Turbo anyone?
-
I think it will be especially valuable for mobile versions of Vivaldi - phone and tablet, etc.
I think its need is rather reduced when it comes to the vast majority of desktop users, and I personally, for my own purposes, would rather see a more completed and polished desktop browser first, and then a mobile offering, and then turbo to round it out.
It can be a BIG factor in adoption in less developed areas, but I don't know to what degree global adoption is a major goal for you guys. Certainly, people who are now, or still, using Opera because of bandwidth concerns would not adopt Vivaldi if they could not address those same concerns.
-
I've been on an exclusively wireless connection for almost a decade, and I used to use the Opera turbo feature frequently when my signal started to get weak. It's usually not something I need at all, but it is something I would love to have should problems arise. The fact Vivaldi lacks it is not a deal breaker for me, and never will be.
I 100% agree with Ayespy.
-
The turbo function is a must have.
I started to use the compression in 2002 or so, when my cellular connection was around 4/6KB/s (1/3 - 1/4) of a landline connection, and that made my browsing faster than the one of wired people.
Years later, Opera Turbo was more than welcome.
Nowadays the world is plenty of people on metered connections, it's still plenty of areas reached just by 2G cellular cells, and even of rural areas where the ADSL is slow as it was in the early 2000s.
-
I agree with what some others have said. It's a nice feature, but less high-priority for desktop, and I imagine the server resources required would be significant.
-
Both server resources and bandwidth cost for not only Turbo, but Sync as well, would be non-trivial. This is one of the reasons I personally decline to push for these upgrades. If/when the browser is paying for itself, I think these are some of the earliest features that ought to be brought on line. Prior to that, I think resources are most wisely spent making the browser itself so attractive that few can resist its gravitational pull.
That said, promotion and public relations are primary predictors of success. And if, in the view of management, these would be regarded as promotional costs (because, say, opinion surveying or market testing has shown that such features would rapidly increase the number of eyeballs accessing the web via Vivaldi), then the costs would be justified earlier than later. I'm not in favor, however, of throwing promotional money at hunches. There is SO much that can be done with phone calls to reporters at tech journals and with "earned media," at little or no cost, spending money on promotion just to be spending money on promotion is, I believe, a bad idea.
-
My unsolicited advices above are made largely in self-interest. I want to have access to the fully-filled promise of Vivaldi, and want it to stay around essentially forever, and not be abandoned by its sole investor as a mistake, a money pit, and a bad investment. Hence, I contribute my own $.02 worth as to what I imagine to be the most sustainable path to growth and success.
-
Hi,
Trying to sum this up.
- You guys think it's a nice feature. For those on slow connections it's a must have feature.
- You do not want this as a high priority feature, but would like to see it implemented.
- It seems to be more important on mobile platforms that in a desktop browser.
Am I missing something?
Thank you guys! Let's see where this will take us. But first we need to get a beta out!
//Christian - Vivaldi Technologies
-
Yeah that seems to be the consensus.
-
Matches my opinion.
-
Hi,
Trying to sum this up.
- You guys think it's a nice feature. For those on slow connections it's a must have feature.
It's a must have for people on slow connections (developing countries, rural areas)
It's a must have for people on well developed countries on 3G/4G connections, which means fast conncetins but limited (and costly) data bundle.- You do not want this as a high priority feature, but would like to see it implemented.
Personally i consider this, not highest priority, but high priority (say, some as sync and mail)
- It seems to be more important on mobile platforms that in a desktop browser.
The border is blurred any phone has a data bundle nowadays, any phone can do tethering, many laptop have an internal 3G modem and even on desktop any people prefers the felxibility of a cellular connection over the unlimited data of landlines
So I would say almost mandatory for smarphone users, very important for laptop/tablet/hybrid users and for a part of desktop users.
The metric will vary depending on the country, on the mobile tariffs and so on.
Am I missing something?
That service could be an income source for vivaldi (if the feature will be properly explained/advertised), isn't mandatory to have it for free
If an user, thanks to "vivaldi compress" can pay 20$ instead of 40$ because a smaller data bundle (or a slower connection) , can afford a monthly fee of few $
-
I agree, it is highly desirable, but can wait on more important things.
This would be a big infrastructure change for Vivaldi, and require serious money.Cornwall has a lot of slow rural connections, and areas with no broadband, mobile phone signal and no digital TV.
I have found Turbo to be very helpful in a busy internet cafe or shared wifi, especially when some idiot comes in and starts downloading their torrents.
I also find that it confuses some sites, so I can bypass some country and ISP blocks :whistle:Even on my desktop I use Turbo very often.
If my 2 house-mates are hammering the connection already, Opera is my only option to load sites.Yes connections speeds get faster each year, but peoples expectations and demand for more, bigger and faster, mean that opening a website in 2015 takes much longer than it did on a slower PC 10 years ago.
Many idiot self-proclaimed web designers have no idea about optimisation, or that 7MB for a background image is not clever.
Multiply that stupidity across all the graphical content and CDNs in the page, and you have a slow mess.I wonder if the CoralCDN developer would consider investment from Vivaldi to make-over the old CDN.
As the web goes over to HTTPS, Coral will become obsolete, so it will have to die or change
It could provide a way to decentralise the compression and caching "if" it can be re-purposed. -
Would Google object to use of their Data Saver Plugin in Chromium-based browsers other than Chrome? (I wouldn't blame them if they did object, but I don't see any terms expressly forbidding it.)
