A Blog From Behind the Trenches

Attack of the Bugs

Why are widgets important to Opera?

Friday, October 16, 2009 10:16:58 AM

,

It is clear from some the comments about the new Opera Widgets release that a lot of people don't understand why we are spending time on widgets, and I must admit that I didn't get it at first either. But if we move from narrowly focusing on the desktop, and instead look at the bigger picture, namely Opera's vision and where the market is heading, it might make a little more sense.

TL;DR: Opera Software is not just a desktop browser. It is a cross-platform browser. Opera's strategy needs to be seen in light of that. The market is moving towards convergence, global Internet access, and similar experiences on different devices. There is a real need for a faster, easier, less expensive way to deploy applications across devices. Widgets offer you a way to do that.

First of all, let's establish Opera's position in the market:

Opera is a cross-platform browser, delivered on more platforms than probably any other browser out there. Opera is used on everything from low-end feature phones to the latest desktop monster computers. Opera Software's vision is to deliver the best Internet experience on any device (also see "The real vision behind Opera Software"). Yes, the desktop browser is definitely a key component to Opera's strategy, and it makes up about 1/3 of our total revenue at the moment. But as you can see, Opera is so much more than just a desktop browser. Opera is a cross-platform browser.

With that in mind, let's look at where the market is heading:

More and more types devices are running browsers, and people are expecting to be able to access the Web from any device. In addition to that, different devices are converging. For example, mobile phones have cameras, and they are becoming more and more popular for gaming. As devices converge, people expect to be able to do the same things on different devices, and Web browsing is one of the most important ones. Furthermore, people expect to run the same applications on different devices.

Still don't get it? Let's try a few specific scenarios:

  • The user: Imagine that you have a favorite application on your computer, and you wish you could run it on your phone, TV and gaming device as well. If it is a native application, it will only run on the platforms it was specifically designed for. However, if the application is a widget, you will already be able to run it on any device. And since it uses open Web standards, there are numerous ways to adapt the applications to different screen sizes. With widgets, your application could be run on any device you own.
  • The company: Imagine that you run company "BigCompanyX", and you sell a large range of electronic devices, from laptops to mobile phones to portable media players. All those devices run on different platforms with different capabilities, and you want to offer your customers the same applications across all of them. As devices converge, it is only natural that customers will expect to be able to use the same applications everywhere. With widgets, you will be able to create applications that will run on any of the devices you are selling, and your customers will be thrilled that BCX offers them the ability to run the same applications everywhere.
  • The developer: Imagine that you are a talented developer, and you have this great application that you want as many people as possible to use. You could create the application on one platform, then port it to each and every different platform out there, but you are just one guy (or girl). Widgets would allow you to write your application once, and it would then be able to run on any device with a widget engine.

Is it starting to make sense now? We are not there quite yet, but we are working on it. And by "we", I don't mean just Opera. There is a big push for widgets out there from major players in the market.

The thing about widgets is that they are
  • cross-platform
  • using open standards
  • easier to make, leading to a faster time-to-market
  • cheaper to make than traditional applications

Today, widgets are mostly small, single-purpose applications, but that is likely to change. Even though even Opera Software hasn't fully moved away from referring to widgets as that, there are definitely attempts by many significant players to change the way we view widgets.

The Web is the most important development platform today, but there will probably be a need for local applications for a long time. Widgets allow you to create local applications with Web technologies, giving you the best of both worlds.

We are not there quite yet, but give it time, and the capabilities of widgets will be greatly expanded.

BitStream's outlandish claims about Bolt browser speedNew logo for Opera Software

Comments

thobi Friday, October 16, 2009 10:43:11 AM

good article. thanks

Daniel HendrycksDanielHendrycks Friday, October 16, 2009 12:05:37 PM

Originally posted by haavard:

the capabilities of widgets will be greatly expanded.


up

Tamil Friday, October 16, 2009 2:58:52 PM

Originally posted by thobi:

good article.

GroovyMicky Friday, October 16, 2009 3:08:19 PM

yes
I hope to see its implementation on all my gadgets soon.

Rafael Luikrafaelluik Friday, October 16, 2009 5:11:59 PM

Great point of view, before this article Widgets were useless to me.

