Low genre. Operetta - when the opera does not work
And again I am publishing an article by the user kiosov , who again cannot publish it himself for "well-known reasons", but this time the reasons are much more serious.
The article is not going to help him, so there is no place to send “thanks”, but (despite all our past disagreements with kiosov ) I found it quite literate and interesting enough to be published, although I myself do not agree with some points (I will comment on below). So, the article:
Elephants, in fact, it is a pity - it is unpleasant when you are surrounded by dogs, who are stuck in their state of eternally barking and rejecting creatures. Maybe elephants are already accustomed to such a state of affairs, and they frankly don't give a damn, or maybe they perceive it as an integral part of their existence. But from the point of view of an outside observer, their pity. Especially when the observed attacks are hypocritical, there is nowhere else.
Some time ago, the Norwegian company Opera, the creator of the web browser of the same name, filed a slander with the European Commission on Microsoft, the creator of the Internet Explorer web browser, as a result of which the latter was obliged to provide the user with a choice of a number of the most popular browsers in the European version. The whole action took place under the hypocritical aegis of the struggle with the monopoly and the care of users. But more about that later. For a start let's get into the story.
Opera, like its product of the same name, has been on the market for more than one year (since the late 90s of the last century). It is about the same age as another competitor - the Firefox browser of the Mozilla Corporation. At the same time, not only did Opera's product not differ in quality, it was also sold for money. While all its competitors spread freely. After some time, direct payment was replaced by banner ads. Do I need to explain why the popularity of the company had only to dream. This did not apply only to the post-Soviet space, where they traditionally did not have any piety for copyright, they broke open Opera, cut out banner advertisements (that is, from our market, despite the fact that the browser’s popularity grew, the company did not receive a penny). But this market takes a ridiculous share of the Internet world. Although, of course, it does not seem so to the fanatics of the Opera (20% seem like a big number, after which
I do not want to notice anything, especially I do not want to notice that these 20% are not from the total number, but from a small fraction). But this is the lyrics. The main thing is that Opera sold its browser when other manufacturers of similar products distributed them for free - what did the Norwegian marketers think about, what did they expect? Riddle.
')
As time went. The share of Opera browser in the market has not changed significantly. Even after the harsh Scandinavian guys began to distribute their product freely. This is not surprising - after all, there was still a quality that the website development specialists had when testing the code
under this browser, the worse the “ass” of versions 5 and 6, which occupies 90% of the market in total, was infuriating itself. Yes, at the time of Internet Explorer versions 5 and 6, Microsoft had a monopoly on the browser market. Just a minute - when was this monopoly and when was the complaint filed? And what was this complaint?
So, Opera is trying to convince us that Microsoft, taking advantage of its monopoly position in the operating system market (!), Is promoting its browser (!), Interfering with fair competition. This is a lie. And here the market of operating systems, when in fact we are talking about the market of other products - web browsers? These are different products and different markets. At the time of Opera's slander, Microsoft's browser did not have a monopoly - moreover, he lost it long before this slander (and continues to lose, resulting in desperate attempts by Microsoft to regain user loyalty through restoring order in its browser). And he lost this monopoly in the fight against Firefox, which, for some reason, the monopoly position of the Windows operating system on the operating system market did not in any way interfere with successfully competing with Internet Explorer in the browser market.
Or maybe Microsoft has forbidden to install third-party browsers on their operating systems? Nothing like this. Users chose and put that which satisfied them more. Those who need it. Opera’s problems are not in the Microsoft operating system and its position in the operating system market, but in the fact that Opera is not able to market a high-quality and attractive product that can compete with its counterparts 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, the Opera company, represented by its Russian representatives, in the best traditions of Russian areal public relations, generously and loudly scattered the slogans in IT-blogging: “Users have benefited from the proceedings of the European Commission against Microsoft!”. Yeah, users won. You might think this user initiative was. That they complained to the teacher of a bully-peer who does not give them access. Users did not win - users used and they covered themselves to solve their own mercantile corporate interests, to which neither open web standards nor progress are relevant (Opera was never famous for this, unlike Firefox, so it successfully competes with Internet Explorer , despite the monopoly of Windows on the operating system market). The company Opera with such a positioning of “success” simply shifts the responsibility to users, both for their own step and for the decision of the European Commission - no more, no less. "This is not us - these are users."
