"Opera has never been a really good moneymaker."
aesthete8
Frank A.
You want Opera (music) newsgroups. This is a Opera (internet browser)
newsgroup.
Gene H. Chan
news:op.u5qgp6m3ry49an@----------.wp.shawcable.net:
>> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec09/composer_12-23.html
>
> You want Opera (music) newsgroups. This is a Opera (internet browser)
> newsgroup.
>
I'm giving the original poster the benefit of the doubt - I think he knew
that opera.general is about the Opera browser, but, with tongue in cheek,
cleverly applied the quote re: opera, the art form, to Opera, the browser.
Interesting article, btw.
ge...@none.net
I took it that way too. The subject phrase is why inspite of the fact
that I love opera, I never thought Opera as a browser name was a good
marketing choice. Compare it to Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari
or even Chrome from that angle.
Gene
Martin 'Cherry' Kirsch
>
> I took it that way too. The subject phrase is why inspite of the fact
> that I love opera, I never thought Opera as a browser name was a good
> marketing choice. Compare it to Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari
> or even Chrome from that angle.
Internet <-> Firefox?
Internet <-> Chrome?
Internet <-> Safari (ok, one could construct a line of thought here)
I don't really care about the name. Opera is Opera, period. You can't
just go, choose a fance new marketing-speech name and throw the whole
brand away.
From what i see: Opera is not a big company, but imho it doesn't need to
be. They seem to earn enough money to continue their work, even create
lots of innovative features, and make some people happy.
I doubt that Opera (as it is today) would be a better product had it a
different name and a bigger marketshare.
Martin
--
"Awww dude, you shot him in the dick..."
ge...@none.net
Martin 'Cherry' Kirsch <mar...@kirschen.org> wrote:
> ge...@none.net schrieb:
> >
> > I took it that way too. The subject phrase is why inspite of the
> > fact that I love opera, I never thought Opera as a browser name was
> > a good marketing choice. Compare it to Firefox, Internet Explorer,
> > Safari or even Chrome from that angle.
>
> Internet <-> Firefox?
> Internet <-> Chrome?
> Internet <-> Safari (ok, one could construct a line of thought here)
I said from a marketing standpoint and you reply from a computer
standpoint. Would you - that is, you the average and widespread
public, with a major initial bias towards the U.S. and the younger half
of the population - prefer to identify with the image of a firefox or
an opera? Does the shine of chrome entice you more than an opera? I
suspect a couple of four letter words I can think of would have been at
least as enticing in a perverted sort of way to a lot of computer users
as opera.
> I don't really care about the name. Opera is Opera, period. You can't
> just go, choose a fance new marketing-speech name and throw the whole
> brand away.
Wasn't that the process leading to Firefox?
Gene
LJW
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:31:31 +0100
> Martin 'Cherry' Kirsch <mar...@kirschen.org> wrote:
>
>> ge...@none.net schrieb:
<snip>
>> I don't really care about the name. Opera is Opera, period. You can't
>> just go, choose a fance new marketing-speech name and throw the whole
>> brand away.
>
> Wasn't that the process leading to Firefox?
>
> Gene
Yep, some of we "old timers" may still sometimes think of it as
"Netscape," but there's a whole user-generation by now who don't know that
Firefox used to be a different brand :-).
Morgan /|\
mechanic
> Yep, some of we "old timers" may still sometimes think of it as
> "Netscape," but there's a whole user-generation by now who don't
> know that Firefox used to be a different brand :-).
Ah the faltering memories of the "old timers"!
The true histories of these browsers are captured in various
Wikipedia articles.
--
mechanic
ge...@none.net
While I think Wikipedia articles are best viewed with extreme
caution, this one about Mozilla Firefox sounds about right and is a
good example to read before talking about the "faltering memories of
the 'old timers:'"
"The Firefox project began as an experimental branch of the Mozilla
project by Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross. They believed the commercial
requirements of Netscape's sponsorship and developer-driven feature
creep compromised the utility of the Mozilla browser.[12] To combat
what they saw as the Mozilla Suite's software bloat, they created a
stand-alone browser, with which they intended to replace the Mozilla
Suite. On April 3, 2003, the Mozilla Organization announced that they
planned to change their focus from the Mozilla Suite to Firefox and
Thunderbird.[13]
The Firefox project has undergone several name changes. Originally
titled Phoenix, it was renamed because of trademark issues with Phoenix
Technologies. The replacement name, Firebird, provoked an intense
response from the Firebird free database software project.[14][15][16]
In response, the Mozilla Foundation stated that the browser should
always bear the name Mozilla Firebird to avoid confusion with the
database software. Continuing pressure from the database server's
development community forced another change; on February 9, 2004,
Mozilla Firebird became Mozilla Firefox,[17] often referred to as
simply Firefox."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox)
Gene
mechanic
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:02:45 -0800, LJW wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, some of we "old timers" may still sometimes think of it as
>>> "Netscape," but there's a whole user-generation by now who don't
>>> know that Firefox used to be a different brand :-).
>>
>> Ah the faltering memories of the "old timers"!
>> The true histories of these browsers are captured in various
>> Wikipedia articles.
>
> While I think Wikipedia articles are best viewed with extreme
> caution, this one about Mozilla Firefox sounds about right and is a
> good example to read before talking about the "faltering memories of
> the 'old timers:'"
Yes I did read that first and that's why I made the remark! And
there's no need to quote web pages at length on here, that's what
links are for!
--
mechanic