Charles SchlossChas4 Saturday, October 17, 2009 12:19:07 AM

Originally posted by thobi:

good article.




Very imformative

Anonymous Saturday, October 17, 2009 9:13:18 AM

Anonim writes: " The thing about widgets is that they are * cross-platform * using open standards * easier to make, leading to a faster time-to-market * cheaper to make than traditional applications" and they are still: - more resource hungry than native applications [opera runtime + actual code] - use outdated (javascript) and not-purpose-built (javascript) tools that simply arent meant to do what widget what from them - have serious problems with animations, SVG isnt there yet, and at current pace will be 'there' in summer 3009 - have no developer tools, rely on very bad emulators [dragonfly is useless in current form, sorry, check firebug for developer tools] and some other limitations, that are important as well: - user open standards [there are no standards yet - css 2.1 is still recomendation, css 3 is only a sketch, javascript requires non-standarised tricks and hooks to work with widgets etc.] open standards are a hell to work with, because they take 10 times more time to mature and develop. silverlight did in 3 years what html+css+js+svg still cant to and they are being 'developed' for 10 years or so. open standards, where everybody want to participate and push his agenda will never settle down and be mature enough for universal adoption. they certainly arent univeraly adopted by browser vendors, Opera being as guilty as any other vendor - there are too many gray areas in specs, and vendors are free to do as they please. this is an adoption blocker. there is also GARGANTUAL latency when it comes to any decision, we are in second year of 'open media' codecs falacy, and there is still no decision, at the same time vendors happily implement their own solutions. ergo, maybe vendors and other users in reality do not realy care about open standards, because they are a bad and unflexible matter? "Today, widgets are mostly small, single-purpose applications, but that is likely to change. Even though even Opera Software hasn't fully moved away from referring to widgets as that, there are definitely attempts by many significant players to change the way we view widgets." what attempts? sorry, this is hot air, what attepmts? links please. for me this all widgets is a dead end, that seemed plausible before iPhone. now, people want rich, functional applications, with rich interface and fast graphics. before iPhone people were made to believe, that this isnt possible, so widgets looked reasonable. after iPhone noone is buying it anymore. it is hard to turn back, because it is always bad to be the first one to admit being wrong, but sooner or later companies will stop wasting money on this. it will take less time for all embeded devices be able to run iPhone-like applications, that widget and 'open standards' to mature enough to be an attractive proposition.

Haavardhaavard Saturday, October 17, 2009 4:22:47 PM

It seems that you are judging open Web technologies by what they are today. Promoters of proprietary solutions like Flash and Silverlight often do that, but they don't realize all the exciting things that are happening with browsers at the moment. Not only do you have the new generation of JavaScript engines that Carakan represents, but future versions of Opera will use hardware acceleration for page rendering. Don't forget that HTML5 seeks to address issues of specifications being too vague, so that browser will be more aligned, and it will be much easier to code for standards rather than browsers. There are also active efforts to standardize 3D in browsers, and more.

If you think open standards are a dead end, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But Opera's management has been right so far about the direction the market is moving in (did you see this when widgets were first introduced? I doubt it), so I'm placing my bet on them and other major players like AT&T, Vodafone, Google, Nokia, Sony, and so on.

I'm sure all sorts of devices will be able to run "iPhone-like" applications. Porting them to all those different platforms out there is a completely different matter, thougy. Widgets will offer you rich, functional applications with rich interfaces and fast graphics. There's no need to code them once for each platform when you can write them once, and deploy them on any platform as a widget.

As I said, widgets aren't there yet. There's still the impression that widgets are small, simple applications, but that is likely to change if the big players get it their way. Opera is contributing in its own way by promoting widgets to proper application status, and untying it from the browser.

Daniel HendrycksDanielHendrycks Saturday, October 17, 2009 4:32:00 PM

Originally posted by haavard:

and untying it from the browser.


sad How about from the browser or from the OS.

Originally posted by haavard:

As I said, widgets aren't there yet.


Agreed, I too think they will be there sometime though.

With the metamorphosis standards are going through widgets will become prettier, more efficient and useful.

