Let's see what the experts are saying regarding software patents. How about Nobel Laureate Eric Maskin? You know, actual expert statements based on actual research?
This was written in 1999. "Expert statements" about computing from a decade ago isn't very compelling. Even the economic ones...especially when you don't know the author's bias.
Are you arguing that you believe that the rate of change in the software industry has slowed between 2000-2009 vs 1980-1989? This paper was written before Web 2.0 and oddly at the end of the dot com boom. Software patent news is kinda like airplane crashes (RIM vs NTP) . Big news that is published with something happens but most airplane trips are uneventful.
The largest problem with software patents isn't that they exist. It's that the USPTO had such low standards for obviousness and novelty. Caused by them losing the fight to keep software patents from happening and simply letting software patents get out of hand in a snit.
Clinton did not help when he appointed Lehman as commissioner of the USPTO. The pendulum is swinging in the other direction so there's no reason to expect that software patents will be any more limiting than hardware patents in the future.
Each industry uses patents in a slightly different way and nearly three decades later we're find our way to something that reasonably protects IP but doesn't undully hamper innovation.
The ruling on In Re Bilski struck down an abstract business patent and has impact on software patents.
Yes, because the opinions from an opera blog should be considered unbiased and not self serving at all.
The fact that Chrome has 10M users in less than a fricking year while Opera has only 40M desktop users is an indication that Opera is mostly niche even through free and will remain so IF they are lucky. Webkit is kicking their ass and those blog posts are sour grapes.
NetApp has flaws but they've been pretty clear that they are US and Europe centric.
And Opera Software does not believe in software patents. Nor does Mozilla, which is growing like mad as well.
Opera doesn't believe in software patents but holds them anyway as "defensive" software patents. Of course, these hold zero value against a patent troll so why do they hold them?
Ah, to participate in the patent cartels they dispise.
Yes, because the opinions from an opera blog should be considered unbiased and not self serving at all.
That's rich You clearly can't refute the facts that are presented, so you resort to attacking the person who presents you with the facts you don't like.
Quote:
The fact that Chrome has 10M users in less than a fricking year while Opera has only 40M desktop users is an indication that Opera is mostly niche even through free and will remain so IF they are lucky.
Wow, another attempt at changing the subject. You people do love to ignore the facts you are presented with and are quick to change the subject when you feel uncomfortable!
Look at the context: Opera had 30 million users, and Chrome had 10 million users. And yet Net Applications reported Chrome as having a higher market share than Opera! This fact alone should make any rational individual reconsider if they actually trust Net Applications.
But to play along with your trollish attempt at changing the subject, I'm surprised that Chrome hasn't gotten more users. Google has been heavily pushing Chrome through all their advertising channels, and since Google is one of the biggest and most powerful advertising companies on the planet, this speaks volumes about the failure of Chrome to gain a foothold in the browser market.
Opera, on the other hand, has always been an independent browser vendor and has been growing its user base since it became free of charge a little over 3 years ago (late 2005). In less than two years, Opera doubled its user base from 10-15 million users to 20-30 million users or so. They probably have well over 40 million users now.
So while Chrome managed to get 1/3 as many users as Opera, Opera's desktop user growth has only accelerated after Chrome was released. And Opera has only been free of charge for 3.5 years. Before that it would never stand a chance of growing its user base anyway.
Quote:
Webkit is kicking their ass and those blog posts are sour grapes.
The blog posts aren't even about Webkit, and Webkit isn't even a browser. Your ad hominems reek of desperation. But hey, keep trying to change the subject. You people do it so well
Quote:
NetApp has flaws but they've been pretty clear that they are US and Europe centric.
Actually, they haven't. But if you had bothered to read the blog posts, you would have know that this is far from the only problem with Net Applications.
Opera doesn't believe in software patents but holds them anyway as "defensive" software patents. Of course, these hold zero value against a patent troll so why do they hold them?
What makes you think they are holding patents to protect themselves against patent trolls? Are you saying that you think that the only way for someone to sue over a patent is if they don't produce any relevant products? That companies who actually produce something don't hold patents, and never use them to sue other companies?
No, there is still value in holding patents to protect yourself from competitors who may want to sue you over patents. You know, like Apple, which is getting increasingly desperate, what with Palm Pre starting to look rather nice and everything.
But hey, keep trolling! Reject reality and make up stuff as you go along. That always works when you don't have any proper arguments.
Furthermore, Opera's market share has more than doubled in less than two years. And after Chrome was released, Opera's user growth has only accelerated.
It's interesting that Chrome is failing this badly, considering that Google is the most powerful advertising company on the planet, and has been pushing Chrome HARD all over the place.
The market is ultra-saturated with browsers. And Firefox has been out for years. it too Joe User forever to even figure out there was such a thing as Firefox.
Chrom is yet another browser to add to the pile. We already have an alternative to IE, so what's the reason for Chrome when Firefox is the established alternative?
Chrome is great, but it has plenty of ground to make up in order to penetrate to Joe User.
Forefox simply commands more mindshare at this point. Give it time.
We already have an alternative to IE, so what's the reason for Chrome when Firefox is the established alternative?
There are several reasons for it. Chrome does introduce some new features that Firefox doesn't have and it does WebKit with is arguably a better browser engine. But the most important aspect for introducing Chrome might be for Google to move it's OS-agnostic platform one step further to a realization. If they ever do plan to make an internet appliance that will be released to the developing nations and then to the rest of the world that will connect to their mail and office documents and and everything else they and the internet offers they will need a web browser to access it all.
