The fee is capped now because the MPEG LA wants a monopoly for video on the web, and when they do, they can charge even more. It's extremely shortsighted to use H.264. It's incompatible with an open web: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Licensing
Yeah, who cares about open standards? Let's use Microsoft Markup Language (which only works in IE) for websites! You are also forgetting that when H.264 gets a monopoly, the MPEG LA can turn up the prices as much as they want and make shitloads of money.
Yeah, except Dirac is worse at streaming stuff, which is what is needed on the web. Dirac might have better quality for offline viewing, but it sucks compared to the others at streaming.
What prevents Google from being hacked after pulling out of China? The internet is, you know, global and all... Why would Chinese hackers be limited to operating in China?
The first games were Wii Sports and Crossbow Training. When I was a kid and player NES games, they were incredibly simple, at least at first. And yet they were played to death. Nintendo is taking gaming back to its roots. It's part of their strategy to expand the market. Your parents are me when I was a kid, playing simple NES games. Well, except I probably played for a few hours and not just one or two each day:)
He who dominates the browser, dominates the web. The web is one of the most important pieces of our modern society. So yes, it's not "just a browser". It's THE FUCKING browser.
It would have cost them a lot more to cut off their only revenue stream without any alternatives. As soon as Google started paying them for passing along searches to them and Opera realized that it could work as a business model, they dumped the ads. Not everyone can get free money from someone else (Mozilla) or have other products that pay the bills (MS, Google). Opera needed to pay the bills. Not paying the bills would cost the company its life. Market share vs. the very existence of the company? Get real.
I wonder how much money they ever made from ads, and if they regret it, given that 5 years on they're still trying to lose the bad aroma it produced? It was bad enough wading through all the ads on the net, without extra ads built into the browser - what were they thinking?
I'm guessing they were thinking about survival. Back when Opera had ads there was no alternative revenue stream. As an independent company they needed revenue to survive. Once they invented the search field and Google offered them cash to forward searches to them, Opera dropped the ads. All they needed was a working business model.
I know it's common that companies use browsers as a loss leader (Microsoft) or the browser vendor can live freely off of other companies (Mozilla). Opera is the exception. The company had to survive off of the browser alone. It was the only product they had.
If it is the page's fault, then they should render wrong in FF/IE/etc, not just Opera.
The problem is, many sites will serve specific code to maybe IE and Firefox ("Netscape"), and any other browser gets nothing, or a broken mess. That, or they specifically and silently block Opera from getting the right code path (don't ask me why). Most of the time simply sending Opera down the Firefox code path makes it work fine (make the UA string spoof Firefox).
Opera actually has about 50 million desktop users and about 50 million users of Opera Mini. That's 100 million users (before counting users of other products). Mozilla claims that Firefox has 300-400 million users. Do the math.
If they think that IE is the internet, then how is tricking them into loading another browser going to help them?
Why are they being "tricked" if they are given a visible choice, but not when tricked into believing that there is no choice (pre-ballot screen)? You seem rather biased.
The browser choice system is designed to help the other browser makers like Mozilla and Opera. It is designed to help the website designers who bitch about CSS support in IE. It is not designed to help the people who actually own the computers that are being forced to re-choose their software.
Why yes, it is indeed. It gives them clearly visible choice most never knew they had. This hopefully reduces IE's dominance, leading to a more diverse browser market, and there are many reasons why that benefits users. For example, multiple browsers with a decent market share means that it's much more expensive and time-consuming to create malware. It will take much more effort to cover even a small part of the computers out there compared to how it was before.
The thing that everyone has forgotten here is what is best for the general public - the ones who aren't interested in tinkering with their computer and who just want to get onto the web. They don't care that there are other options out there, because they just want to use what they already know. They don't care if writing a website for IE is more work for the webmasters, because they don't see any of that and all they know is that all the websites that they want just work.
No, you are just assuming that everyone has forgotten this and that. As a matter of fact, choice is good for the end-user. Another example of why is that sites will be easier to maintain, which means better quality and service for the end-user.
But a Microsoft shill wouldn't care about that, I guess...
As I said in another comment: The problem is that the V8 benchmark is created to make Chrome look good. So it skips stuff Chrome is slow at. At least Safari "loses" at Sunspider, which makes it a bit more credible than the test Google made to make it appear like Chrome is much faster than the rest using trickery...
The problem is that the V8 benchmark is created to make Chrome look good. So it skips stuff Chrome is slow at. At least Safari "loses" at Sunspider, which makes it a bit more credible than the test Google made to make it appear like Chrome is much faster than the rest using trickery...
The memory testing is quite stupid, though. Opera might use more memory over a shorter period of time to make stuff faster, but it evens out over time.
