. And the bottom line: I don't need anything but sms and calling.
    - ajross 14y ago
      OK, but that's a digression. Clearly some people like feature phones, but most prefer platforms. The discussion was about Opera being able to preserve their market share in a market where people increasingly have access to Android and iOS.
    - kalleboo 14y ago
      Mechanical wrist watches still exist in appreciable numbers because they've become fashion items. Feature phones aren't fashion items. I'm sorry, but in a few years you won't be able to buy a feature phone. Smartphones will get better battery life, screens etc as costs come down (and the third world gets richer) and technology marches on.
      - solnyshok 14y ago
        I use opera mini on dual core 1.2Ghz Android with 4" screen because pages load faster on edge mini than on uncompressed 3g. and mini is very good at saving battery for you, which is very important on Android, unless you have a pocket nuclear reactor. and don't forget crappy internet speeds on AT&T because there are too many iphones. so much for real life usability of expensive smartphone in a developed country.
robin_reala 14y ago
You forget that Mini is a proxy browser that does a large amount of data compression. When your mobile network is constricted and data locally expensive then you want to use the minimum possible.
- ajross 14y ago
  Of course. But you're not controlling your variables. The developing markets are "constricted" in precisely the same way that the first world markets were about 6-9 years ago. So they need different hardware and software. Opera was doing very well in the first world markets 6-9 years ago, for exactly that reason. They lost the market almost entirely. So, why would the developing world be any different?
  - roc 14y ago
    The argument was the browser as gateway to Facebook. So it wouldn't matter if the browser was ultimately doomed. As long as those users became Facebook users and stuck with Facebook even after they upgraded to newer phones/browsers. AOL, Compuserve, et al hung in for a very long time, even after people begrudgingly ditched their dialup for broadband, solely because they were so comfortable with AOL from that first experience. Experience suggests it could very well work. I think the bigger question is whether it would be cost-effective. i.e. to what degree would that be effective in capturing social network market share in those regions, is it the most cost-effective way to capture that share, would it be enough to simply pay Opera to 'partner' with Facebook, etc.
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    Opera was doing very well years ago because it was a much better desktop browser than IE or Netscape. It didn't do Turbo than and it declined as Mozilla got it's act together and chrome appeared. Opera is popular in the developing world for an entirely different reason - the Turbo/mini compression - it may lose that market if other browsers also do compression.
- kristofferR 14y ago
  My experience is actually that 3G service is a lot cheaper in poor countries than in rich countries. They can't overprice it, they wouldn't get any customers then. For example - here in Cambodia I subscribe to a 2GB 3,5G package for just $5 a month. The reception and speed is great in urban areas. However, if you're just talking about extremely poor countries without any 3G service, then you're absolutely correct. There's not too many of them left though, just some countries in Africa and the Middle East. Mobile data is getting cheap incredibly fast and betting a company on providing data compression is stupid. It has worked out well for Opera so far (kudos to them, I'm Norwegian), but continuing to base their income on it is a losing battle. They have to pivot in order to still be relevant and being bought by Facebook is, in my opinion, a good way of doing it.
protomyth 14y ago
It might be a while before we get something other than feature phones in the developing markets and the pre-pay market. Pre-pay phones with "Facebook" might be a rather large seller.

mibbitier 14y ago

> "because mobile will be the dominant entertainment consuming screen in the future." I remember hearing that 12 years ago. It won't.