Users (thank heavens, not everything - the decision of the European Commission will concern only the European version of Windows) found hemorrhoids in the form of the need to make a meaningless choice for many, which would be difficult for them because they do not have sufficient qualifications for it (see www.youtube.com/ watch? v = o4MwTvtyrUQ ). To the aid, however, computer manufacturers will come to them, who, preinstalling 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. On whom will bumps fall in case of problems with the Opera browser, which the user chose when installing the Windows system from Microsoft? The 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 chose just the first available (or liked by anything, but not the ability to most effectively and conveniently solve the tasks of this user - a logo or name, for example), because he did not understand what they wanted from him.
“This solution 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 didn’t hinder anything in any way: it didn’t interfere with the development of other products and didn’t prevent their developers from conveying to users their own products along with their advantages. We look at Firefox, Opera’s peer, who has cut off its 30% of the market - the monopoly of the Windows operating system (which has no relation to web standards, like other operating systems, is a completely different market) has not prevented it. Moreover, the Firefox competition and the rapid loss of the audience led Microsoft to take up its browser and turn its face to the very open web standards. Where was Opera at that moment? She had the same amount of time as Firefox. At the same time, Opera as a 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 ring 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 ethics, which is not the place in business. Only it depends, of course, on. When Microsoft takes questionable steps, that's bad. When Opera is frustrating at every step in its own marketing (if you can call it that at all) for many years, then it’s quite kosher and Orthodox to poke a finger at the neighbor and scream “it's not me, it's him!” While you yourself and put in his own pants. Anyway, you can hide behind the users in the end: they say, this is their victory. But then the ethical moment is different in general - how can you oblige the manufacturer of the product X to promote someone else's product Y? Who should promote their own product? Can calculator developers now complain to Microsoft that, using the monopoly position of their operating system, they are promoting their own calculator? This is generally some kind of enchanting nonsense, which can be explained only by the commitment of the European Commission, which protects (only absurdly) the interests of the European manufacturer in competing with overseas manufacturers. Both Microsoft (Internet Explorer), Mozilla Corporation (Firefox), and Apple (Safari), and Google (Chrome) are all competitors to Opera from the USA. And this protected manufacturer is absolutely not capable of releasing a competitive product (into something digestible, with large
reservations, which turned only 10 years later to version 10), or promote it on the market on its own. And how can you make such a decision when there is an example of Firefox before your eyes, which clearly demonstrates the failure of Opera's complaints - the operating system’s monopoly cannot prevent the browser from competing in the browser market.
The article is not going to help him, so there is no place to send “thanks”, but (despite all our past disagreements with kiosov ) I found it quite literate and interesting enough to be published, although I myself do not agree with some points (I will comment on below). So, the article:
Elephants, in fact, it is a pity - it is unpleasant when you are surrounded by dogs, who are stuck in their state of eternally barking and rejecting creatures. Maybe elephants are already accustomed to such a state of affairs, and they frankly don't give a damn, or maybe they perceive it as an integral part of their existence. But from the point of view of an outside observer, their pity. Especially when the observed attacks are hypocritical, there is nowhere else.
Some time ago, the Norwegian company Opera, the creator of the web browser of the same name, filed a slander with the European Commission on Microsoft, the creator of the Internet Explorer web browser, as a result of which the latter was obliged to provide the user with a choice of a number of the most popular browsers in the European version. The whole action took place under the hypocritical aegis of the struggle with the monopoly and the care of users. But more about that later. For a start let's get into the story.
Opera, like its product of the same name, has been on the market for more than one year (since the late 90s of the last century). It is about the same age as another competitor - the Firefox browser of the Mozilla Corporation. At the same time, not only did Opera's product not differ in quality, it was also sold for money. While all its competitors spread freely. After some time, direct payment was replaced by banner ads. Do I need to explain why the popularity of the company had only to dream. This did not apply only to the post-Soviet space, where they traditionally did not have any piety for copyright, they broke open Opera, cut out banner advertisements (that is, from our market, despite the fact that the browser’s popularity grew, the company did not receive a penny). But this market takes a ridiculous share of the Internet world. Although, of course, it does not seem so to the fanatics of the Opera (20% seem like a big number, after which
I do not want to notice anything, especially I do not want to notice that these 20% are not from the total number, but from a small fraction). But this is the lyrics. The main thing is that Opera sold its browser when other manufacturers of similar products distributed them for free - what did the Norwegian marketers think about, what did they expect? Riddle.
