Linked by Kroc Camen on Fri 1st Jan 2010 15:36 UTC
Opera Software HTML5 Video is coming to Opera 10.5. Yesterday (or technically, last year--happy new year readers!) Opera released a new alpha build containing a preview of their HTML5 Video support. There's a number of details to note, not least that this is still an early alpha...
Thread beginning with comment 401960
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Opera....
by wumip on Fri 1st Jan 2010 20:12 UTC in reply to "Opera...."
wumip
Member since:
2009-08-20

Out of the basement?

Opera is the #1 mobile browser, with a market share of nearly 30% or so.

The world is not moving to WK. What is happening is that there are a lot of WK forks. There is no mobile WK:

http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2009/10/there_is_no_web.htm...

Your imaginary scenario where the engine will be the same will never happen.

Also, browsers using webkit will always be "owned" by Apple since Apple basically runs the WK project. So anyone who goes for WK will either be a slave to Apple's release cycles, or will have to fork WK and develop it into something entirely different, and you're stuck with two different engines anyway in the end.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: Opera....
by mckill on Fri 1st Jan 2010 20:24 in reply to "RE: Opera...."
mckill Member since:
2007-06-12

sorry. but you're way off. WK doesn't need to actually be mobile, that's why it's getting so popular, a full browser that can run on mobiles.

webkit isn't tied to apple, they do dedicate a lot of money to the project with their coders, it also hasn't stopped a number of other companies using webkit and releasing things on their own schedule.

there is a clear difference between webkit's release cycle and Safari's release cycle.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Opera....
by wumip on Fri 1st Jan 2010 21:55 in reply to "RE[2]: Opera...."
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

sorry. but you're way off. WK doesn't need to actually be mobile, that's why it's getting so popular, a full browser that can run on mobiles.

You are missing the point. I didn't say it needs a mobile version. I said there's no WK for mobile. That is, there is no single WK engine for mobile. It's all a bunch of incompatible forks.

webkit isn't tied to apple, they do dedicate a lot of money to the project with their coders, it also hasn't stopped a number of other companies using webkit and releasing things on their own schedule.

The Webkit project is mostly run by Apple. Other companies have released WK based browsers, such as Nokia. And guess what, they created a fork which ended up miles away from Apple's WK, so they had to go back to the drawing board and do it all over again.

there is a clear difference between webkit's release cycle and Safari's release cycle.

You are missing the point again. Apple runs the WK project. As an example, Nokia forked WK and made their own mobile browser. But it was so troublesome to both work on their own fork and implement all the changes Apple added to the main WK code, so Nokia's browser ended up a completely separate fork which they had to throw away and start from scratch because all their changes were impossible to merge back since WK and Nokia's fork had evolved far away from each other.

The "one mobile engine to rule them all" is the wet dream of ignorant people who think it's just a matter of checking out the codebase and making a browser. It's much, much harder than that because Apple is moving WK in a certain direction, and if your plans deviate even a tiny bit from that, you'll end up with an incompatible fork.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Opera....
by daveak on Fri 1st Jan 2010 20:43 in reply to "RE: Opera...."
daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

Yes they will all be ruled by Apple, Google will have no so whatsoever.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Opera....
by wumip on Fri 1st Jan 2010 21:56 in reply to "RE[2]: Opera...."
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

If Google wants a say, they will be forced to fork Webkit, and that will create a separate and eventually incompatible and totally different engine which is no longer Webkit.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Opera....
by KugelKurt on Fri 1st Jan 2010 23:31 in reply to "RE: Opera...."
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Also, browsers using webkit will always be "owned" by Apple since Apple basically runs the WK project. So anyone who goes for WK will either be a slave to Apple's release cycles


WebKit has no release cycles. Each port (Cocoa, Qt, GTK, Chrome) has its own cycle. Each port is managed separately. Apple only manages the Cocoa port.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Opera....
by wumip on Sat 2nd Jan 2010 00:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Opera...."
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Apple basically owns the Webkit project, so they add whatever they need whenever they need it. So yes, Webkit basically follows Apple's needs and release cycles.

You are talking about the wet dream theory. I'm talking about the cold, hard realith.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Opera....
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun 3rd Jan 2010 07:07 in reply to "RE: Opera...."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Google and Apple and KDE produce webkit code. It is not an apple project. When Mozilla jumps on to the web kit engine, it will be all but over.

Seriously... the focus of competition should be on end user features and scripting engines.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Opera....
by wumip on Sun 3rd Jan 2010 15:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Opera...."
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

WK is basically an Apple project, run by Apple.

Just one engine would be devastating to the browser market. There should be multiple engines out there competing to force sites to code to standards instead of engines.

Reply Parent Score: 1