Re: Ringmark is now open source

On Thursday, 5 April 2012 at 00:13, Tobie Langel wrote:

> Not one on which you can build web applications on par with a native
> experience.

Perhaps - but why is that even an expectation? And I don't think it's up to this group to decide what Opera can and can't do (innovation could drive Opera mini to provide a native-like experiences that far exceed CoreMob-0 - don't just discount Opera offhand).   
> Don't get me wrong: it's a fantastic browser. It's just not a reasonable
> target for web apps.

(ouch! I think I just heard Charles wake up:) )
 
With all due respect, it's still used by +20% of the mobile web? There is something deeply contradictory and slightly troubling here. You make it sound like the "mobile web" you are envisioning is one where services are only targeted at the rich and privileged (i.e., the small number of people with enough money to afford an iPhone or Android device)? 

If so, I think this position needs to be revised because it is divisive and bordering on elitist in that it it says that "if you can't afford an iPhone or an Android phone, then you can't be part of the Mobile Web (and you are not good enough to meet the base level to build a web app)".  

Thus, I believe Opera Mini is a legitimate target for Web Apps (remember that Opera Mobile is only banned from the iPhone because of Apple's anti-competitive practices - that could change tomorrow for all we know). I also don't believe it's up to this group to exclude Opera (or even all the people that will continue to access the Web on Nokia phones). If those devices don't today do Ring-0, they might do so tomorrow: that is the point of Ring-0 (or at least it should be: to drive a baseline for innovation and raise that bar).

Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:56:43 UTC