Slashdot Mirror
The fee is capped now because the MPEG LA wants a monopoly for video on the web, and when they do, they can charge even more. It's extremely shortsighted to use H.264. It's incompatible with an open web: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Licensing
Because Opera and Firefox support an open web, which H.264 is 100% incompatible with: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Licensing
Yeah, who cares about open standards? Let's use Microsoft Markup Language (which only works in IE) for websites! You are also forgetting that when H.264 gets a monopoly, the MPEG LA can turn up the prices as much as they want and make shitloads of money.
H.264 is a closed and proprietary codec, and incompatible with the web: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Licensing
H.264 could never be part of any open web standard: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Licensing
MP3 fees are much less draconian than H.264, and GIF was a submarine patent, but expired.
Yeah, except Dirac is worse at streaming stuff, which is what is needed on the web. Dirac might have better quality for offline viewing, but it sucks compared to the others at streaming.
What prevents Google from being hacked after pulling out of China? The internet is, you know, global and all... Why would Chinese hackers be limited to operating in China?
LOL. No. They bought it because of the games. Games sell consoles.
The first games were Wii Sports and Crossbow Training. When I was a kid and player NES games, they were incredibly simple, at least at first. And yet they were played to death. Nintendo is taking gaming back to its roots. It's part of their strategy to expand the market. Your parents are me when I was a kid, playing simple NES games. Well, except I probably played for a few hours and not just one or two each day :)
Those who ignore the science are the AGW deniers. The science clearly shows AGW.
The problem, of course, is that the scientists won't make any money from cap'n'trade.
He who dominates the browser, dominates the web. The web is one of the most important pieces of our modern society. So yes, it's not "just a browser". It's THE FUCKING browser.
Fail. Opera crushes Chrome at performance now. Sorry.
It would have cost them a lot more to cut off their only revenue stream without any alternatives. As soon as Google started paying them for passing along searches to them and Opera realized that it could work as a business model, they dumped the ads. Not everyone can get free money from someone else (Mozilla) or have other products that pay the bills (MS, Google). Opera needed to pay the bills. Not paying the bills would cost the company its life. Market share vs. the very existence of the company? Get real.
I'm guessing they were thinking about survival. Back when Opera had ads there was no alternative revenue stream. As an independent company they needed revenue to survive. Once they invented the search field and Google offered them cash to forward searches to them, Opera dropped the ads. All they needed was a working business model.
I know it's common that companies use browsers as a loss leader (Microsoft) or the browser vendor can live freely off of other companies (Mozilla). Opera is the exception. The company had to survive off of the browser alone. It was the only product they had.
The problem is, many sites will serve specific code to maybe IE and Firefox ("Netscape"), and any other browser gets nothing, or a broken mess. That, or they specifically and silently block Opera from getting the right code path (don't ask me why). Most of the time simply sending Opera down the Firefox code path makes it work fine (make the UA string spoof Firefox).
Making people aware, thus giving them actual choice, benefits everyone.
That's much, much harder to enforce.
Opera actually has about 50 million desktop users and about 50 million users of Opera Mini. That's 100 million users (before counting users of other products). Mozilla claims that Firefox has 300-400 million users. Do the math.
Why are they being "tricked" if they are given a visible choice, but not when tricked into believing that there is no choice (pre-ballot screen)? You seem rather biased.
Why yes, it is indeed. It gives them clearly visible choice most never knew they had. This hopefully reduces IE's dominance, leading to a more diverse browser market, and there are many reasons why that benefits users. For example, multiple browsers with a decent market share means that it's much more expensive and time-consuming to create malware. It will take much more effort to cover even a small part of the computers out there compared to how it was before.
No, you are just assuming that everyone has forgotten this and that. As a matter of fact, choice is good for the end-user. Another example of why is that sites will be easier to maintain, which means better quality and service for the end-user.
But a Microsoft shill wouldn't care about that, I guess...
So IE is more truthful, and everyone else is "lying"?
Opera would have easily won with 30 tabs open. Opera is really the only browser that easily handles a lot of tabs.
As I said in another comment: The problem is that the V8 benchmark is created to make Chrome look good. So it skips stuff Chrome is slow at. At least Safari "loses" at Sunspider, which makes it a bit more credible than the test Google made to make it appear like Chrome is much faster than the rest using trickery...
The problem is that the V8 benchmark is created to make Chrome look good. So it skips stuff Chrome is slow at. At least Safari "loses" at Sunspider, which makes it a bit more credible than the test Google made to make it appear like Chrome is much faster than the rest using trickery...
The memory testing is quite stupid, though. Opera might use more memory over a shorter period of time to make stuff faster, but it evens out over time.
No, you can edit filters in the content blocker dialog.