30 Days to becoming an Opera8 Lover

A few days after the MacWorld review Arstechnica reviewed Mac RSS readers and left out Opera completely with the head-scratching reason that they decided to focus on Mac-only readers. Apparently now we want to penalize software companies for support Mac and other operating systems (not just Windows but Linux and FreeBSD and Solaris)? That seems strange to me.

So it was a frustrating week. Since we had been told that there would be “an updated review, coming soon” I decided to wait before responding more publicly than I did on the MacWorld forum.

So finally MacWorld released the updated review. Well, “review” is probably overstating it. This is a 174 word review-ette, or perhaps we should call it a “training review”. Maybe it hopes to be a real review when it grows up. By contrast, OmniWeb had well over 200 words dedicated to it as part of the original “Browser Roundup” article. So a stand-alone review of Opera merits fewer words than another browser was given as part of a larger review? That’s all the space and time Opera merits after having released its browser for free? What’s worse is that the standalone review is little more than some slightly reworded comments from the original article with “but hey, it’s free!” tagged on. And they raised the review from 3.5 mice to 4.

Sounds like MacWorld doesn’t have not a lot of interest in spending any time looking at MacOpera. Which is too bad, because it deserves better than this.

(I encourage you to read both of the reviews on your own before reading further. They are linked above. Note that they will open in new windows/tabs depending on how you have your browser configured. My apologies to anyone who is offended by this. You will have to close the windows rather than using the “Back” button to come back to this page.)

So let’s look at what MacWorld has to say about Opera, and how much of it is valid. First, let’s look at the relevant part of the original review:

Opera is the only browser reviewed here that comes in both a free and a for-pay version ($39). (OmniWeb costs $30 up front and has no free version.) The free version of Opera sports little, slightly annoying advertisements at the top of the browser. When you pay for Opera, the only thing that changes is that the ad banner at the top of the application disappears; paying for Opera doesn’t gain you any features that the other browsers don’t provide.

Ok, this made me really upset. Hanlon’s Razor would lead me to say that, at best this is just shoddy writing, and at worst it is terrible reporting. I first read this as “paying for Opera doesn’t gain you any features which you don’t get by using the free version. But that is not what he wrote. He wrote “paying for Opera doesn’t gain you any features that the other browsers don’t provide.”

That is incorrect. As in erroneous, untrue, and ficticious. That is shoddy reporting.

Let’s examine that more closely. At its core, the author is saying “You have to pay for Opera, but you don’t get any features in Opera which aren’t available in other browsers.” That is completely false. Either the author is ignorant or uninformed. Either way, it reflects poorly in MacWorld to publish such a lie, and a retraction ought to be issued and a revision ought to be posted.

I’m going to ignore the part of the sentence which referred to “paying for” Opera because Opera is now completely free. (But even when Opera was originally reviewed, the statement was untrue because paying for Opera did not unlock any of these features, they were all available in the sponsored version.) Opera does offer you features other browsers don’t provide. To say anything else is a lie. Opera offers features such as spatial navigation, sidebars, F12 access to quick preferences, IRC chat support, sessions, RSS support, Usenet support, multiple customized stylesheets, mouse gestures, and a highly configurable user interface...to name but a few.

Perhaps the author feels that the features that Opera provides (which other browsers do not) are not significant enough to merit paying for. But that is not what he wrote.

How in the world did the author say that Opera does not offer any features that other browsers don’t provide? Sure you can find some of those features in other browsers (OmniWeb, for example, offers a feature like sessions, but Safari and Firefox do not). This isn’t some random blog posting, it’s a MacWorld review, and I think we ought to expect that they will get their basic facts right. They did not. A correction should be issued in the print version of the magazine and on the web page (HTML provides specific tags for updating an existing web page).

Let’s move on... From the original article:

Opera has several strange interface quirks that kept me guessing. For example, pressing Command-T brings up a new tabbed window in the other browsers, but in Opera the same key combination brings up a bookmark window.