All in all, I doubt care what Google's reasoning is, I just hope they can make it popular because a web developers taking WebKit seriously when designing webpages is good for all Safari users.
There are several reasons for it. Chrome does introduce some new features that Firefox doesn't have and it does WebKit with is arguably a better browser engine. But the most important aspect for introducing Chrome might be for Google to move it's OS-agnostic platform one step further to a realization. If they ever do plan to make an internet appliance that will be released to the developing nations and then to the rest of the world that will connect to their mail and office documents and and everything else they and the internet offers they will need a web browser to access it all.
All in all, I doubt care what Google's reasoning is, I just hope they can make it popular because a web developers taking WeBkit seriously when designing webpages is good for all Safari users.
Oh absolutely, WE can see and understand the reason for Chrome (Webkit being one of them), but does Joe User? Uptake is a bit slower with the average user. To them, "research" comes from word-of-mouth and perhaps an ad here and there. It took virtually forever for Firefox to catch on as it has.
It took virtually forever for Firefox to catch on as it has.
Well, no.
Firefox started taking off even before version 1.0 was released, if I am not mistaken.
Why? Because people had a compelling reason to switch, and Mozilla capitalized on that. They had a lot of luck with their timing, because at the time, everyone was talking about how IE was a security nightmare and everyone was looking for an alternative. Opera wasn't a real alternative at the time because you had to pay for it. Firefox, on the other hand, came with a stripped down, easy to use browser at the right time.
There's no similarly compelling reason to switch to Chrome. It might be "better" in some technical ways, but Joe User doesn't really care.
Firefox started taking off even before version 1.0 was released, if I am not mistaken.
Why? Because people had a compelling reason to switch, and Mozilla capitalized on that. They had a lot of luck with their timing, because at the time, everyone was talking about how IE was a security nightmare and everyone was looking for an alternative. Opera wasn't a real alternative at the time because you had to pay for it. Firefox, on the other hand, came with a stripped down, easy to use browser at the right time.
There's no similarly compelling reason to switch to Chrome. It might be "better" in some technical ways, but Joe User doesn't really care.
It did have a nice built-in techy audience from the start, but I think he was referring to a viable worldwide marketshare that covers many non-technical users, though there is still plenty of room for it grow.
Regarding Chrome, I don't think Google is concerned about OS level uptake. I think they have deeper plans that have nothing to do with how it compares to Firefox or IE or Safari's marketshare.
That's rich You clearly can't refute the facts that are presented, so you resort to attacking the person who presents you with the facts you don't like.
No, I'm saying that your source of "facts" is biased and what you state as "facts" are actually opinions.
The blogger refers to Net Application's "dirty secrets" you know they have some axe to grind.
Quote:
Wow, another attempt at changing the subject. You people do love to ignore the facts you are presented with and are quick to change the subject when you feel uncomfortable!
Look at the context: Opera had 30 million users, and Chrome had 10 million users. And yet Net Applications reported Chrome as having a higher market share than Opera! This fact alone should make any rational individual reconsider if they actually trust Net Applications.
The point is that it doesn't matter. The 0.71% (Opera) and 0.83% (Chrome) statistic reported by Net Applications real indications is that both browsers are niche and within the noise factor for reporting. Meaning both 10M and 40M are tiny numbers that are hard to get accurate readings from browser hit stats.
All netapp really tells you is that IE has about 2/3rds of the market, firefox and safari split most of the remaining 1/3 and everyone else is frigging noise at 3%.
Quote:
But to play along with your trollish attempt at changing the subject, I'm surprised that Chrome hasn't gotten more users. Google has been heavily pushing Chrome through all their advertising channels, and since Google is one of the biggest and most powerful advertising companies on the planet, this speaks volumes about the failure of Chrome to gain a foothold in the browser market.
Jeez, it was beta on September 2008 and public stable only on december 2008 and only on the PC. Chrome is up to 1.23% now. When it gets to around 5% it'll have meaningful share. Of course Chrome CAN get to 5%+ whereas Opera never will.
Quote:
So while Chrome managed to get 1/3 as many users as Opera, Opera's desktop user growth has only accelerated after Chrome was released. And Opera has only been free of charge for 3.5 years. Before that it would never stand a chance of growing its user base anyway.
Right and you can prove this how?
Quote:
The blog posts aren't even about Webkit, and Webkit isn't even a browser. Your ad hominems reek of desperation. But hey, keep trying to change the subject. You people do it so well
The blog posts are whining that opera is under-represented on Net App and the two nearest competitors are Safari and Chrome. Both webkit based browsers. Coupled with the incessant whining about who passed the acid tests first there's a huge chip on the shoulders of opera fans about webkit.
Quote:
Actually, they haven't. But if you had bothered to read the blog posts, you would have know that this is far from the only problem with Net Applications.
And if Net App had been reporting that Opera had 4% share then it never would have appeared on that blog regardless of how broken it may or may not be.
What makes you think they are holding patents to protect themselves against patent trolls? Are you saying that you think that the only way for someone to sue over a patent is if they don't produce any relevant products? That companies who actually produce something don't hold patents, and never use them to sue other companies?
I'm saying that if you don't believe in software patents then the purist answer is to not hold any and not to infringe on anyone else's.
If they disliked software patents but are a little more pragmatic they can patent their innovations but provide royalty free patent grants on all their software patents for everyone that is revoked for any entity that sues them for patent infringment.
