Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Apr 2013 22:27 UTC
Google It's apparently browser engine day today. After Mozilla and Samsung announcing Servo, Google has just announced it's forking WebKit into Blink. Like WebKit, Blink will be open source, and it will also be used by other browser makers - most prominently, Opera has already announced it's not using WebKit, but Blink. Update: Courtesy of MacRumors, this graph illustrates how just how much Google contributed to WebKit. Much more than I thought. Also, Chrome developer Alex Russell: "To make a better platform faster, you must be able to iterate faster. Steps away from that are steps away from a better platform. Today's WebKit defeats that imperative in ways large and small. It's not anybody's fault, but it does need to change. And changing it will allow us to iterate faster, working through the annealing process that takes a good idea from drawing board to API to refined feature."
Permalink for comment 557703
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Is Blink Open Source?
by Tony Swash on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Is Blink Open Source?"
Tony Swash
Member since:

Your use of the "effective" word here is a bit weird, as it seems that to you, the only thing that matters on a software platform is how much money can be extracted from users. Basically, what you're saying here is that as far as computing works, users do not matter, they are just a bunch of mindless sheeps from which money can be pumped out as needed.

Uhh - no - that is not what I said. I am discussing platform performance as a platform, not from the perspective of the end user preferences.

A platform is precisely that - something upon which other things stand. It's the other things that stand on the platform that add value to that platform. So much value can be added to a platform by that which stands upon it that, as was the case with Windows, the inherent shortcomings of the underlying OS for users can be out weighed by the value and benefits added by the third party additions that stand upon the platform. A platform could rest upon a beautifully designed OS but with nothing standing upon it it would function as a poor platform.

The key to how much stuff stands upon a platform is how much third parties add stuff to the platform (software, hardware, services, etc) which in turn is largely dictated by what commercial opportunities that platform offers. The commercial opportunity that a platform offers is mostly calculated financially, how many users and how much they spend on average as against the costs of operating on a given platform. iOS is easy to operate on (iTunes distribution, SDK kits and apps, limited number of form factors etc) and it's high per capita spend means that it offers a greater commercial target even though in sheer numbers Android devices (mostly low end) out sell iOS devices.

You have strongly stressed the point that what you're caring about is revenue per capita, and not global revenue.

I fear you have completely missed the point I was making. I didn't realise how much of the basic stuff I had to explain to you. Put simply it's per capita spend times the number of users that dictates the overall commercial size of a platform. As an example if every iOS user spends generates on average three times the amount of economic activity that an on average Android users generate then even if Android outsells iOS by three times the two platforms are, from the point of view of commercial third parties the same size. (In reality, based on the evidence I have seen, iOS user generate on average more than three times the economic activity of Android users.)

As for the stuff you wrote about Mac and Windows it feels like a discussion of the past. Desktop technology is no longer the driver of the tech industry. The key factor from any Mac users point of view is that for several years now there has been not a single significant disincentive to using the Mac platform. What Apple under Jobs achieved in relation to the desktop was great from a Mac users perspective, they didn't beat Microsoft or Windows they just made them irrelevant. There was a period when if you were a Mac user you felt fear and active dislike of Microsoft and Windows, and perceived them realistically as a threat to the Mac. Now whatever Microsoft does with Windows is wholly irrelevant to the Mac experience.

Reply Parent Score: 0