Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
Is that what "resistive multi-touch" is?
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
I've always held that physical keyboard is better than virtual but thats never been because of the browser. #blackberrywebkit
11/02/09
11/02/09
Personally I'm not a big fan of navigating a webpage with a trackball either but even then thats never been part of the keyboard/no keyboard debate that I've ever experienced. That debate usually falls to the tactile nature of a physical keyboard and the benefits there of as opposed to a virtual one.
@jamesdelacroixv: Browsing on anything is better then browsing on a blackberry. Thats not really a question (after all thats why they wrote the article). But the physical/virtual nature of a keyboard has nothing to do with it. If anything I'd say that the virtual keyboard makes it worse since you lose so much screen space to the keyboard you don't always know what field your in. #blackberrywebkit
11/02/09
Besides, with my man-sized hands, virtual keyboards that work well are much better than the finger hopscotch I do on the "real thing." #blackberrywebkit
11/02/09
Plus generally speaking physical keyboards are preferred over virtual for people with larger hands. You are defiantly the first I've ever seen say that. #blackberrywebkit
10/08/09
What this test measures:
The author of the test made a list of features supported by at least one webkit browser and not supported or correctly implemented by at least one other, then gave each browser a score based on their level of support for each tested feature.
Features supported by all browsers and features unsupported by all browsers are not included in the test.
"Maximum" is the highest score possible, that of a browser that supports all tested features perfectly.
"Konq newer" refers to the latest Konqueror builds, which the author hasn't been able to test yet.
10/08/09
Or, um, it's Microsoft?
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
Ah, so after following the read link this is on the basis of what features it supports. Doesn't seem to take into account the speed at which the browser can run through a script or anything.
10/08/09
10/08/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
Does it come across that I like this and am probably going to get one?
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/03/09
I think there is A LOT of confusion due to the complexity of the issues.
First, there is some confusion between "open standard" and "proprietary" - the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, but are often used interchangeably carelessly. In many cases, that is ok, but in other cases, it just adds to misunderstanding.
Proprietary simply refers to who owns it - and most standards are owned by somebody - a company, an alliance, a non-profit group. For example, "Microsoft proprietary standard" simply means Microsoft owns it. It could still be an open standard.
An open standard is one that is accessible by a other entities, usually for little or no fee, but usually still requires some license agreement to acknowledge ownership, define "compliance" with the standard, and how licensees can claim support of the standard.
The structure of fees is usually hidden from consumers - the manufacturers pay - whether a flat fee or a per unit fee - so just because it's open doesn't mean that its free.
For many standards "developed" by non-profit organizations (Bluetooth, for example) - there are actually companies who participate in supporting the non-profit, both by contributing funds as well as engineering resources. (Standards don't just write themselves) Sometimes, companies license or transfer their technology (patents) to the non-profits as part of their contribution and to help speed along development. (After all, why keep reinventing the wheel?) But sometimes, committees staffed with people from competing companies have conflicts and need to work through them - sometimes resulting in compromises that no one is happy with.
Obviously, the companies that are interested in helping develop a standard have something to gain by it - by selling chips or connectors, or by being able to plan for incorporation of new standards into their products.
For companies like Apple, there are many factors to consider in whether to go proprietary or to adopt an open standard. Is the open standard a quicker way to market? (maybe, maybe not - some committees take a very long time to get consensus to ratify a new standard) Open standards may mean greater choice of suppliers - there are many USB controller chip suppliers, for example. Open standard components may cost less due to more competition among suppliers. An open standard may mean more potential partners. On the other hand, proprietary standard may mean more control, quicker to market and better fit for the company's goals, as well as competitive advantage.
There are strategic reasons to consider on top of all that. Microsoft didn't sell more Windows OS by developing IE - but it didn't want to be left behind and let potential competitors develop substantial revenue sources. Microsoft's consistent strategy has been to develop their own standards and products to compete with any market leader - witness IE, MSN, WMV, Zune, Bing. Apple, on the other hand, adopts open standards when it makes sense, and develops proprietary when available open standards don't exist or aren't a good fit with it's (Steve's) vision for new products.
Basically, my point is that, as much as we all want to distill complex situations down to the simplest terms - good/bad - the reality is almost never that simple. Life would be boring if it were, no?
09/03/09
And USB 3.0 can't beat Firewire in a few areas, notably instant networking (plug two computers together via one FireWire cable - instant network), or remote debugging (kernel debuggers often use FireWire or serial).
It won't die out - it's a better a/v spec than USB - even 3.0 won't beat it in that regard.
09/03/09
Its too bad the poop standards always win.