Otherwise you're simply partaking in the software patent game by cross licensing, etc. It's marketing, not real belief.
Do they list their patents? No.
Do they offer royalty free patent grants? Not obviously stated on their site.
Do they have patent cross licensing with anyone? Not that they mention. A negative would be nice from folks that "believe in a patent-free web".
Do they have patent revenue stream? Not that they mention. Again, a negative would be nice from folks that "believe in a patent-free web".
Quote:
No, there is still value in holding patents to protect yourself from competitors who may want to sue you over patents. You know, like Apple, which is getting increasingly desperate, what with Palm Pre starting to look rather nice and everything.
And if Apple isn't infringing on any of your patents then your defensive patent portfolio's value is zero.
Quote:
But hey, keep trolling! Reject reality and make up stuff as you go along. That always works when you don't have any proper arguments.
Yep, because reality is declaring that you hate something (patents) but support them anyway (by applying for and holding them). That's not reality, that's called marketing.
Besides, you like talking about these side issues because you ignored the discussion that software patents are viable if stricter tests for obviousness and innovation and the potential effects of Bilski mitigates some of the issues on software patents.
Why? Likely because you don't really have anything besides "software patents are evil" in your quiver.
Before they of spend a bunch of time trying to figure out if Apple's patents are really legitimate for this use, why don't they kick Apple out of the WC3 first? Whether the patents are valid or not, Apple is clearly not abiding by rules for members.
You haven't the first clue of how this works do you. That wasn't a question, it was a statement.
NOTHING is required to be given by a W3C member EVER. W3C mentions in one paragraph having to grant Essential Claims patents then in the next paragraph says exactly how to not be required to grant those same Essential Claims patents.
The only things required of W3C members are to pay membership fees and to inform the working groups they participate in if there is a held patent they do not wish to grant rights to that affects the current standards discussion.
Even the "Essential Claims" patents, patents on a technology where there is no alternative and the type of patent Apple has held back on, may be held back with no impact to a members standing if the exclusion dissensions are made within the listed timelines. Essentially that sends the standards group back to the drawing board on that particular issue. If the W3C worked it any other way they wouldn't have corporate members.
I have played a role at the edges of this process and read almost all of the governing documentation over the past couple years. It's amazing how much ignorance can be avoided by actually reading the docs.
No, I'm saying that your source of "facts" is biased and what you state as "facts" are actually opinions.
The raw numbers are right there. Raw numbers are not "opinions".
Quote:
The point is that it doesn't matter. The 0.71% (Opera) and 0.83% (Chrome) statistic reported by Net Applications real indications is that both browsers are niche and within the noise factor for reporting. Meaning both 10M and 40M are tiny numbers that are hard to get accurate readings from browser hit stats.
This is a poor excuse for the fact that the stats from Net Applications don't match reality. The fact is that other statistics sources show numbers that actually make sense when you check them against reality. Those stats also show that Safari is pathetically low when it comes to market share, despite being bundled with Macs.
Quote:
All netapp really tells you is that IE has about 2/3rds of the market, firefox and safari split most of the remaining 1/3 and everyone else is frigging noise at 3%.
Actually, Safari has a lower market share than Opera, and that's despite being bundled with Macs!
Jeez, it was beta on September 2008 and public stable only on december 2008 and only on the PC. Chrome is up to 1.23% now. When it gets to around 5% it'll have meaningful share. Of course Chrome CAN get to 5%+ whereas Opera never will.
Actually, Opera has up to 50% market share in some countries according to StatCounter.
Quote:
Right and you can prove this how?
Prove what? That Opera has only been free of charge for 3.5 years?
Quote:
The blog posts are whining that opera is under-represented on Net App and the two nearest competitors are Safari and Chrome. Both webkit based browsers. Coupled with the incessant whining about who passed the acid tests first there's a huge chip on the shoulders of opera fans about webkit.
What incessant whining about the Acid tests? I saw none. If anyone has a huge chip on his shoulder, it seems to be you! Look at you whining about other people like that, LOL.
Again, the blog doesn't even mention Webkit, but apparently you are once again desperate to change the subject because you don't have any valid counter-arguments.
Quote:
And if Net App had been reporting that Opera had 4% share then it never would have appeared on that blog regardless of how broken it may or may not be.
Maybe, maybe not. But that doesn't negate the fact that Net Applications is broken.
I'm saying that if you don't believe in software patents then the purist answer is to not hold any and not to infringe on anyone else's.
I know that for Apple fanboys, "purist" is great, but Opera needs to live in the real world, where there is a real danger of competitors using patents to rid themselves of other companies.
Quote:
If they disliked software patents but are a little more pragmatic they can patent their innovations but provide royalty free patent grants on all their software patents for everyone that is revoked for any entity that sues them for patent infringment.
Which is what they are doing in practice.
Quote:
Do they offer royalty free patent grants?
They obviously do.
Quote:
And if Apple isn't infringing on any of your patents then your defensive patent portfolio's value is zero.
Apple isn't the only company in the world, even if Apple fanboys think so.
Quote:
Yep, because reality is declaring that you hate something (patents) but support them anyway (by applying for and holding them).
Again, in your purist Apple world, all this theoretical nonsense is probably fine because you are protected by Steve's reality distortion shield, but in the real world, companies do sue over patents.
Quote:
Besides, you like talking about these side issues because you ignored the discussion that software patents are viable if stricter tests for obviousness and innovation and the potential effects of Bilski mitigates some of the issues on software patents.
