Bad Ideas Reinvented: Opera Unite is the new Kazaa?
Why is Opera trying to launch a file-sharing service in their browser? I like Opera; I'm using it right now. I just don't understand how this won't devolve in to massive networked illegal activity withot active moderation. And then, if the service is actively moderated, aren't we still at the mercy of some stranger middlemen? So either they want to start a war with a variety of IP holders or they're wasting their time with a gimmick that won't catch on. The only way to truly get away from middlemen is wire everyone up on the same base router and call it a day. Suffice to say, that's a horrible plan vastly inferior to the working situation. What's so wrong with servers? I don't see how they're controlling anything but their own content. The real issue is if the government decides to start filtering/censoring various content (much like China). My problem is, I feel like I understand their "vision" but I think they're just idiots. What say ye? Am I just not getting it? Have I been jaded by Mozilla's Aurora concept and expect a too high a standard from browser companies?
Side Note: Opera 10.5b is some sort of hotness (get it with the custom Aero Glass skin).
Addendum: Opera went crazy on me for a second and I almost lost this post. It clearly doesn't like WordPress. Probably some non-standard CSS/JS/HTML in this complex monstrosity that is one of the best blogging engines around. However, WordPress had a copy of the draft so it's all good.
February 13th, 2010 - 14:46
Being a web guy with access to a number of web hosts and savvy enough to know of the plethora of web services that offer similar functionality, I’m probably a poster boy for the guys who could get the least use out of something like this. That doesn’t mean it’s not useful. A number of nay-sayers talk about how it’s just a web host — you’ve been able to create your own web host on your own computer since forever. So what sets it apart? A few things: ease-of-use, free and simple proxy service, limited timeframe, and some browser integration.
Ease-of-use; setting up a web host is complicated. The easiest solutions still require some know-how to get it working correctly. With Unite, you drop in the web applications you want to use and direct friends to the URL.
Proxy service; with no domain name, a dynamic IP, and port hassles, it’s harder to get your friends connected to your host. Opera’s proxy service eliminates the hassle and creates a consistent service.
Limited timeframe; this is special. It can be seen as a limitation or a virtue given the proper applications. When you don’t have the browser open, Unite isn’t running. I can see this being useful as I wouldn’t want someone sucking bandwidth except when I’m browsing myself. (eg. when online gaming, i don’t have my browser on) While it’s easy to think this is bad, I can’t think of a scenario where it’d be an issue. When do you want people to access your stuff but you can’t have the browser open?
Browser integration; toughest to nail down. I don’t know the extent of the integration, but there’s a few ideas floating around that would only work (or work more easily) with an Opera Unite style application. Another example of browser integration is the User Script application someone made. It makes it much easier to install and use some of the great userJS (known in the FireFox world as Greasemonkey scripts) on the net.
As for file sharing, I think it’s a great way to share files with friends. I haven’t gotten into the habit of it yet, unfortunately, but it’s a lot faster than IM transfers or even transferring it to one of my web hosts and then having them download it there. Great way of streaming a friend’s music, too.
I still haven’t gotten on board with it, and yes, there’s a lot of overlap with already existing online services. Still, I think it’s worth something. (but no, it’s not as crazy amazing as their video purported)
PS. Opera has ran perfectly with WordPress for quite a while now. Any problem you experienced was probably due to the beta or a plugin. I don’t use the visual editor, though.
February 13th, 2010 - 15:25
I agree with most of PseudoKnight’s points except one. When do I want people to access my stuff but I can’t have the browser open? When I’m sleeping or at school or otherwise not home and don’t want to leave my computer on all day. Or when I’m gaming but you’re not and it’d be cool for you to be able to see what I put up. This won’t fit that kind of need. It seems to be more of a hosting/sharing while you’re chatting or otherwise both online sort of thing. And for that I can see it catching on. Then ease of use and its temporary nature are definite pros.
