I work in the Desktop (QA) department at Opera, and I try to stay updated on everything that happens in our user communities. Even though I work for Opera Software, the opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
According to Computerworld, security firm Cenzic has released a report showing that Firefox and Safari were the least secure browsers in the first half of 2009. That's the impression you get by simply skimming the article anyway. The actual report from Cenzic only counts the number of security flaws, and concludes that Firefox had 44% of all vulnerabilities, Safari had 35%, IE had 15%, and Opera a mere 6%.
Does that really mean that IE is more secure than Firefox and Safari?
I'm not sure a conclusion like that can be drawn at all. There are other aspects to security vulnerabilities that were not covered, such as the severity, and how long the vendor takes to fix them. Furthermore, security reports sometimes elevate standard crash bugs into security bugs, for example referring to them as "Denial of Service Vulnerabilities".
It's great to see that Opera has a low number of vulnerabilities, and I am confident that we would look good if severity and "time to fix" were taken into account as well. But until the report actually includes those relevant details, it isn't really that useful.
Statistics are great, though. You can make them show just about anything.
I have noticed some comments wondering about the allegedly high memory usage in the Opera Mobile 10 beta, and while I am sure there will be further optimizations before the final versions, I also think some people have somewhat unrealistic expectations.
Update: Opera Mobile 10 for S60 apparently does not support plugins yet. As it is a beta, this might change in the final version.
If you are wondering whether Opera Mobile 10 for S60 supports Flash or not (and if not, if it will ever support it), the short answer is (as far as I know):
You need the Flash plugin.
No browser supports Flash natively, since Flash is a plugin. This means that as long as a browser supports plugins and a Flash plugin is available for your platform, it should be possible to use the plugin to view Flash content. Some browsers also use a remote server to handle the plugin content, and then passes it on to the browser client in a format suitable for that browser. (Opera Turbo does not transcore plugin content (such as Flash), so that will not get you Flash support either.)
As I understand it, Opera Mobile 10 does (or should) support plugins, but I'm not sure if a Flash plugin is available for S60. If it is, and it doesn't work in Opera, it's probably a bug in either the plugin, or in our plugin support (report bugs in Opera Mobile for S60 in the Symbian forum).
If anyone knows about a Flash plugin for S60, let me know.
So should Opera bundle Flash, if possible? Probably not. We did that on Desktop, and that led to all sorts of problems, such as security flaws in Flash forcing us to release updates to Opera. The Flash plugin is also a pretty large download, and that is a major reason to keep it as a separate download.
And of course, Flash is a closed, proprietary, inaccessible technology which actually puts everyone at risk because it's a single point of failure and therefore a very tempting target for virus and malware authors.
Note/update: For those too lazy to read the whole thing, this is about Microsoft's history. It shows their history of consciously anti-competitive behavior. It is aimed at those who have little knowledge of Microsoft's history. To learn more, read this document by ECIS: A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm
It seems that some people are still doubting that Microsoft has consciously sought to undermine competition by abusing their position in the market. In fact, some are outright denying any wrongdoing on Microsoft's part, and if there was any wrongdoing then it was surely unintentional.
Sadly, such history revisionists are creating confusion about what actually happened, but this quote from a Bill Gates memo to the Office product group in December 1998 sums up Microsoft's attitude:
One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company.
We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.
So as you can see, Microsoft has a history of anti-competitive behaviour. You can agree or disagree that it is necessary to get the Government involved to deal with antitrust cases (Microsoft itself certainly thinks so, and they have filed their own antitrust complaints, e.g., against Google), but what you cannot deny is Microsoft's attitude and behaviour through the years.
Google just announced that Chrome has more than 30 million users. The latest number for Opera from a few months ago was more than 40 million users. However, both StatCounter and Net Applications list Chrome with a higher market share than Opera in October (1.88 for Opera/4.17 for Chrome, and 2.17 for Opera/3.58 for Chrome, respectively).
I don't have any updates on Carakan or Vega, but our core team is continuing work on Presto 2.4, and of course on versions beyond 2.4. There are a lot of goodies on the way for versions after 2.4, and hopefully we will be able to get future versions out much sooner.
So what happened to Presto 2.3? Well, it's actually out there in some products, such as the Linux SDK. For those of you who need more information on Presto 2.3 or if you are just curious, our documentation team just published a document detailing the Web specifications supported in Opera Presto 2.3.