Anonymous Saturday, October 17, 2009 6:37:49 PM

Anonim writes: "With the metamorphosis standards are going through widgets will become prettier, more efficient and useful." lots of 'ifs'.. problem with standards is, that they arent going anywhere now. each mayor browser player has its own agenda. and implements (differently) what HE needs, not is best for all of them. from big players, only opera cares about widgets (mozilla has prism and extensions, google has chromeOs/webapps, MS cares about.. I really dont know what MS cares about, same with apple). that makes beautifull HTML5, CSS3 and JS a distant future, very distant future. future, that I dont believe everyone want and need. btw. tere is lots of talking about 'we are working on it'. this is hot air being wasted, there arent any deliverables, there is no progress in technology adoption and implementation. I happen to work in really big corporation and know what 'we are working on it' means. it means 'we dont care, but have to sound like if we do, because it is politicaly incorect to ignore "good" technologies'. this is what most companies involved in open standards do. they 'are working on it' and their input and effort is neglible. if it wasnt the case, we would already had css 2.1 released.. 5 years ago. widgets are moving with the same speed, and untill that is solved, they will never be more than a useless gadget.

Haavardhaavard Saturday, October 17, 2009 7:18:41 PM

CSS 2.1 "would have been released 5 years ago" if it hadn't been for Microsoft's violations.

But today, standards are definitely going somewhere, especially as PCs make up a smaller and smaller part of the online population. Microsoft might be able to stall open standards processes on the PC, but in a world of convergence and more diverse devices, they are fighting a losing battle. That the EC has decided to take them to task for their violations doesn't exactly hurt either.

We are not just "working on it", we are delivering. Opera Desktop Widgets are a step along the way. As is Carakan, hardware accelerated rendering, and so on.

And yes, there is adoption of widgets. Look up some of Opera's recent deals with major players around the world, and you will see that widgets are right there in the middle of things.

You are looking narrowly at the situation today, thinking that nothing will change. Those who think an unchanging Web is the future are fighting a losing battle. There are many players involved, but one thing is for certain:

Things will change. Sorry.

Ederson de Souzaedersondisouza Saturday, October 17, 2009 10:05:06 PM

Originally posted by haavard:

There's no need to code them once for each platform when you can write them once, and deploy them on any platform as a widget.



It sounds the Java slogan: write once, run everywhere. So, in fact, what you are doing is a virtual machine for web technologies (HTML/JS/CSS).

Looks promising.

Teoumbra-tenebris Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:01:06 AM

Originally posted by haavard:

It seems that you are judging open Web technologies by what they are today. Promoters of proprietary solutions like Flash and Silverlight often do that, but they don't realize all the exciting things that are happening with browsers at the moment.



Well dear, next year there will be a new Intel CPU with new sexy instructions, PCI Express 2, USB 3 and a flock of other cool technologies. So, using your logic, I should wait till then and NOT buy a computer now, though I need it?

To make my point clear, I am using Opera NOW, and not in the future when things will be all piece and happiness.

Due to my workflow I have to save things from the web all the time. And the unwillingness of Opera crew to use the native Windows Save dialog bites me every 20-40 minutes *every day*. On the other hand, I haven't found a useful widget yet.
While widgets are very important for Opera software, they are completely irrevelant to me. From my point of view, Opera priorities are wrong. And frankly, my point of view is important to me bigsmile

You might want to check the needs of your existing customers before they go somewhere else ... Then there will be noone to enjoy the benefits of the wonderful technology of the widgets.

Otherwise, thanks for at least *trying* to explain things, Opera Software as a company are really terrible at that.

Alexander FutekovSasko88 Sunday, October 18, 2009 12:11:16 PM

Widgets are ok and I agree with Haavard's points that widgets are:
-cross-platform
-using open standards
-easier to make, leading to a faster time-to-market
-cheaper to make than traditional applications

However! The way chrome is starting to implement it - a combination of css & js is even more cross-platform, more open, thousands of times easier to make and practically free.

Soon chrome will start extensions in the official version of the browser and that will hurt Opera a lot!

The quickest way to do something about that is to at least introduce a GUI for userJS. Quality control is another issue but mozilla is beginning to work on that already.