')
As time went. The share of Opera browser in the market has not changed significantly. Even after the harsh Scandinavian guys began to distribute their product freely. This is not surprising - after all, there was still a quality that the website development specialists had when testing the code
under this browser, the worse the “ass” of versions 5 and 6, which occupies 90% of the market in total, was infuriating itself. Yes, at the time of Internet Explorer versions 5 and 6, Microsoft had a monopoly on the browser market. Just a minute - when was this monopoly and when was the complaint filed? And what was this complaint?
So, Opera is trying to convince us that Microsoft, taking advantage of its monopoly position in the operating system market (!), Is promoting its browser (!), Interfering with fair competition. This is a lie. And here the market of operating systems, when in fact we are talking about the market of other products - web browsers? These are different products and different markets. At the time of Opera's slander, Microsoft's browser did not have a monopoly - moreover, he lost it long before this slander (and continues to lose, resulting in desperate attempts by Microsoft to regain user loyalty through restoring order in its browser). And he lost this monopoly in the fight against Firefox, which, for some reason, the monopoly position of the Windows operating system on the operating system market did not in any way interfere with successfully competing with Internet Explorer in the browser market.
Or maybe Microsoft has forbidden to install third-party browsers on their operating systems? Nothing like this. Users chose and put that which satisfied them more. Those who need it. Opera’s problems are not in the Microsoft operating system and its position in the operating system market, but in the fact that Opera is not able to market a high-quality and attractive product that can compete with its counterparts 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, the Opera company, represented by its Russian representatives, in the best traditions of Russian areal public relations, generously and loudly scattered the slogans in IT-blogging: “Users have benefited from the proceedings of the European Commission against Microsoft!”. Yeah, users won. You might think this user initiative was. That they complained to the teacher of a bully-peer who does not give them access. Users did not win - users used and they covered themselves to solve their own mercantile corporate interests, to which neither open web standards nor progress are relevant (Opera was never famous for this, unlike Firefox, so it successfully competes with Internet Explorer , despite the monopoly of Windows on the operating system market). The company Opera with such a positioning of “success” simply shifts the responsibility to users, both for their own step and for the decision of the European Commission - no more, no less. "This is not us - these are users."
Users (thank heavens, not everything - the decision of the European Commission will concern only the European version of Windows) found hemorrhoids in the form of the need to make a meaningless choice for many, which would be difficult for them because they do not have sufficient qualifications for it (see www.youtube.com/ watch? v = o4MwTvtyrUQ ). To the aid, however, computer manufacturers will come to them, who, preinstalling 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. On whom will bumps fall in case of problems with the Opera browser, which the user chose when installing the Windows system from Microsoft? The 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 chose just the first available (or liked by anything, but not the ability to most effectively and conveniently solve the tasks of this user - a logo or name, for example), because he did not understand what they wanted from him.
“This solution 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 didn’t hinder anything in any way: it didn’t interfere with the development of other products and didn’t prevent their developers from conveying to users their own products along with their advantages. We look at Firefox, Opera’s peer, who has cut off its 30% of the market - the monopoly of the Windows operating system (which has no relation to web standards, like other operating systems, is a completely different market) has not prevented it. Moreover, the Firefox competition and the rapid loss of the audience led Microsoft to take up its browser and turn its face to the very open web standards. Where was Opera at that moment? She had the same amount of time as Firefox. At the same time, Opera as a 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 ring 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 ethics, which is not the place in business. Only it depends, of course, on. When Microsoft takes questionable steps, that's bad. When Opera is frustrating at every step in its own marketing (if you can call it that at all) for many years, then it’s quite kosher and Orthodox to poke a finger at the neighbor and scream “it's not me, it's him!” While you yourself and put in his own pants. Anyway, you can hide behind the users in the end: they say, this is their victory. But then the ethical moment is different in general - how can you oblige the manufacturer of the product X to promote someone else's product Y? Who should promote their own product? Can calculator developers now complain to Microsoft that, using the monopoly position of their operating system, they are promoting their own calculator? This is generally some kind of enchanting nonsense, which can be explained only by the commitment of the European Commission, which protects (only absurdly) the interests of the European manufacturer in competing with overseas manufacturers. Both Microsoft (Internet Explorer), Mozilla Corporation (Firefox), and Apple (Safari), and Google (Chrome) are all competitors to Opera from the USA. And this protected manufacturer is absolutely not capable of releasing a competitive product (into something digestible, with large
reservations, which turned only 10 years later to version 10), or promote it on the market on its own. And how can you make such a decision when there is an example of Firefox before your eyes, which clearly demonstrates the failure of Opera's complaints - the operating system’s monopoly cannot prevent the browser from competing in the browser market.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/78887/
All Articles