When you configure the program to block pop-up windows, it pops up its own little windows telling you when a pop-up has been blocked. Although you can turn off this preference, many such oddities that mar the browsing experience appear from time to time.

From the revised article:

Opera does still have some interface quirks. For example, all the other browsers we looked at let you press command-T to open a new tab, while the same set of keystrokes in Opera opens a bookmark window. And in Opera 8.0.2, there were pop-up windows that told you the browser had blocked a pop-up window. (The coincidence is not lost on us.) Those annoying notices are now gone.

A minor browser-history lesson: While Opera may not have been the first browser to introduce tabs, it has had them for far longer than any of the other reviewed browser. It has used cmd + T for “Bookmark Page” since before most of the other browsers ever existed. That said, new users will probably not know (nor care) about that history. Fair enough.

But he failed to mention that Opera’s command for a “new window” is cmd + n which is the same command that you find in just about every other Mac application to open a new window or new page. It should take about 0.0005 seconds to get used to this. And if you can’t get used to it, about 30 seconds worth of effort can remap the key to cmd + T. Curiously, the review talks about how configurable Opera is, but fails to mention this simple example.

Conversely, an internet shortcut that I have grown accustomed to is F5 to reload the current page. Safari does not include that shortcut. And there is no way to add it. So why isn’t Safari marked down for failing to include a “standard” shortcut and failing to include any way to add it?

From the new article, redux:

And in Opera 8.0.2, there were pop-up windows that told you the browser had blocked a pop-up window. (The coincidence is not lost on us.) Those annoying notices are now gone.

First of all, the word the author was looking for is “irony” not “coincidence”.... the irony was not lost on him. There was nothing coincidental about the notifications, they were an intentional way of informing the user that a popup window had been blocked.

(By the way, if you think I’m being picky, I’m not. This is basic English vocabulary. Something more advanced would be to point out that “The coincidence is not lost on us” should be “The coincidence was not lost on us” but that’s a common mistake which most people would not notice and which is not confusing.)

Also note that the Google Toolbar and Internet Explorer 6 for Windows XP SP2 also includes notifications when popups are blocked. So tell me again why Opera is marked down for offering the same feature as other browsers even though it offered a way to turn them off?

Furthermore, the implication of the criticism was this: “Opera is stopping a popup and responding with a popup, isn’t that stupid?” No, it isn’t. First of all, the reason that people hate pop-up/pop-under ads is that they either take over (pop up) or lurk in the background (pop under). Opera’s notification window did neither. It simply briefly appeared and then disappeared. Anyone with any browsing experience knows that there are times when popup windows convey important information, such as offers for free shipping at some (admittedly poorly designed) sites.

Opera defaulted to letting the user something had happened and Opera also includes a way to open blocked popups without having to reload the page and disable the popup stopper...another feature unique to Opera as far as I know. The screenshot even shows you that the notification offers to let you open the blocked popup and they failed to mention it. (Opera is also the only browser which will let you re-open windows which you have closed... another unique feature which was ignored. This can be a real time saver when you accidentally close a window.

From the new article:

As we stated in our comparative review, Opera includes several customizable search tools and shortcuts to help make Web browsing easier.

Really? Here’s what the original review said:

On a positive note, Opera is highly configurable, even allowing you to create your own shortcuts for search sites. So typing G (the shortcut for Google) and hogwash in the address field will execute a Google search for hogwash and display your search results.

and later the article noted:

Pros: Highly configurable; useful keyword shortcuts for search sites.

I will resist the urge to suggest any irony about the fact that the author of the original article chose the word “hogwash” and I will let the reader make their own connection between the review and the word “hogwash” if they so choose.