And yet software patents are still a bad idea. You are going on about how you can make them less crappy, but they will still be crappy.
The raw numbers are right there. Raw numbers are not "opinions".
This is a poor excuse for the fact that the stats from Net Applications don't match reality. The fact is that other statistics sources show numbers that actually make sense when you check them against reality. Those stats also show that Safari is pathetically low when it comes to market share, despite being bundled with Macs.
Given that StatCounter numbers are just as divergent from other sources as Net Applications I'm guessing the only reason you like StatCounter is that it supports your position.
Quote:
Actually, Opera has up to 50% market share in some countries according to StatCounter.
So what? Stat Counter is no more transparent in how they collect statistics than Net Applications. You take them all with a huge grain of salt. Even Google trends.
"Given that there is no universal standard for how to measure these statistics, any of these numbers from any service have to be taken with a grain of salt. StatCounter gets its data from all the sites that use the service, and chances are that the types of sites where StatCounter is installed on inevitably skew the data in one way or another."
I agree with that assessment completely. Whining about how netapp has some kind of nefarious anti-Opera bias is silly without conclusive evidence given how inaccurate these measures are. You cannot claim that Net Application doesn't actually SEE the numbers they publish.
Quote:
Prove what? That Opera has only been free of charge for 3.5 years?
Prove your assertion that Opera has accelerated market share gain after the release of Chrome. You know, the line that was quoted?
Quote:
What incessant whining about the Acid tests? I saw none. If anyone has a huge chip on his shoulder, it seems to be you! Look at you whining about other people like that, LOL.
Again, the blog doesn't even mention Webkit, but apparently you are once again desperate to change the subject because you don't have any valid counter-arguments.
Please. Google Acid, Opera and Safari.
Quote:
Maybe, maybe not. But that doesn't negate the fact that Net Applications is broken.
Says you and some guy on an Opera blog. In actuality they're all broken in some way but you guys want to believe StatCounter for no better reason.
I know that for Apple fanboys, "purist" is great, but Opera needs to live in the real world, where there is a real danger of competitors using patents to rid themselves of other companies.
Which is what they are doing in practice.
So show me where they grant royalty free use of their patents. Heck, show me which patents they hold. Show me that they support the OIN (provides royalty free patent grants to companies in exchange for agreeing not to assert patents against Linux) by being either contributor or licensee.
Being a licensee seems straightforward. All Opera has to do is to agree not to assert their own patents against Linux or Linux-related applications (like Firefox). Being an OIN licensee seems like something they'd put in that paragraph being such ardent anti-patent folks.
Quote:
They obviously do.
Then show me. Should be easy since it is "obvious".
Quote:
Apple isn't the only company in the world, even if Apple fanboys think so.
Doesn't matter. The point is that defensive patent portfolio is still worthless IF the entity suing you isn't infringing on any of them.
Quote:
Again, in your purist Apple world, all this theoretical nonsense is probably fine because you are protected by Steve's reality distortion shield, but in the real world, companies do sue over patents.
Show that the Opera patents hold defensive value or if they are in fact revenue centers and used in cross-license agreements. This isn't a theoretical question and since it's "obvious" where Opera stands it should be easy to answer via quotations from corporate statements.
Quote:
And yet software patents are still a bad idea. You are going on about how you can make them less crappy, but they will still be crappy.
Repeating a bald assertion doesn't make it any more compelling an argument. Thus far you haven't shown any concrete reason why all software patents are bad.
Given that StatCounter numbers are just as divergent from other sources as Net Applications I'm guessing the only reason you like StatCounter is that it supports your position.
I'm referring to StatCounter because it is more reliable than Net Applications. Unlike Net Applications, StatCounter doesn't have a history of lies, deceit and manipulating statistics.
Quote:
So what? Stat Counter is no more transparent in how they collect statistics than Net Applications. You take them all with a huge grain of salt.
Oh, so that's what some fanboys here are doing when they are whining about Opera's allegedly low market share? No. Apparently it's OK if Apple fanboys use completely useless stats, but when someone responds with stats to the contrary, it's not allowed all of a sudden!
Quote:
I agree with that assessment completely. Whining about how netapp has some kind of nefarious anti-Opera bias is silly without conclusive evidence given how inaccurate these measures are.
The facts speak for themselves. They have dumped Opera to the bottom more than once.
Quote:
Prove your assertion that Opera has accelerated market share gain after the release of Chrome. You know, the line that was quoted?
This was mentioned by Opera's CEO during an interview at my.opera.com. This is supported by the financial reports, whiere they report desktop usage, and are required by law to give truthful information. You can find the financial reports at opera.com.
Quote:
Please. Google Acid, Opera and Safari.
What about it? I remember the Safari guys whining loudly when Opera claimed 100/100 on Acid3, and they started digging around and found some error in the test which they fixed and then reported to the Acid3 guys so they got 100/100.
Quote:
Says you and some guy on an Opera blog.
Say the hard facts.
Quote:
In actuality they're all broken in some way but you guys want to believe StatCounter for no better reason.
Actually, I'm not the one who brought up browser statistics. I'm not the one who started dragging out fake Net Applications numbers.
Comments
The fact that "Net Applications is almost exclusively U.S.-focused, and that they have lied and manipulated their own statistics several times".
http://tinyurl.com/netapplies
Is there a reason for tinyurl?
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/ind...20applications
You'd think the folks at Opera would know better to avoid white space in URIs.
