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 402144
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Opera....
by KugelKurt on Sat 2nd Jan 2010 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Opera...."
KugelKurt
Member since:
2005-07-06

So, if Apple controls WebKit....
1.) How is the competition hurt by it?
2.) Which features, put into WebKit by Apple are bad?
3.) Which rendering engine should the competition use?
4.) Why is everybody using WebKit anyway, if by your great insight, WebKit is just bad for Nokia, Palm, GNOME, etc.?


And while you at it:
A.) Give proof that Apple is controlling WebKit. Which special rights to Apple committers have compared to others?

B.) Give proof that the WebKit ports are forks. Show that Nokia is not committing directly to the WebKit repository. The article you are linking to all the time does not give proof that different ports are forks.

C.) Give proof that there is a power struggle between Google and Apple over WebKit control.

Edited 2010-01-03 00:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Opera....
by wumip on Sun 3rd Jan 2010 15:10 in reply to "RE[7]: Opera...."
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

The competition is hurt because WK is tailored to Apple's needs, not to mention Apple's patents and talk about enforcing them lately.

Also, consider things like video where Apple's WK will have support for one thing, but everyone else will have to license it separately. That kills the "WK is free" mantra, as you will have to pay huge license fees for the video decoding technology.

It is NOT in the interest of other companies to help Apple make licensed video codecs win the web video war. Apple already has a license. Everyone else will have to pay an insanely expensive license fee to the codec rights holders.

Apple will push for licensed, proprietary technologies on the web because it will give them a huge advantage over anyone else who chooses WK.

Oh, and everyone is not using WK at all. They never will. Phones are getting faster. Gecko is a joke on phones now, but will do well in the future.

Edited 2010-01-03 15:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Opera....
by KugelKurt on Sun 3rd Jan 2010 17:38 in reply to "RE[8]: Opera...."
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

The competition is hurt because WK is tailored to Apple's needs

Those are? Which of Apple's needs hurt WebKit and the competition?
Give facts with proof.

not to mention Apple's patents and talk about enforcing them lately.

Which talk exactly? Which patents are affected by WebKit?
Give facts with proof.

Also, consider things like video where Apple's WK will have support for one thing, but everyone else will have to license it separately.

WebKit does not render videos at all. That is delegated to external frameworks. Vendors are free to choose a framework. There is no video decoder present in WebKit's source tree.
You should check the facts before making such claims. Or can you show the exact location within WebKit's source repository that support for specific video formats is hard-coded into WebKit?

Oh, and everyone is not using WK at all. They never will. Phones are getting faster. Gecko is a joke on phones now, but will do well in the future.

Why are Nokia, Google, Palm, and GNOME using WebKit and not putting work into Gecko?

You were forgetting those:
A.) Give proof that Apple is controlling WebKit. Which special rights to Apple committers have compared to others?

B.) Give proof that the WebKit ports are forks. Show that Nokia is not committing directly to the WebKit repository. The article you are linking to all the time does not give proof that different ports are forks.

C.) Give proof that there is a power struggle between Google and Apple over WebKit control.

Reply Parent Score: 2