What is true? MacWorld’s original article did not state that Opera included several customizable search tools and shortcuts. MacWorld’s original article said that you could create your own shortcuts. Notice the difference? The original review implies that you have to add them youself, rather than mentioning that there are several built-in and you can add your own. They only mention one of the default searches (Google, which is present in all other browsers and probably easily ignored by a reader who would likely think “Big deal I can already search Google with my current browser”). The article completely ignored the fact that Opera includes preconfigured searches for Amazon.com, eBay, Download.com, Google Groups, Google News, Dictionary, Encyclopedia, currency conversion, and several translation features...to name a few.

MacWorld has shoddily reported on what it previously shoddily reported.

From the original article:

That said, should you pay for a browser when many are available for free? When it comes to Opera, the answer is no.

From the new article:

In our earlier Web browsers roundup, we stated that Opera 8.0.2 was not worth spending $39 to remove the annoying ads that came with the free version. But Opera Software has changed its tune: There is no longer a paid and a free version. At the low, low cost of zilch, Opera is a very good browser.

Actually MacWorld had said that it wasn’t worth $39 to remove what it called “slightly” annoying ads (the original article also completely failed to mention that Opera was already free for academic users ’ which has historically been a significant portion of Mac userbase ’ but that is now water under the bridge).

“Why are you so bothered by this?”

I’m sure many people who have read this are wondering why I am getting so upset about this. I should probably reiterate that I do not work for Opera or get any sort of compensation from them at all.

What bothers me is that there were so many things ignored in the article which I though were important. To name a few:

MacWorld also fell into the trap of listing Safari 2.0 as “free” when it only comes with Tiger. (Windows reviewers consistently make the same mistake when listing Internet Explorer as “free” but fail to mention that only Windows XP users can use the latest version.)

OmniWeb is well known for being slow and crash prone. Even its biggest fans will tell you that. Yet nowhere did that appear in the article. Now I have a registered copy of OmniWeb and think it may be the innovative and user friendly browser out there (OmniWeb does a better job implementing some features which Opera has had for a long time, such as the built-in searches and Workspaces, and the idea of thumbnail tabs is brilliant.) The author of the article clearly is not very familiar with OmniWeb either. This lack of familiarity was also echoed in this sentence:

The only problem with OmniWeb is that it may not be compatible with some Web sites because it’s not based on the Mozilla or the Internet Explorer engine. This can be inconvenient.

What the author failed to mention is that OmniWeb is based on the same rendering engine as Safari (WebCore). Safari has done an excellent job at achieving compatibility with a large number of websites, something which is sure to improve now that WebCore is open source. OmniWeb’s compatibility will certainly continue to improve.

As for “the Internet Explorer engine” I have no idea why that comment was made. Internet Explorer for Mac is dead, and the engine was never available to other browsers. Moreover, OmniWeb is now recommended by some sites which actively discourage people from using IE:Mac (AAA being one notable example I am aware of).

But what really bothers me the most is that the entire piece reads like it was written by a Firefox supporter, but is passed off as an objective evaluation of each browser. The author is clearly much more familiar with Firefox, spends a great deal of time talking about Firefox’s abilities, including saying that

Mozilla’s Firefox and Camino are the most versatile and extensible browsers in this review.

As long as you are willing to depend on 3rd party extensions. Opera will let you easily configure its user interface and customize its features, such as mouse gestures, which are only available with add-on software for Firefox.

[Firefox and Camino] are designed to accept third-party plug-ins, or extensions, which can add features, functionality, and different looks (or skins) to the program. But there are many more plug-ins available for Firefox than for Camino.

In fact, these extensions are what make Firefox so great.

There is no mention of the fact that extensions may not be available when a new version of Firefox is. Many Firefox fans love to talk about how rapid the development is, but when the new beta (1.5) was released, all of my extensions stopped working, and it took over a week for new versions to be released. Some extensions may conflict with one another.

To some that is not a problem, to me it is. The point is that the reviewer failed to mention this as a problem, even though it is well known to the Firefox community. Firefox is also often considered to be slower than Opera and Safari. Again, no mention of that.

Firefox recently made the news for several significant security holes. Again this was not mentioned in the article.