Haavardhaavard Sunday, October 18, 2009 2:53:15 PM

Sasko88: Extensions aren't relevant to this discussion because widgets and extensions are two different concepts with different goals. I don't understand how "it" in Chrome can be more open, easier, and so on, but I suspect that you are misunderstanding something. In any case, please do not derail the discussion with off-topic comments.

umbra-tenebris: I don't know why you are saying that you shouldn't buy a computer now if you need it. You can do whatever you want to.

And yes, Opera Software has a long-term strategy. Without one, the company might not exist in the future, so it benefits Opera users that Opera Software actually thinks long-term.

Opera's desktop user base is now more than 40 million, and growing. It grew by 65% from Q2-2008 to Q2-2009. I'm sure you can understand how Opera cannot base its entire strategy on what you personally need at any given time. Your input is valuable, but I hope you realize that the world does not revolve around you... smile

Opera does take the needs of existing users into consideration, and you will notice that Opera 10 is full of features that are wanted by a lot of Opera users. But again, Opera also needs to look at the big picture. You are lucky because you don't have to worry about that, but it shouldn't be too much to ask that you take this into consideration when forming your opinions.

Haavardhaavard Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:25:31 AM

If anyone wants to comment, make sure the comment is actually relevant to the topic (widgets). Requests and bug reports are not on-topic.

praetor87 Saturday, October 24, 2009 7:58:09 PM

...and are the widgets important for the users?

Hang up the widgets and unite, and go make the fastest jscript engine. Other feature is second-class aim.

Charles SchlossChas4 Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:45:24 PM

praetor87 javascript is a small part of web-code


The thing about widgets is that they are
cross-platform
using open standards
easier to make, leading to a faster time-to-market
cheaper to make than traditional applications



Opera had the fastest browser javascript engine a few years ago

Code does not just happen overnight it takes time

Try looking at the a few specific scenarios: listed above in the post

praetor87 Sunday, October 25, 2009 11:26:04 AM

Originally posted by Chas4:

javascript is a small part of web-code



Small as code, but big as reason to mass to decide which one is the "fastest" browser.

Don't you think that would be funny, if the Opera defeat the Webkit browsers in own test site (sunspider)?

Nowadays the Opera have the second slowest jscript engine after the IE of the mainstream browsers. However that's not all, but for the marketing management it so much easier to advert with the speed, than widget or unite, because you don't need to understand the features, just use it.

Some opera fan around my neighborhood think the extended widgets just "fire fighting". I think, if you hope enough in widgets, just rename it and give it for a second chance, because it's failed for me and for many other opera users. These applications are not essential and beyond flippant against the FF plug-ins.

Robert MeijersRobert90 Sunday, October 25, 2009 11:51:17 AM

They are working on Carakan, which is aimed to gain the lead in javascript speed again. The next version of Opera (after 10.10 of course) will contain Carakan, so then Opera will be (almost) the fastest again (the first tests of Carakan in the sunspider tests where very promising and where an indication that Opera would be the fastest again) More info about Carakan can be found here

Charles SchlossChas4 Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:19:34 PM

Originally posted by praetor87:

Small as code, but big as reason to mass to decide which one is the "fastest" browser.


javascript alone does not tell you which browser is the fastest, as there is html, css and other parts to web code

There are many interesting widgets that you can use,
One possible use for the widgets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmvlw269-_0

Haavardhaavard Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:11:59 PM

praetor87: It might be a good idea to read the blog post and older comments before commenting. Yes, less expensive, more portable applications do benefit users.

JavaScript (Opera has a JavaScript engine, not a JScript engine) performance is off-topic here, and has been covered extensively in numerous articles on this site. Benchmarks like SunSpider are artificial, and do not reflect real-world performance. They are only good for marketing purposes, and Carakan will deal with that.

Finally, extensions and widgets are two different concepts. Extensions are add-ons for the browser, while widgets are "standalone" applications.

z@h3kZAHEK Monday, October 26, 2009 3:28:06 PM

It is really good article especially t oshow people some realistic opinion on about Opera widgets.

Daniel HendrycksDanielHendrycks Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:05:52 PM

Originally posted by haavard:

...the capabilities of widgets will be greatly expanded.


Maybe once more functionality is added you could call widgets Opera Apps. Just an idea...