(I noticed in vivaldi://flags , the experimental features settings page carried over from Chromium, there's a
Enable Data Saver Lo-Fi mode Mac, Windows, Linux, Chrome OS, Android
Puts the Data Saver in Lo-Fi mode when enabled. #enable-data-reduction-proxy-lo-fi
Enableflag, but I assume that does nothing or works improperly without the plugin installed.)
-
Yes, please!
I'm a big fan of speed. In fact, I've been really into Maxthon Nitro lately. But, of course, it lacks quite a bit. Would be cool if Vivaldi could use this "turbo" mode to come as close to the speed of Nitro as possible
-
I think is really needed, but not as traffic economy, but as integrated VPN, since there is more and more countries where gouvernment tries to dumbly restrict all sitizens to access sites they do not want. Turbo primarily used for that now
-
I think is really needed, but not as traffic economy, but as integrated VPN, since there is more and more countries where gouvernment tries to dumbly restrict all sitizens to access sites they do not want. Turbo primarily used for that now
If it gets used a lot to evade censorship, that unfortunately may not work for long, as the same governments may block access to the service's address, as they already try to do with VPNs.
-
One good feature less, then. Sadly.
Vivaldi is less popular than other platforms, so there is high chance to be unnoticed.
At least, in my opinion censorship is not a method for mature society, and I don't support that in anyway.
So many years and Turbo still not blocked, so I think you not right. -
One good feature less, then. Sadly.
Vivaldi is less popular than other platforms, so there is high chance to be unnoticed.
At least, in my opinion censorship is not a method for mature society, and I don't support that in anyway.
So many years and Turbo still not blocked, so I think you not right.Yeah, it may fly under the radar. Like I said, it would probably depend on how popular it got.
And yeah, I'm not generally in favor of censorship either (except for things where transmission of content victimizes someone, as in stuff like pornographically exploitative photos of children, or incitement to murder).
-
I used it on Opera when I'm tethering on my laptop from Cellphone as I have limited data plan. So even though the speed is not slow but compression saves my data plan. My vote for it.
-
Let me see if I understand this correctly…
It's the system first introduced by Opera, that proxies all your connections over a server at Opera, that compresses the data and sends it to your browser. Is that correct?
IMHO, it is useless.
1. From a privacy standpoint, it is undesirable, as it makes all your data go through a third party's server. What happens when some other party decides to root that server?
2. Technically, it should be unneeded, as any decent website already should have server side compression enabled. OK, a lot of sites still haven't enabled compression, but this is an incentive not to enable it.
3. From a routing standpoint, it just adds latency because you need to pass through the third party's server. And in case the compression server is out, a lot of people lose connectivity.
4. From an economical standpoint, it's idiotic, as somebody else will pay for it and I can't see a profit possibility. It just drains resources from the Vivaldi developers that could be used to do other things.
5. In the age of https everywhere, it's not the future, as you can't compress encrypted content, I believe. Besides, most, if not all secure sites already have server side compression. -
Let me see if I understand this correctly…
It's the system first introduced by Opera, that proxies all your connections over a server at Opera, that compresses the data and sends it to your browser. Is that correct?
IMHO, it is useless.
1. From a privacy standpoint, it is undesirable, as it makes all your data go through a third party's server. What happens when some other party decides to root that server?
It involves trusting Vivaldi to competently run a service. It's a potential point of failure, but Opera Turbo/Off Road, for example, has never been compromised, that I'm aware of.
2. Technically, it should be unneeded, as any decent website already should have server side compression enabled. OK, a lot of sites still haven't enabled compression, but this is an incentive not to enable it.
It's not just about lossless compression. Much additional data-saving can be gotten by lowering JPEG quality.
3. From a routing standpoint, it just adds latency because you need to pass through the third party's server. And in case the compression server is out, a lot of people lose connectivity.
In many of the cases for which it would be used, there's already significant latency, so as long as it's done well, the addition is negligible. At times, I've used Opera Turbo for things like tethered connections, and the decreased time to download page assets definitely make pages load significantly faster overall, despite any increase in latency. As for what happens if the compression server is out, people can just click Turbo off.
4. From an economical standpoint, it's idiotic, as somebody else will pay for it and I can't see a profit possibility. It just drains resources from the Vivaldi developers that could be used to do other things.
It's a feature. Like bookmark synching or any other feature, it'd have to be judged on its estimated cost/benefit ratio (the benefit being it attracts additional users). Both Opera (Turbo/Off Road) and Google (Data Saver) have judged the costs to be worth it.
5. In the age of https everywhere, it's not the future, as you can't compress encrypted content, I believe. Besides, most, if not all secure sites already have server side compression.
It's true that in Chrome (with Data Saver turned on), and most current versions of Opera (with Turbo turned on), the proxy is not used for HTTPS connections – the sites are connected to directly, the same as if Data Saver/Turbo was turned off.
However, that doesn't have to be the case: In Opera Mini for Android, the proxy does act as an intermediary even for HTTPS. The proxy server acts as an HTTPS client itself, reading the secure page, compressing and reformatting it, and sending it from the proxy to the phone app over an encrypted connection secured with Opera's own keys. (Obviously, this involves trusting Opera's proxy server with all transmitted information.)