My first company, Opera, was built on word of mouth. The same applies to my 2nd company, @Vivaldi. We have never had the means that Big Tech has. In the case of Vivaldi, we have even avoided investors, to not end up like Opera.
We have also made it harder for our selves. We likely could have generated more funds through adding stuff like Crypto, AI or just plain old data collection in the browser, but we choose not to. We are also not an Ad company like most of our larger competitors. Instead we have added a wealth of features and customization.
Now people are starting to understand that just going with Big Tech may be easy to start with, but ends up not being worth it. In fact we now have governments and companies thinking that they need to move away from Big Tech and quickly.
We welcome you all.
#Vivaldi #Browser #Technology #Windows #Macos #Linux #Android #Apple #Google #Microsoft
@Suiseiseki @Vivaldi @jon How is that abuse? Have you been forced against your will to use Vivaldi? Like with most things on the market, if you don't like it, don't use it.
The goal of the "market" seems to make it painful to not use something.
It is painful to use a non-proprietary web browser and each proprietary web browser that exists makes the problem worse and not better.
@Suiseiseki @Vivaldi @jon Your statement is logically incorrect. If a service is abusive, and no one uses it, or even knows about it, it does not matter. It cannot, by definition, be abusive, since no one is using it. Abusive depends on someone experiencing it as abusive. If no one does it, it is a nullity.
You must also study deeply, markets. There is no such thing as a market that wants something. it is the aggregate of billions of peoples wishes and
Something can be abusive by design - although if nobody uses it, while nobody is subject to that abuse - the potential for the abuse still exists.
Proprietary software is like a land mine - if nobody ever steps on it that's fine, but realistically someone is going to step on it sooner or later (not knowing about the land mines existence is worse and not better, as then you can't avoid stepping on it) - clearly neither proprietary software, nor land minds should exist.
Furthermore, your claim totally nulled by how Vivaldi is in fact used.
The "market" is not guided by people's wishes, it's guided by manipulation by those with leverage to manipulate.
Incorrect. Absent any conscious mind being aware of the service, it's design is meaningless. Abuse is a value judgment, it is not a fact of nature, which makes it an ethical claim. Ethical claim needs value carriers, and if the valuation is not done, that is, ipso facto, not so.
This is the general case, where you have been refuted.
In terms of Vivaldi, you of course have a subjective, but absurd, opinion, but that is not what we are discussing.
Beating children is abuse. Producing and selling a web browser is a regular business. equating that with abuse is juts absurd.
As for markets, you can look up the meaning. It is an aggregate of human beings, and they are the only ones who can think and act on the market. Again you lose badly. But I suspect you are a communist or a socialist, and as such, a creature driven by hatred and envy. I pity you.
Beating children is abuse, but it's very easy to stop people from beating children.
Making software proprietary is just as abusive as beating children (it seems abusive in certain situations), but it's very hard to stop that, as corporate tools always appear that claim that somehow proprietary software isn't abusive.
Proprietary software is extremely communist - considering that what is being done is not selling a web browser - rather what is being offered is a license to run a web browser, that spies on the user for their commie bros (their own website admits it; https://vivaldi.com/privacy/browser/ (yes, it claims to not spy, then details what spying is done)).
What would be a legitimate business would be to offer a web browser that is free software, that you can have a copy of if you pay x Monero etc.