Is there a reason for tinyurl?
It's short and easy to remember.
Is there a reason why you are trying to change the subject?
You'd think the folks at Opera would know better to avoid white space in URIs.
It's a tag. A space is perfectly OK in a URL. That's what %20 is for.
You'd think someone who has such strong opinions would know better than trying to change the subject all the time.
Let's see what the experts are saying regarding software patents. How about Nobel Laureate Eric Maskin? You know, actual expert statements based on actual research?
This was written in 1999. "Expert statements" about computing from a decade ago isn't very compelling. Even the economic ones...especially when you don't know the author's bias.
Are you arguing that you believe that the rate of change in the software industry has slowed between 2000-2009 vs 1980-1989? This paper was written before Web 2.0 and oddly at the end of the dot com boom. Software patent news is kinda like airplane crashes (RIM vs NTP) . Big news that is published with something happens but most airplane trips are uneventful.
The largest problem with software patents isn't that they exist. It's that the USPTO had such low standards for obviousness and novelty. Caused by them losing the fight to keep software patents from happening and simply letting software patents get out of hand in a snit.
Clinton did not help when he appointed Lehman as commissioner of the USPTO. The pendulum is swinging in the other direction so there's no reason to expect that software patents will be any more limiting than hardware patents in the future.
Each industry uses patents in a slightly different way and nearly three decades later we're find our way to something that reasonably protects IP but doesn't undully hamper innovation.
The ruling on In Re Bilski struck down an abstract business patent and has impact on software patents.
The fact that "Net Applications is almost exclusively U.S.-focused, and that they have lied and manipulated their own statistics several times".
http://tinyurl.com/netapplies
Yes, because the opinions from an opera blog should be considered unbiased and not self serving at all.
The fact that Chrome has 10M users in less than a fricking year while Opera has only 40M desktop users is an indication that Opera is mostly niche even through free and will remain so IF they are lucky. Webkit is kicking their ass and those blog posts are sour grapes.
NetApp has flaws but they've been pretty clear that they are US and Europe centric.
And Opera Software does not believe in software patents. Nor does Mozilla, which is growing like mad as well.
Opera doesn't believe in software patents but holds them anyway as "defensive" software patents. Of course, these hold zero value against a patent troll so why do they hold them?
Ah, to participate in the patent cartels they dispise.
Yes, because the opinions from an opera blog should be considered unbiased and not self serving at all.
That's rich You clearly can't refute the facts that are presented, so you resort to attacking the person who presents you with the facts you don't like.
The fact that Chrome has 10M users in less than a fricking year while Opera has only 40M desktop users is an indication that Opera is mostly niche even through free and will remain so IF they are lucky.
Wow, another attempt at changing the subject. You people do love to ignore the facts you are presented with and are quick to change the subject when you feel uncomfortable!
Look at the context: Opera had 30 million users, and Chrome had 10 million users. And yet Net Applications reported Chrome as having a higher market share than Opera! This fact alone should make any rational individual reconsider if they actually trust Net Applications.
But to play along with your trollish attempt at changing the subject, I'm surprised that Chrome hasn't gotten more users. Google has been heavily pushing Chrome through all their advertising channels, and since Google is one of the biggest and most powerful advertising companies on the planet, this speaks volumes about the failure of Chrome to gain a foothold in the browser market.
Opera, on the other hand, has always been an independent browser vendor and has been growing its user base since it became free of charge a little over 3 years ago (late 2005). In less than two years, Opera doubled its user base from 10-15 million users to 20-30 million users or so. They probably have well over 40 million users now.
So while Chrome managed to get 1/3 as many users as Opera, Opera's desktop user growth has only accelerated after Chrome was released. And Opera has only been free of charge for 3.5 years. Before that it would never stand a chance of growing its user base anyway.
Webkit is kicking their ass and those blog posts are sour grapes.
The blog posts aren't even about Webkit, and Webkit isn't even a browser. Your ad hominems reek of desperation. But hey, keep trying to change the subject. You people do it so well
NetApp has flaws but they've been pretty clear that they are US and Europe centric.
Actually, they haven't. But if you had bothered to read the blog posts, you would have know that this is far from the only problem with Net Applications.
Opera doesn't believe in software patents but holds them anyway as "defensive" software patents. Of course, these hold zero value against a patent troll so why do they hold them?
What makes you think they are holding patents to protect themselves against patent trolls? Are you saying that you think that the only way for someone to sue over a patent is if they don't produce any relevant products? That companies who actually produce something don't hold patents, and never use them to sue other companies?
No, there is still value in holding patents to protect yourself from competitors who may want to sue you over patents. You know, like Apple, which is getting increasingly desperate, what with Palm Pre starting to look rather nice and everything.
But hey, keep trolling! Reject reality and make up stuff as you go along. That always works when you don't have any proper arguments.
Chrome is not beating Opera:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-e...1-20090408-bar
Furthermore, Opera's market share has more than doubled in less than two years. And after Chrome was released, Opera's user growth has only accelerated.
Even worldwide Opera is still ahead:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-w...1-20090408-bar
It's interesting that Chrome is failing this badly, considering that Google is the most powerful advertising company on the planet, and has been pushing Chrome HARD all over the place.
The market is ultra-saturated with browsers. And Firefox has been out for years. it too Joe User forever to even figure out there was such a thing as Firefox.
Chrom is yet another browser to add to the pile. We already have an alternative to IE, so what's the reason for Chrome when Firefox is the established alternative?
