Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

2013 Version: Browser Wars

<< < (17/23) > >>

allen:
Does anybody have an Opera Wand password reader...Kinda need to extract all my shit now so I can move to something else.
-Stephen66515 (February 13, 2013, 06:22 PM)
--- End quote ---

I think if you use the lastpass binary installer you could then import into lastpass. Whether or not you want to use lastpass to store (and sync across browsers), it allows for easy export.

TaoPhoenix:
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 (February 13, 2013, 08:51 AM)
--- End quote ---

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.softpedia.com/news/Why-Opera-Sold-Its-Soul-Ditched-Presto-and-Adopted-WebKit-322592.shtml
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Google-Chrome-for-iOS-Is-Slick-But-Slow-Handicapped-by-Apple-278246.shtml

I'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".  :huh:

TaoPhoenix:
More notes on Opera:

From an accounting perspective, isn't this a write-off of a huge asset? I have no idea how browser company balance sheets work, but ditching your X years of work on your own browser can't just be smooth sailing.

This article specifically mentions the "Webkit is the new iE6" theme:
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/148312-opera-drops-presto-switch-to-google-and-apples-webkit-rendering-engine?print

Edit: A snip from yet another article suggested not to just ditch Presto, but to open the source so that other people can do things with it. I really like that idea!

40hz:
From an accounting perspective, isn't this a write-off of a huge asset? I have no idea how browser company balance sheets work, but ditching your X years of work on your own browser can't just be smooth sailing.
-TaoPhoenix (February 14, 2013, 12:27 PM)
--- End quote ---

Can't speak for Opera, but tax treatment of software development cost is an unnecessarily complex topic in the USA.

IRS says the costs of developing computer software (whether or not it is patented or copyrighted) in many respects so closely resembles research and experimental expenses that are governed by Code Sec. 174 as to warrant similar accounting treatment. As a result, a taxpayer may use any of the following three methods for costs paid or incurred in developing software for a particular project, either for the taxpayer's own use, or to be held by the taxpayer for sale or lease to others (Rev Proc 2000-50, Sec. 5.01):

(1) The costs may be consistently treated as current expenses and deducted in full under rules similar to those that apply under Code Sec. 174(a).

(2) The costs may be consistently treated as capital expenses that are amortized ratably under rules similar to those provided by Code Sec. 174(b) and applicable regs, over 60 months from the date of completion of the software development.

(3) The costs may be consistently treated as capital expenses and amortized ratably under the rules in Code Sec. 167(f)(1) and applicable regs, over 36 months from the date the software is placed in service. (Rev Proc 2000-50, Sec. 5.01(2))

RIA observation: If the third option is chosen, the cost of developing computer software also is eligible for a bonus first-year depreciation allowance, if the requirements of Code Sec. 168(k) are otherwise met.

--- End quote ---

I'm guessing they ditched it because they've already absorbed the cost on their P&L, and their balance sheet is suffering because of it.

Since most users don't care what rendering engine is lurking beneath the browser they're using, Opera might have decided that if they got rid of the expense of developing Presto - and most everything else stayed the same for them - their books would look a lot better.

At any rate, the cost to integrate an existing engine into their product has got to be a less than the cost of continuing to develop their own. So I think this was a pure survival move on their part. Something had to be cut if Opera was going to continue. And it looks like they decided they could afford to cut Presto.

Be interesting to see how much of their user base notices - or even cares.

TaoPhoenix:
Does anyone know of a build of Chromium that has a more "FF-Esque" set of menus? I haven't really decided to love or hate the engine except on the plugin topic, but I despise the UI. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page