Teoumbra-tenebris Wednesday, November 4, 2009 9:08:37 PM

Sorry for making my previous post so clumsy, let me try to distill the essence:

Many Opera desktop users (me included) feel that Opera put too much effort into new features but these features do not benefit them immediately.

1. We prefer working old features (i.e. bug fixes)
2. We prefer new features which enhance our current ways of working (but I admit this has its problems)

I do not know, but after reading your post again, I think maybe either Opera under-communicates the efforts it makes to fix current issues or does bad job at explaining the benefits of the new features. Either way, I am following the forums as much as I can, and the widgets are not welcomed warmly.

Haavardhaavard Thursday, November 5, 2009 5:39:17 AM

Opera Software needs to look at the big picture. You only have to worry about your own needs.

You can read the forums, but you need to keep in mind that people are more likely to post negative comments than positive comments. That's how humans behave. But we can't let negative comments that focus narrowly on someone's personal needs and ignore the big picture dictate Opera Software's strategy (it would be a lack of strategy if we ignored long-term goals, and that would be dangerous to Opera's long-term survival).

z@h3kZAHEK Thursday, November 5, 2009 9:32:28 AM

@Haavard,

What is your current position on widgets project?
or maybe I can ask different way like this; how is your timeline for improving widgets,for example can we say we are on middle of project or in beginning?
And also what is your real estimates by widgets for Opera's marketshare totally,not I mean only desktop browsers...?
Thanks.

Haavardhaavard Thursday, November 5, 2009 2:14:37 PM

I don't think there is an easy answer to what the progress is. Nor do I know anything about the market share. I would think it's impossible to measure anyway.

z@h3kZAHEK Thursday, November 5, 2009 2:41:31 PM

Not enough response I wanted but thanks smile

Teoumbra-tenebris Thursday, November 5, 2009 10:36:47 PM

haavard, I know you are right. In principle I agree with you. Opera (the company) cannot survive without long-term planning. That's why now I believe that it's an issue more of an communications between Opera and their users than wrong priorities. That said bugs and missing features that affect me now, do affect me now, which explains my position.

Let me tell a story - I am the only truly fan of Opera in our company and after countless hours of bragging, pushing, pulling etc, most of my co-workers tried it and most of the ones tried actually stayed with it. (side note - this had an unforeseen side effect to me - now they come to me and complain about Opera bugs, like I am responsible for them / can help ^_^) And this Monday or Tuesday we talked about Opera (the browser) and they have the same thoughts as mine - Widgets are useless but we have to fight annoying bugs every day.
So it's not only the forumers, the users that just use Opera without being devoted fans share my opinion.

Btw, the most talked about problem on that conversation is the fact that Opera asks "do you want to allow the program associated with the custom protocol our-internal-protocol: to run" for every page. IE and Chrome asked just once after they saw the new protocol.

João EirasxErath Monday, November 30, 2009 4:56:59 AM

Originally posted by umbra-tenebris:

"do you want to allow the program associated with the custom protocol our-internal-protocol: to run"


Could you describe better what you're trying to do in more detail ? I never got prompts with this thing.

Cutting Spoonhellspork Tuesday, December 1, 2009 6:39:30 PM

If the two of you communicated by PM, it would be good for Opera and good for your coworkers umbra-tenebris.

Well, what I got out of this actually seems very easy to understand.

1) Opera wants to expand its widget share. Being able to invisibly drive other companies' applications means license dollars in the pocket.

2) To improve widget performance, Opera is overhauling its scripting and graphics engines. This improves both browsing and web-apps, and needs enough time/testing to be done right.

3) A number of bug fixes and new features have been pushed back to the next-gen browser core, same as the landslide of changes when 9.5 came out. This often is the case when a fix requires more work than the end-user may realize.


So Opera really would like to play God and answer all your prayers, but other children have wishes that need granting, and we'll still take you back if you leave us for a while. smile

Tiago Joao Silvatigas Friday, December 4, 2009 12:58:48 AM

What I'd like was to have proper gradients, anti-aliasing and text rendering in the widgets.

That wouldn't magically provide widget programmers with some graphic design chops, but it could help. Most of the widgets are butt-ugly and with a braindead user experience, especially when compared with the competition - Apple Widgets, Yahoo Widgets (ex-Konfabulator), iPhone Apps.