February 14th, 2010 - 00:01
I’m taking to account I’m running a beta, so I’m not taking the annoyances to heart. Overall, it’s pretty slick — I’m going to give it a final judge when this build is considered stable.
I think a lot of PK’s point are valid but the idea is essentially an easy to set-up personal web host that has easy access to common features like streaming. If Unite isn’t running when my browser is open, then I can’t surf the web and share content with my friends at the same time. I’m surfing the web about 90% of the time; even when I’m playing FFXI. There’s a very limited window between Opera being closed and my computer being completely off. So do I close my browser to share content? Am I expected to leave my computer on during the day or overnight to keep content accessible? What about bandwidth consumption when I need it the line? Just as important, what about the other people I share the connection with?
It seems like a faster way to share data with people you’re chatting with but if we improve transfer rates in Skype/Miranda/etc. the usefulness of a service like Opera Unite is gone. It’s like the infamous netbook and ends up being an uncomfortable middle ground no one needs to stand in.
I understand much of what I’m saying is what Freelance noted. Forget overlap, it sounds oversimplified and ineffective now that I think about it. The idea of a easy-to-use system is appealing but this is not the implementation to solve the problem. I have to agree with you that I’m probably not the target audience as well with my level of technological understanding.
Performance-built standalone servers eliminate a lot of these problems. The consumer end doesn’t have the power to act as a server and a client at the same time for any sort of load. Not to mention the last thing I want to do is eat up my bandwidth streaming media to my friends. Maybe in a world were fiber adoption was more widespread and everyone ran highly-efficient multi-processor setups with multiple hard drives.
In the end, isn’t all this moot? I thought we were trying to move to the cloud. Won’t everything be easily shared there?
February 15th, 2010 - 13:58
Lifehacker.com just posted an article on this. (one of my favorite software news sites)
http://lifehacker.com/5472050/whats-the-easiest-way-to-share-large-files-and-media-with-friends
The argument that you’d want to have the content accessible even when you want your computer turned off still applies to other hosting software. The only solution for that issue is remote hosting, which is an alternative with benefits and drawbacks. (limited file size, limited storage, 24/7 access, fast download, have to upload files to it first, etc.)
With Skype and Miranda, you can’t share your whole music folder and have them stream it from your computer. So usefulness is maintained for Unite even if performance was improved with those.
The cloud is mostly marketing bullshit. Most of the time when people talk about the “cloud” they’re just talking about the internet. The term’s been hijacked. Plus, remote storage is slow and limited compared to local storage. Remote processing only works in specific areas. It’s at best supplementary.
February 15th, 2010 - 14:03
Speaking of “cloud,” OnLive is one such example. Take a look at some previews of that. As predicted, it’s low quality and high latency, even in ideal circumstances. That doesn’t mean it’s not useful (supplementary) for gamers. It can do two things that nothing else can: show the same live video feed of your game to your friends, play high end games on entry level systems. I think it’s going to have a hard time finding profit in that, though. The costs are pretty high for such a service.
February 15th, 2010 - 20:47
I always doubted the abilities of OnLive. It’s no surprise to hear that it’s plagued by lag.
I read that article from Lifehacker. My problem with Opera Unite is not that I don’t see the usefulness of a personal web server. I can definitely see it as the vehicle for file distribution. Anything this user friendly is bound to be great for the general public (that is, the not-so tech-savvy). I just don’t want to be hosting a web server on my personal computer.
I don’t know what you have, but I run basic DSL at home so my speeds are already “suboptimal.” With a personal server, your bandwidth generally gets killed. It’s not bad when sending a song or a few documents but large files tend to be extended bandwidth consumption that I can’t accept. If I was back at school, where bandwidth is available in great multitude, then yeah I’d rock Opera Unite. Then again, people run personal servers all the time on school connections so I don’t think it’d be an issue.
In my situation at least, larger file sharing is best left to a remote server and smaller files can be easily sent using whatever chatting program I’m using to talk to my friend. Let’s get nation-wide fiber and then start talking about running small-scale personal web servers.