Market share is probably one of the biggest LIES in the industry… well, that's not entirely fair. In and of itself it's not a lie, but what people try to use it to claim is! Almost any time someone uses market share in a discussion, they're trying to spin a viewpoint with disinformation or make false claims.
See how for years (pretty much until Chrome started kicking them in the junk) Firefox fanboys used IE's "dwindling market share" to try and say there were less and less people using IE. 100% fabricated CONCLUSION if you understand in the slightest what share is!
I mean sure, IE's usage went from 95% in Q2 2004 to what today could be treated as 25% if you include edge (depending on who's stats you use), which you might as well since Joe Sixpack and Susie Sunshine just know they click on the big blue E. All well and good, so they lost 67% share, they must have tanked horribly on the number of users, right?
WRONG!!! Because the pool size grew; in Quarter 2 2004 when IE was at its peak, there were "only" 800 million Internet users, so they had around 760 million people using IE. Today there are a little over 3.48 BILLION internet users, so that 25% is 870 million users… so whilst losing share, they GAINED users! they GREW.
Now apply that math to Opera... Oh yeah, their going from 0.65% to a peak of 5.4% made them so inconsequential... just as their loss of share from 2008 onward didn't mean a loss of USERS -- it just meant they weren't growing into new markets as quickly as the competitors.
Share is a classic marketing tool to dupe investors and the public into drawing irrational unfounded conclusions. It's one of the best spin techniques out there and it's why unless they tell you "out of how many" it's a meaningless marketspeak datapoint.
Are you attracting users? Is the NUMBER of users growing or at least stable? Then you're good. Letting share -- even falling share -- dictate the mindset? Bullshit either trying to dupe you into doing something foolish or discourage you from accomplishing goals.
That said, I really don't have a problem with webkit/blink per-se... Blink has made a lot of improvements and Vivaldi is proving what it's really capable of. The complaints about it being "a travesty" so far as rendering engines go -- I just don't see it. It's plenty fast (V8 for JS is bloody brilliant on performance), compatibility is high (more so since Google kicked Apple to the curb)... and now that the stupid malfing -webkit crap isn't needed for most of the properties, that just leaves Safari as the odd man out.
Again why people keep comparing Safari to IE6. Thanks to iOS devices being ubiquitous, we're stuck having to support it no matter how far it falls behind Blink, Gecko, and even Edge on standards support.
The travesty to me wasn't so much that Opera threw a good engine in the trash, but that theyfailed to move over even a fraction of the user interface features that had me using Opera instead of some other browser to begin with! We're talking really simple stuff too like custom programmable buttons, portrait mode tabs, built in notes, rocker navigation, etc, etc... Opera's attempt at using blink just feels lazy, sloppy, and offers nothing to make me use it instead of Chrome...
... and to be frank Chrome to me feels like a trip in the wayback machine to the WORST of IE 3 Mac so far as UI design goes. Customization, what's that? Usability? Their entire UX team's goal seems to be "Oh you want accessibility, well *** you!"
Which laughably seems to be the attitude of most people vomiting up websites these days as well. Again, see jQuery, bootcrap and turdpress. Semantics? Graceful degradation? Accessibility? Who needs that when we can just slop together off the shelf code we don't even understand any old way and then wonder why nobody wants to use our sites.
You are right. It's my misunderstanding. Thank you.
I just did an experiment that hold a temporary fake www.google.com web server and use Firefox to connect it. Then nothing abnormal. I mean it did show my fake www.google.com web page normally without any warnings or like.
That is while free CA services bring the convenient also bring the bad side effects.
I don't see this happening until you see it in Chrome first – because at it's heart Vivaldi is just a web application running on top of something much akin to nw.js, electron or some other blink based web application wrapper. (I'd be curious which one, or is it an in-house fork?)
The "program" itself -- the menu, the tabs, the panels, the controls -- that's just a html, CSS and JS document being rendered in blink. The standalone blink "wrapper" they are using exposing the <webview>tag for use, which is kind of a jacked up on monster tires version of the <iframe>tag sitting in a nice little sandbox.<br /><br />So until blink supports it? Don't see it happening. REALLY they aren't making a browser ENGINE that would implement things like that, they are making a UI around an existing engine to add useful features to the front-end.<br /><br /><em>I'm still playing with doing this myself as I have some of my own ideas on how this should be done – one of which includes kicking react.js to the curb.</em></iframe></webview>