Cutting Spoonhellspork Friday, December 4, 2009 7:16:48 PM

Really? What the heck are you using? Everything I've got looks good and just plain works.

Teoumbra-tenebris Saturday, December 5, 2009 12:47:11 PM

Originally posted by xErath:

Originally posted by umbra-tenebris:

"do you want to allow the program associated with the custom protocol our-internal-protocol: to run"

Could you describe better what you're trying to do in more detail ? I never got prompts with this thing.



Clicking on links on a html page with this code: #9943

leads to a window titled "Unknown protocol" with this text inside: The application "fish" needs be launched to open the link: fish:b:/9943 Do you want to proceed?

There's a checkbox "Do not show this dialogue again", which does not prevent subsequent shows of this dialog.

But if you want to persuade this issue, lets talk with provate messages because this is off-topic.

sliverchair Thursday, December 24, 2009 6:30:30 AM

Hi, I've actually read all of the comments // nice debate bigsmile

I got interest in reading this bec
1. I'm not satisfied with the available wigets from Google Desktop
2. I'm planning to learn javascript (I'm tired of Java.........).
// I saw this Game Framework called Unity
3. I'd also like to write widgets, btw do I have to open Opera everytime for me to see the widgets?

btw, thumbs down for all the things I did to be able to write a comment here -> I had to open gmail, log-out my dad's brand new gmail account, then log-in. (btw, reason why I googled for the latest Opera // for other users to use). Maybe adopt the "connect with Facebook" trend I've been seeing lately

Daniel HendrycksDanielHendrycks Thursday, December 24, 2009 3:51:43 PM

Originally posted by sliverchair:

Maybe adopt the "connect with Facebook"


+1 Create a thread in this forum.

Cutting Spoonhellspork Saturday, December 26, 2009 10:56:06 AM

Widgets will eventually be expected to run on all platforms, desktop or mobile. Even without Opera if necessart. 10.20 is the current test build for widgets outside the browser. 10.50 will eventually have the same features, and probably still an option to use certain widgets the old-fashioned way.

More exciting is that javascript and canvas improvements in the new Unity engine, mean a computer running opera can serve games to many more users at the same time. Users should not need Opera to play, but right now there may be a critical speed advantage in playing JS+Canvas games with the latest and greatest future Opera engine. Like at www.chromeexperiments.com, the new speed of 10.50 is quite something to behold.

Constantine Vesnac69 Saturday, January 9, 2010 8:38:33 PM

Lets just quote the old article:
http://missingfeatures.com/2007/08/20/99-of-widgets-are-useless-to-99-of-users/

Widgets are useless, unless you are a friking OS.
Either they will get more power (to become FF Extensions / IE add-ons, both with their benefits and dangers) - or they will remain mere bells-and-whistles..



Originally posted by Sasko88:

The quickest way to do something about that is to at least introduce a GUI for userJS. Quality control is another issue but mozilla is beginning to work on that already.



YES. Opera has way more powerful User-JS engine, than Greasemonkey has, but it has very un-user-friendly setup...

Simple "user-js" folder in Opera main directory available by default, and auto-recognition of *.user.js files would do a great job in helping people to retake the control over Web.

Charles SchlossChas4 Saturday, January 9, 2010 8:46:48 PM

Widgets can be used for simple tasks, like showing stocks, or the weather or a simple game

Purdi Saturday, January 9, 2010 9:02:30 PM

Originally posted by c69:

Widgets are useless, unless you are a friking OS.


In other words, widgets are not useless at all.

Either they will get more power (to become FF Extensions / IE add-ons, both with their benefits and dangers) - or they will remain mere bells-and-whistles..


Did you even read the blog post before spouting nonsense? They are working on turning widgets into proper applications.

Widgets are NOT supposed to be add-ons. They are supposed to be standalone applications. At least READ the blog post before commenting.

Originally posted by c69:

YES. Opera has way more powerful User-JS engine, than Greasemonkey has, but it has very un-user-friendly setup...


Completely irrelevant. This has got NOTHING to do with widgets.