Chrome is great, but it has plenty of ground to make up in order to penetrate to Joe User.
Forefox simply commands more mindshare at this point. Give it time.
We already have an alternative to IE, so what's the reason for Chrome when Firefox is the established alternative?
There are several reasons for it. Chrome does introduce some new features that Firefox doesn't have and it does WebKit with is arguably a better browser engine. But the most important aspect for introducing Chrome might be for Google to move it's OS-agnostic platform one step further to a realization. If they ever do plan to make an internet appliance that will be released to the developing nations and then to the rest of the world that will connect to their mail and office documents and and everything else they and the internet offers they will need a web browser to access it all.
All in all, I doubt care what Google's reasoning is, I just hope they can make it popular because a web developers taking WebKit seriously when designing webpages is good for all Safari users.
There are several reasons for it. Chrome does introduce some new features that Firefox doesn't have and it does WebKit with is arguably a better browser engine. But the most important aspect for introducing Chrome might be for Google to move it's OS-agnostic platform one step further to a realization. If they ever do plan to make an internet appliance that will be released to the developing nations and then to the rest of the world that will connect to their mail and office documents and and everything else they and the internet offers they will need a web browser to access it all.
All in all, I doubt care what Google's reasoning is, I just hope they can make it popular because a web developers taking WeBkit seriously when designing webpages is good for all Safari users.
Oh absolutely, WE can see and understand the reason for Chrome (Webkit being one of them), but does Joe User? Uptake is a bit slower with the average user. To them, "research" comes from word-of-mouth and perhaps an ad here and there. It took virtually forever for Firefox to catch on as it has.
It took virtually forever for Firefox to catch on as it has.
Well, no.
Firefox started taking off even before version 1.0 was released, if I am not mistaken.
Why? Because people had a compelling reason to switch, and Mozilla capitalized on that. They had a lot of luck with their timing, because at the time, everyone was talking about how IE was a security nightmare and everyone was looking for an alternative. Opera wasn't a real alternative at the time because you had to pay for it. Firefox, on the other hand, came with a stripped down, easy to use browser at the right time.
There's no similarly compelling reason to switch to Chrome. It might be "better" in some technical ways, but Joe User doesn't really care.
Well, no.
Firefox started taking off even before version 1.0 was released, if I am not mistaken.
Why? Because people had a compelling reason to switch, and Mozilla capitalized on that. They had a lot of luck with their timing, because at the time, everyone was talking about how IE was a security nightmare and everyone was looking for an alternative. Opera wasn't a real alternative at the time because you had to pay for it. Firefox, on the other hand, came with a stripped down, easy to use browser at the right time.
There's no similarly compelling reason to switch to Chrome. It might be "better" in some technical ways, but Joe User doesn't really care.
It did have a nice built-in techy audience from the start, but I think he was referring to a viable worldwide marketshare that covers many non-technical users, though there is still plenty of room for it grow.
Regarding Chrome, I don't think Google is concerned about OS level uptake. I think they have deeper plans that have nothing to do with how it compares to Firefox or IE or Safari's marketshare.
That's rich You clearly can't refute the facts that are presented, so you resort to attacking the person who presents you with the facts you don't like.
No, I'm saying that your source of "facts" is biased and what you state as "facts" are actually opinions.
The blogger refers to Net Application's "dirty secrets" you know they have some axe to grind.
Wow, another attempt at changing the subject. You people do love to ignore the facts you are presented with and are quick to change the subject when you feel uncomfortable!
Look at the context: Opera had 30 million users, and Chrome had 10 million users. And yet Net Applications reported Chrome as having a higher market share than Opera! This fact alone should make any rational individual reconsider if they actually trust Net Applications.
The point is that it doesn't matter. The 0.71% (Opera) and 0.83% (Chrome) statistic reported by Net Applications real indications is that both browsers are niche and within the noise factor for reporting. Meaning both 10M and 40M are tiny numbers that are hard to get accurate readings from browser hit stats.
All netapp really tells you is that IE has about 2/3rds of the market, firefox and safari split most of the remaining 1/3 and everyone else is frigging noise at 3%.
But to play along with your trollish attempt at changing the subject, I'm surprised that Chrome hasn't gotten more users. Google has been heavily pushing Chrome through all their advertising channels, and since Google is one of the biggest and most powerful advertising companies on the planet, this speaks volumes about the failure of Chrome to gain a foothold in the browser market.
Jeez, it was beta on September 2008 and public stable only on december 2008 and only on the PC. Chrome is up to 1.23% now. When it gets to around 5% it'll have meaningful share. Of course Chrome CAN get to 5%+ whereas Opera never will.
So while Chrome managed to get 1/3 as many users as Opera, Opera's desktop user growth has only accelerated after Chrome was released. And Opera has only been free of charge for 3.5 years. Before that it would never stand a chance of growing its user base anyway.
Right and you can prove this how?
The blog posts aren't even about Webkit, and Webkit isn't even a browser. Your ad hominems reek of desperation. But hey, keep trying to change the subject. You people do it so well
The blog posts are whining that opera is under-represented on Net App and the two nearest competitors are Safari and Chrome. Both webkit based browsers. Coupled with the incessant whining about who passed the acid tests first there's a huge chip on the shoulders of opera fans about webkit.
Actually, they haven't. But if you had bothered to read the blog posts, you would have know that this is far from the only problem with Net Applications.
And if Net App had been reporting that Opera had 4% share then it never would have appeared on that blog regardless of how broken it may or may not be.
