Hm, what is their Raison d'être going to be, then?
And what about their pretty huge datacenter investment that had the purpose of processing websites to serve in the special (binary html ish) format for their mobile browsers? Lost investment?
While I haven't been fond of Opera in the last many years, it's a bit sad that there's one less browser engine out there, one less team to help influence the html spec. One step closer to WebKit being the new iE6? 
Too bad if their old HTML engine is going to be discarded. Probably no chance of them open-sourcing it.
-f0dder
Actually we might be several steps closer to that result. A guy at Softpedia thinks that Apple's refusal to allow browsers in the App Store is behind this. Google had to ditch its own version of Chrome to get in with a re-branded version of the Safari render engine. Mozilla demo'ed their version called Junior.
For those of us who followed the whole MS stranglehold with the bundling etc, this is amazing that Apple is apparently managing to pull this off.
But look at this snip:
"That alone is not much of a big deal. The problem is that apps don't also get access to the JavaScript engine used by Safari, Nitro which uses JIT (just-in-time compiling) to speed up processing.
Instead, Chrome and everyone else is forced to use the older JavaScript engine, which is significantly slower, as in several times slower.
In practice, any website that uses a lot of JavaScript, which means all good-looking and app-like mobile websites, will be noticeably slower on Chrome compared to Safari. "
http://news.softpedi...-WebKit-322592.shtmlhttp://news.softpedi...y-Apple-278246.shtmlI'm gonna keep digging to see if I can find any more good articles on this.
Meanwhile - everybody's copy of the Youtube demo video is gone "removed on copyright grounds".
