Google pays $140 Million a year to Firefox to be the search default. Given the choice, I believe they would prefer to keep the $140 Million and just have people use Chrome.
There is a difference between direct and indirect patent infringement. Google provides the Android source, but the companies that are being sued are directly infringing by selling and distributing products based on these patents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement_under_Unite...
Google naturally has the choice to indemnify Android distributors and protect them from patent infringement. Google chooses not to do this, presumably because they do not want to expose themselves to the costs of direct patent infringement.
Social is too important for one company to control the market. This is a great start for Google+, but Google is fighting with one arm behind their back given the network effects of Facebook.
I was pretty certain that Opera's reported score couldn't be that bad. I am definitely very suprised.
Overall, I have to say, I am a huge fan of having these thorough tests come to web standards. So that browsers can't just say "We support HTML5". I am really tired of the buzzword nature of standards recently. Hopefully, this will get all browsers to step up their game.
On the Mozilla technology page http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/technology/ it specifically calls out ES5 support. There is no qualifier, so I am assuming that they believe they are fully supporting it.
Your argument about Intranet apps not coded to standards seems circular. If browsers (like Firefox) don't implement the standards properly, then how can Intranet apps code to standards? It has to start with browsers.
The core issue is this - enterprises can reduce testing and maintenance costs for their internal apps because they can control and standardize their browser enviroment. Sites that cater to users at large (like a yahoo) have no control over what browsers their users choose. So, they have to bear significantly higher testing costs.
I haven't heard a persuasive argument for enterprises to change their web development practice and bear significantly higher testing costs. So my expectation is that they will continue on the path that they have been on traditionally.
As an example. Run something like Test 262(http://test262.ecmascript.org/) which is the official test suite for JavaScript 5 and you'll see how many compatibilitiy issues there are just for this single spec in Firefox. It's in the hundreds.
Anyone of these could potentially break an app. And that is just for one of the many specs in Firefox.
Here is the full vision statement "Discover, experience and connect with apps, websites and people on your own terms, everywhere."
Two problems: forgettable & undifferentiated. Seems like this applies to just about every technology company out there. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, ...
Agree Facebook is the player that could be a serious competitor to Skype.
But their strategy would indicate that they wouldn't implement federation. They would create their own closed system. Facebook is all about growing the value of their social graph, but with very limited interconnection or federation.
This reverse deal idea didn't make any sense when I heard about. But I have been surprised before, so would interesting to hear counterpoints.
The fundamental problems as I see it just starting with user persective: 1) I put in effort as a user to create a deal - with the high chance of no payoff - why would I ever do this the first time, let alone the second time 2) I have to wait for other people to join - so gratification is at best delayed 3) Very likely the deal will not be accepted by the merchant.
The ideal model for coupons would be take out the high cost of sales in this business. And getting businesses to go to a website and submit their deals by themselves. Of course SMB are notoriously slow to adopt new technology (many still advertise in YP). But over time, they will get there as well and the winner will be whoever is there when SMB begin making the move.
Technology is only one part of a solution. And in this case arguably a small one. The reason people use Skype is because all other people are on there. It's also synonymous with voice and video calling. Owning a "position" is an other important value.
Facebook seems like the only company that can bring a real network of users to something like this. Google has GMail, but they haven't been able to translate it into any type of social experience at scale.