What makes you think they are holding patents to protect themselves against patent trolls? Are you saying that you think that the only way for someone to sue over a patent is if they don't produce any relevant products? That companies who actually produce something don't hold patents, and never use them to sue other companies?
I'm saying that if you don't believe in software patents then the purist answer is to not hold any and not to infringe on anyone else's.
If they disliked software patents but are a little more pragmatic they can patent their innovations but provide royalty free patent grants on all their software patents for everyone that is revoked for any entity that sues them for patent infringment.
Otherwise you're simply partaking in the software patent game by cross licensing, etc. It's marketing, not real belief.
Do they list their patents? No.
Do they offer royalty free patent grants? Not obviously stated on their site.
Do they have patent cross licensing with anyone? Not that they mention. A negative would be nice from folks that "believe in a patent-free web".
Do they have patent revenue stream? Not that they mention. Again, a negative would be nice from folks that "believe in a patent-free web".
No, there is still value in holding patents to protect yourself from competitors who may want to sue you over patents. You know, like Apple, which is getting increasingly desperate, what with Palm Pre starting to look rather nice and everything.
And if Apple isn't infringing on any of your patents then your defensive patent portfolio's value is zero.
But hey, keep trolling! Reject reality and make up stuff as you go along. That always works when you don't have any proper arguments.
Yep, because reality is declaring that you hate something (patents) but support them anyway (by applying for and holding them). That's not reality, that's called marketing.
Besides, you like talking about these side issues because you ignored the discussion that software patents are viable if stricter tests for obviousness and innovation and the potential effects of Bilski mitigates some of the issues on software patents.
Why? Likely because you don't really have anything besides "software patents are evil" in your quiver.
Before they of spend a bunch of time trying to figure out if Apple's patents are really legitimate for this use, why don't they kick Apple out of the WC3 first? Whether the patents are valid or not, Apple is clearly not abiding by rules for members.
You haven't the first clue of how this works do you. That wasn't a question, it was a statement.
NOTHING is required to be given by a W3C member EVER. W3C mentions in one paragraph having to grant Essential Claims patents then in the next paragraph says exactly how to not be required to grant those same Essential Claims patents.
The only things required of W3C members are to pay membership fees and to inform the working groups they participate in if there is a held patent they do not wish to grant rights to that affects the current standards discussion.
Even the "Essential Claims" patents, patents on a technology where there is no alternative and the type of patent Apple has held back on, may be held back with no impact to a members standing if the exclusion dissensions are made within the listed timelines. Essentially that sends the standards group back to the drawing board on that particular issue. If the W3C worked it any other way they wouldn't have corporate members.
for more specifics, and less bullshit, go here: W3C patent policy
I have played a role at the edges of this process and read almost all of the governing documentation over the past couple years. It's amazing how much ignorance can be avoided by actually reading the docs.
No, I'm saying that your source of "facts" is biased and what you state as "facts" are actually opinions.
The raw numbers are right there. Raw numbers are not "opinions".
The point is that it doesn't matter. The 0.71% (Opera) and 0.83% (Chrome) statistic reported by Net Applications real indications is that both browsers are niche and within the noise factor for reporting. Meaning both 10M and 40M are tiny numbers that are hard to get accurate readings from browser hit stats.
This is a poor excuse for the fact that the stats from Net Applications don't match reality. The fact is that other statistics sources show numbers that actually make sense when you check them against reality. Those stats also show that Safari is pathetically low when it comes to market share, despite being bundled with Macs.
All netapp really tells you is that IE has about 2/3rds of the market, firefox and safari split most of the remaining 1/3 and everyone else is frigging noise at 3%.
Actually, Safari has a lower market share than Opera, and that's despite being bundled with Macs!
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-w...1-20090429-bar
Jeez, it was beta on September 2008 and public stable only on december 2008 and only on the PC. Chrome is up to 1.23% now. When it gets to around 5% it'll have meaningful share. Of course Chrome CAN get to 5%+ whereas Opera never will.
Actually, Opera has up to 50% market share in some countries according to StatCounter.
Right and you can prove this how?
Prove what? That Opera has only been free of charge for 3.5 years?
The blog posts are whining that opera is under-represented on Net App and the two nearest competitors are Safari and Chrome. Both webkit based browsers. Coupled with the incessant whining about who passed the acid tests first there's a huge chip on the shoulders of opera fans about webkit.
What incessant whining about the Acid tests? I saw none. If anyone has a huge chip on his shoulder, it seems to be you! Look at you whining about other people like that, LOL.
Again, the blog doesn't even mention Webkit, but apparently you are once again desperate to change the subject because you don't have any valid counter-arguments.
And if Net App had been reporting that Opera had 4% share then it never would have appeared on that blog regardless of how broken it may or may not be.
Maybe, maybe not. But that doesn't negate the fact that Net Applications is broken.
I'm saying that if you don't believe in software patents then the purist answer is to not hold any and not to infringe on anyone else's.
I know that for Apple fanboys, "purist" is great, but Opera needs to live in the real world, where there is a real danger of competitors using patents to rid themselves of other companies.
If they disliked software patents but are a little more pragmatic they can patent their innovations but provide royalty free patent grants on all their software patents for everyone that is revoked for any entity that sues them for patent infringment.
Which is what they are doing in practice.
Do they offer royalty free patent grants?
They obviously do.
And if Apple isn't infringing on any of your patents then your defensive patent portfolio's value is zero.