Purdi Saturday, January 9, 2010 9:03:03 PM

Originally posted by Chas4:

Widgets can be used for simple tasks, like showing stocks, or the weather or a simple game


Right now. They are working on making it possible to make all sorts of apps. Read the blog post.

Charles SchlossChas4 Saturday, January 9, 2010 9:13:37 PM

I have seen the blog post. Purdi I have noticed a lot of your comments are in the negative tone, try to be a bit more positive please. smile

Daniel HendrycksDanielHendrycks Saturday, January 9, 2010 10:29:14 PM

Originally posted by Charles Schloss:

I have seen the blog post. Purdi I have noticed a lot of your comments are in the negative tone


You haven't seen him in the forum. faint

Constantine Vesnac69 Sunday, January 10, 2010 7:26:20 PM

@Purdi:
Me and my friends use UserJS on everyday basis.
I use FF for plugins like YSlow or Firebug.
But I don't know a single person, who uses widgets at all.

Yet, Opera is putting effort in the most questionable branch of all. And this blog post doesn't help with explaining why. Opera hopes to become a cross-platform middle-ware ?

Sorry, but Java kinda already exists. And while Opera is dominating mobile browser market - its far away from being considered an OS.

Originally posted by c69:

Widgets are useless, unless you are a friking OS.


And to be considered an OS, you need to be at least comparable by sheer size to Linux or Mac OS:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-200812-201001

offtopic:

Originally posted by Chas4:

I have seen the blog post. Purdi I have noticed a lot of your comments are in the negative tone, try to be a bit more positive please.


Its a troll.
Check his account.
* Location: Unspecified
* Member since: Sep 2009
* Forum posts: 866
No name, age, gender or blog, but 3 posts per average day on forum.

Purdi Sunday, January 10, 2010 8:24:55 PM

Originally posted by c69:

Me and my friends use UserJS on everyday basis.
I use FF for plugins like YSlow or Firebug.
But I don't know a single person, who uses widgets at all.


No one cares about your irrelevant anecdotes. You do not represent the rest of the world, and especially not all the major companies and organizations involved in widgets, including the W3C, Vodafone, Nokia, and so on.

Widgets do not need YOUR approval at all, so why are you acting like it matters what you think?

And widgets are not add-ons. How hard is that to understand?

Yet, Opera is putting effort in the most questionable branch of all.


That's coming from someone who actively posts lies and red herrings.

Questionable? LOL.

The fact is that Opera has several MAJOR contracts for widgets, and are making BUCKETLOADS of money off of widgets. But for Commies, I guess making money isn't important.

And this blog post doesn't help with explaining why. Opera hopes to become a cross-platform middle-ware ?

Sorry, but Java kinda already exists. And while Opera is dominating mobile browser market - its far away from being considered an OS.


You clearly didn't read the blog post. It's right there:

"cross-platform
using open standards
easier to make, leading to a faster time-to-market
cheaper to make than traditional applications"

Who said anything about Opera being an OS anyway?

And to be considered an OS, you need to be at least comparable by sheer size to Linux or Mac OS:


What on earth are you talking about? Oh yeah, yet another knowitall who thinks only PCs exist in this world...

How about you educate yourself about Opera, widgets and their strategy instead of spouting nonsense?

Cutting Spoonhellspork Monday, January 11, 2010 8:04:58 PM

Most of Opera's income is already derived from its cross-platform middleware.

JRE/Sun Java do not have the HTML/CSS features of the Opera layout core. Rather than write a whole program in slow, buggy, interpreted java, you will have a backend that runs java at native-code speed, and a frontend that uses very easy and fast web-programming language. It also takes up much less space than Sun Java.

Cutting Spoonhellspork Monday, January 11, 2010 10:21:59 PM

CAVEAT: There are huge differences between Java and JavaScript, however HTML and CSS are powerful in their own right.

Constantine Vesnac69 Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:48:10 AM

Chance to win money for hardcore widget fan-boys and trolls:
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=369761&t=1263296407

just prove i am wrong bigsmile

Purdi Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:13:07 PM

You clearly ignored the blog post and anything anyone said. Well done, you have shown your true colors.

1 2 Next »

Showing comments 1 - 50 of 52.

Write a comment

You must be logged in to write a comment. If you're not a registered member, please sign up.