Let me make it clear: I have no problem with someone preferring Firefox. I like Firefox. I have it installed and find it handy to have around. I am glad it exists and glad that it is taking marketshare away from Internet Explorer on Windows. I am glad for what it is doing to raise awareness of alternative browsers. That is not my objection.

My objection is that the author is clearly a Firefox fan and wrote an article best described as “Why Firefox is better than your browser” and MacWorld sold it as an objective review of Mac browsers. It is not.

While most browsers lay a Find window right on top of the Web page you’re trying to search, Firefox simply brings up a little Find box at the bottom of the page.

The author makes it sound like Firefox is the only browser with that feature. This is exactly how Opera’s Inline Find works. And Inline Find has been around for ages, longer (I believe) than Firefox has had the feature. Opera also includes a feature to search just for text found in links (press . to search for text and , to search for link text only).

I have been a MacWorld subscriber since before I owned my first Mac (I started getting it when I bought my first iPod). I have come to expect good, neutral reporting and software evaluations. This article fell far short of that rather modest expectation. I’m a Mac user and an Opera lover, which puts me on the fringe of the fringe; but I have high expectations of the software that I use and believe that both my operating system and my browser are the right choice for a large majority of people, even if a large majority of people see no reason to change what they are already using.

By all means, write a critique of Opera which includes Opera’s shortcomings. List the things you would like to see changed or fixed. I’ll even help! I have a list myself. The difference is that if I were writing an article about Opera, I would freely talk about shortcomings and bugs (you can find several examples on this site). If you are a Firefox user writing an article about browsers, I expect you to do the same. In fact, credible journalism would suggest that you make an extra effort not to let your personal views influence your review. This author did not do that, and MacWorld’s editors didn’t correct it before publication. The review was filled with subjective evaluations as well as several completely false and/or misleading statements.

The initial review fell far short, and the 174-word barely-more-than-copy-and-paste revision (that took two weeks to put together?) left me feeling that MacWorld had chosen its favorite browser before the review ever began. I still believe that MacWorld ought to amend the original review to make it more clear everywhere that price is mentioned that Opera is now free, and ought to correct the factual errors and misleading statements which I have pointed out.

A final word about ads

I am extremely glad that Opera is now ad-free because I am so sick of the hypocrisy of sites like MacWorld (and CNet and others) who appeared morally offended by the presence of discreet, contextual, relevant ads in Opera while their own website displayed numerous, unrelated graphical ads. Even MacWorld’s so-called “printer friendly” pages contain multiple ads, including animated GIFs. Apparenly these websites believe that ads are only offensive if they are paying someone else’s bills.

A final word

Let me also say that I am not meaning to make this personal about Jeffery Battersby (the author of the original article). I have no doubt that he’s a good guy with his heart in the right place. He loves Firefox, I love Opera. We’d probably get along well if we met on the street, after all we both love Macs. I have enjoyed his previous articles and found his review of Pages to be spot-on. I take issue with what he wrote (much like I get chastized when I get something wrong about Firefox) but I find much greater fault with MacWorld’s editors for not doing a better job as editors in reviewing this article and giving it a more accurate title. I hope that Jeffery will not take this as a personal attack, although I know first-hand it is hard to read criticism of one’s writing without taking it personally. I think he made some honest mistakes here in his zeal to talk about Firefox. I know what that’s like and have been guilty of it myself. MacWorld should have stepped up and helped him craft it into something better. That’s what I expect of editors. Really my main complaint boils down to the fact that the author was not nearly familiar enough with Opera and Firefox’s shortcomings were ignored.

(Comments are currently open. Rational replies with evidence of effort toward proper spelling and punctuation will be published [i.e. all lowercase without punctuation comments will be deleted]. Personal attacks will be ignored. I’m not looking for Firefox vs Opera fodder. Corrections and disagreements are welcomed. This page may be edited if further review indicates I have gotten something wrong or have written something misleading ... which is the same standard I hold MacWorld to.)