Apple isn't the only company in the world, even if Apple fanboys think so.
Yep, because reality is declaring that you hate something (patents) but support them anyway (by applying for and holding them).
Again, in your purist Apple world, all this theoretical nonsense is probably fine because you are protected by Steve's reality distortion shield, but in the real world, companies do sue over patents.
Besides, you like talking about these side issues because you ignored the discussion that software patents are viable if stricter tests for obviousness and innovation and the potential effects of Bilski mitigates some of the issues on software patents.
And yet software patents are still a bad idea. You are going on about how you can make them less crappy, but they will still be crappy.
The raw numbers are right there. Raw numbers are not "opinions".
This is a poor excuse for the fact that the stats from Net Applications don't match reality. The fact is that other statistics sources show numbers that actually make sense when you check them against reality. Those stats also show that Safari is pathetically low when it comes to market share, despite being bundled with Macs.
Given that StatCounter numbers are just as divergent from other sources as Net Applications I'm guessing the only reason you like StatCounter is that it supports your position.
Actually, Opera has up to 50% market share in some countries according to StatCounter.
So what? Stat Counter is no more transparent in how they collect statistics than Net Applications. You take them all with a huge grain of salt. Even Google trends.
"Given that there is no universal standard for how to measure these statistics, any of these numbers from any service have to be taken with a grain of salt. StatCounter gets its data from all the sites that use the service, and chances are that the types of sites where StatCounter is installed on inevitably skew the data in one way or another."
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...stats_tool.php
I agree with that assessment completely. Whining about how netapp has some kind of nefarious anti-Opera bias is silly without conclusive evidence given how inaccurate these measures are. You cannot claim that Net Application doesn't actually SEE the numbers they publish.
Prove what? That Opera has only been free of charge for 3.5 years?
Prove your assertion that Opera has accelerated market share gain after the release of Chrome. You know, the line that was quoted?
What incessant whining about the Acid tests? I saw none. If anyone has a huge chip on his shoulder, it seems to be you! Look at you whining about other people like that, LOL.
Again, the blog doesn't even mention Webkit, but apparently you are once again desperate to change the subject because you don't have any valid counter-arguments.
Please. Google Acid, Opera and Safari.
Maybe, maybe not. But that doesn't negate the fact that Net Applications is broken.
Says you and some guy on an Opera blog. In actuality they're all broken in some way but you guys want to believe StatCounter for no better reason.
I know that for Apple fanboys, "purist" is great, but Opera needs to live in the real world, where there is a real danger of competitors using patents to rid themselves of other companies.
Which is what they are doing in practice.
So show me where they grant royalty free use of their patents. Heck, show me which patents they hold. Show me that they support the OIN (provides royalty free patent grants to companies in exchange for agreeing not to assert patents against Linux) by being either contributor or licensee.
Being a licensee seems straightforward. All Opera has to do is to agree not to assert their own patents against Linux or Linux-related applications (like Firefox). Being an OIN licensee seems like something they'd put in that paragraph being such ardent anti-patent folks.
They obviously do.
Then show me. Should be easy since it is "obvious".
Apple isn't the only company in the world, even if Apple fanboys think so.
Doesn't matter. The point is that defensive patent portfolio is still worthless IF the entity suing you isn't infringing on any of them.
Again, in your purist Apple world, all this theoretical nonsense is probably fine because you are protected by Steve's reality distortion shield, but in the real world, companies do sue over patents.
Show that the Opera patents hold defensive value or if they are in fact revenue centers and used in cross-license agreements. This isn't a theoretical question and since it's "obvious" where Opera stands it should be easy to answer via quotations from corporate statements.
And yet software patents are still a bad idea. You are going on about how you can make them less crappy, but they will still be crappy.
Repeating a bald assertion doesn't make it any more compelling an argument. Thus far you haven't shown any concrete reason why all software patents are bad.
Given that StatCounter numbers are just as divergent from other sources as Net Applications I'm guessing the only reason you like StatCounter is that it supports your position.
I'm referring to StatCounter because it is more reliable than Net Applications. Unlike Net Applications, StatCounter doesn't have a history of lies, deceit and manipulating statistics.
So what? Stat Counter is no more transparent in how they collect statistics than Net Applications. You take them all with a huge grain of salt.
Oh, so that's what some fanboys here are doing when they are whining about Opera's allegedly low market share? No. Apparently it's OK if Apple fanboys use completely useless stats, but when someone responds with stats to the contrary, it's not allowed all of a sudden!
I agree with that assessment completely. Whining about how netapp has some kind of nefarious anti-Opera bias is silly without conclusive evidence given how inaccurate these measures are.
The facts speak for themselves. They have dumped Opera to the bottom more than once.
Prove your assertion that Opera has accelerated market share gain after the release of Chrome. You know, the line that was quoted?
This was mentioned by Opera's CEO during an interview at my.opera.com. This is supported by the financial reports, whiere they report desktop usage, and are required by law to give truthful information. You can find the financial reports at opera.com.
Please. Google Acid, Opera and Safari.
What about it? I remember the Safari guys whining loudly when Opera claimed 100/100 on Acid3, and they started digging around and found some error in the test which they fixed and then reported to the Acid3 guys so they got 100/100.
Says you and some guy on an Opera blog.
Say the hard facts.
In actuality they're all broken in some way but you guys want to believe StatCounter for no better reason.
Actually, I'm not the one who brought up browser statistics. I'm not the one who started dragging out fake Net Applications numbers.