What do add-ons have to do anything? We're talking of an embed browser... on a console.

First of all an embed browser would never be Firefox. It might use its engine (Gecko) as a bunch of browsers do, but it would never be the same as the PC encarnation (and you can forget about add-ons). But the problem with that is again, we're talking consoles, and the licenses won't help.

Gecko is likey one of the most permissive browser engines with it's MPL option, but still some of the source for the port has to be made available, which these companies won't like. And then there's the community, which has multiple times frowned uppon Apple's use of KHTML in Safari. What do you think the outcry would be with Nintendo or Sony closing Gecko under tons of DRM?

Apple's WebKit and KDE's KHTML are arguably even worse, as they're licensed LGPL, which will likely add the recent anti-DRM text of its sister GPL.

I guess by charging for it, they can see how much people value this sort of content.

If there isn't much pick up, they'll not bother with more multi-media type stuff, if there is, they'll be more likely to fund more development.

Safari is konqueror with a good skin, I think it will be stupidy to use it...

"Actually Opera generally has had fewer security issues than Firefox. And their code is smaller. I'd love to see someone try to get Firefox to run on a Nintendo DS. :P"

how u saw the opera source??? do you work with it???
Opera is "close source", it explains wry is harder to find bugs in Opera... ok, IE is close source too, but it have all the bugs in the world to be found...
and about firefox been heavyweit, it's not, firefox is optimized to use a little more ram but navegates faster... if you download Damn Small Linux you will see a SO that can rum from CD in 32MiB of ram, and with a firefox optimized to dont use almost any machine resorces, extreme small...

Ummm... actually you can modify how much RAM you want Firefox/Opera to use on the PC... but overall I like Opera better because it startups faster and navigates faster IMO

It's not that there's anything wrong with the software from a functionality standpoint (I use it every day), it's that Nintendo probably wouldn't want to use open source software for their proprietary system. Nintendo wanted a product that they could closely control and sell. I don't think Mozilla and Firefox could/would want to deliver that.

Look, I like Firefox as much as the next. Hell I'm using it right now. But Opera makes sense for the Wii, more than Firefox.

1) Opera is smaller than Firefox.
2) Opera uses far less memory than Firefox
3) Opera's zoom in/out feature is FAR FAR better than anything firefox can do, and is crucial for readability on the wii, especially as its non-HD.
4) Opera has always been a market leader in embedded systems, cell phone browsers, etc. It an area Firefox has barely touched.

*Its true that firefox can be configured to use less memory, but performance suffers. Opera was DESIGNED to run in small memory footprints and it excels at it.

Frankly I think Opera is a good match for the Wii.

The browser works fine on me. I play some flash games on it sometimes (gogo duckhunt) and watch videos on youtube. It sucks that it costs 5 bucks now, but I got it before they added the charge.

I think this does make it harder for kids to browse porn. I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo stopped giving it away for free at least partially for this reason.

Nintento has partenered with Astaro for content filtering, both on the DS and the Wii. I think it's a for pay service on both devices, but I'm not sure.

http://www.astaro.com/solutions/customized_solutions

http://www.populartechnology.net/2006/01/opera-is-faster-more-secure-and-more.html

Opera is more secure than firefox, and thats what Nintendo was looking for.