The Open Screen Project isn't new, but it seems to be part of a pattern of doublespeak from Adobe. I understand why Adobe wants everyone to use Flash, but at least they could be honest about what Flash actually is, and what it is they are promoting.
Do they really think people are this stupid?
Open Web standards are already here, and don't rely on closed, proprietary formats (even if those formats are promised to be open some time in the future). If Adobe was really trying to open up, they would have promoted open Web standards instead.
If only Adobe would stop referring to proprietary, closed, inaccessible and insecure technologies as "open"...
I'm not really sure Twitter is my thing, but a lot of people are using it, so maybe it's good for something.
I have decided to give it a chance to show its usefulness. If you want to take a look at my Twitter page (is that the right term), look up "opvard" (Opera-Haavard). I don't know what I will be using it for yet, but I'm sure I'll think of stuff to post there eventually.
If you read the report from the W3C Patent Advisory Group (PAG) regarding Apple's patent claim against the Widgets 1.0 specification, you will not only see the reasons why the PAG does not think the patent is relevant, but it also reveals some worrying things about the way Apple handled the whole thing.
One of the first things they noticed was that the browser is branded as "att.net" rather than Opera Mini. This is not surprising, seeing as there are likely several pricing models available to operators depending on the level of customization.
It might seem like a bad idea for Opera Software to accept a contract without much Opera branding associated with the product at all, but you can be sure that other operators in the US are fully aware of what these AT&T phones are running! We are definitely getting the word out there about the AT&T contract, and it will create awareness among both other potential customers, and consumers.
In the end, we need to offer the customer what they want (or need). Only in make-believe land can we tell the customer what they are supposed to be doing
It is also interesting to note that the number of users is up 150% since September 2008, while the number of page-views is up a massive 230%.
It's a good thing, then, that Opera Mini compresses the data before sending it to your phones. A calculation done in this month's SMW report reveals that Opera Mini users have shaved up to 8.1 billion dollars per year off their phone bills (and that is only within the top 10 countries!).
Looks like mobile browsing is definitely starting to take off.
It is clear from some the comments about the new Opera Widgets release that a lot of people don't understand why we are spending time on widgets, and I must admit that I didn't get it at first either. But if we move from narrowly focusing on the desktop, and instead look at the bigger picture, namely Opera's vision and where the market is heading, it might make a little more sense.
TL;DR:Opera Software is not just a desktop browser. It is a cross-platform browser. Opera's strategy needs to be seen in light of that. The market is moving towards convergence, global Internet access, and similar experiences on different devices. There is a real need for a faster, easier, less expensive way to deploy applications across devices. Widgets offer you a way to do that.
Is BitStream's new Opera Mini-clone "Bolt" routinely 25-50% faster than any other mobile browser? That's what they keep claiming in their press releases:
In comprehensive speed testing of a variety of Web pages from different websites, BOLT was routinely 25 to 50 percent faster than the next fastest mobile browser.
BOLT is the fastest mobile browser currently available – routinely at least 25 to 50 percent faster than the next fastest
To be honest, I don't think speed tests like the ones above are a very useful basis for making general claims about browser speed. How fast the proxy browser is doesn't just depend on how optimized the servers and clients are, but also on your location in relation to the servers, traffic on the network, your connetion speed at any given time, and so on. All those speed tests really show is that that particular person got that particular result at that particular time under those particular circumstances.
"At least 25-50 percent faster than the next fastest"? Seriously, BitStream. Even if you had actual speed tests placing Bolt ahead of other browsers, that still wouldn't justify your claims. All you would be able to show is that it was faster for that person at that time.
Maybe it's time to adjust your PR claims a little?
One of the big advantages of "cloud computing" is that you have access to your data anywhere, and even if your system breaks down, you can still access that data because a professional host is keeping it safe for you.
But what happens when that professional host manages to lose all your data?
After spending a lot of W3C members' money to figure out if Apple's claims were valid, the Patent Advisory Group has now come to a conclusion: The work on Widgets 1.0 will continue. Apple's patent claim does not appear to be relevant to the Widgets 1.0 specification:
The Patent Advisory Group concluded that the inventive step claimed by US Patent Nr. 5,764,992 lies in the fact that the software program can update itself absolutely independent of functions performed by any resource external to the current software program. As the Widgets 1.0: Updates Draft uses an update-manager throughout the Specification, such self-updating does not occur.
). I don't know what I will be using it for yet, but I'm sure I'll think of stuff to post there eventually.
WIDGETIZE