<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Opera Unite &#8211; a first look</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2009/06/16/opera-unite-a-first-look/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2009/06/16/opera-unite-a-first-look/</link>
	<description>Flash Platform Geek</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:31:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jens Wegar</title>
		<link>http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2009/06/16/opera-unite-a-first-look/comment-page-1/#comment-21277</link>
		<dc:creator>Jens Wegar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peterelst.com/blog/?p=2181#comment-21277</guid>
		<description>Ahh, you&#039;re right. But isn&#039;t that the same as with the RMFTP protocol? It only gives the benefits of P2P to Flash based content and it will require the Flash Player to function, right? Unless Adobe does indeed open source that protocol so that other media types, say Quicktime for the sake of argument, could benefit from P2P streaming, they will in effect also have closed down the ecosystem and tied the user to one implementation, or? (It&#039;s been a long weekend for me, so forgive me if I&#039;m missing something fundamental.)

btw. I found a pretty good write up of Opera Unite here: http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/06/16/thoughts-on-opera-unite/. Mostly negative, though I think the write did a decent job of argumenting his case. I still don&#039;t have enough info about Unite, but unless Opera opens up the network so that we don&#039;t have to have an Opera account or run things through their server, it sounds like they&#039;re basically saying &quot;we should have control over all your traffic&quot;. Because what is a P2P network without a tracker that can initiate the connection?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ahh, you&#8217;re right. But isn&#8217;t that the same as with the RMFTP protocol? It only gives the benefits of P2P to Flash based content and it will require the Flash Player to function, right? Unless Adobe does indeed open source that protocol so that other media types, say Quicktime for the sake of argument, could benefit from P2P streaming, they will in effect also have closed down the ecosystem and tied the user to one implementation, or? (It&#8217;s been a long weekend for me, so forgive me if I&#8217;m missing something fundamental.)</p>
<p>btw. I found a pretty good write up of Opera Unite here: <a href="http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/06/16/thoughts-on-opera-unite/" rel="nofollow">http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/06/16/thoughts-on-opera-unite/</a>. Mostly negative, though I think the write did a decent job of argumenting his case. I still don&#8217;t have enough info about Unite, but unless Opera opens up the network so that we don&#8217;t have to have an Opera account or run things through their server, it sounds like they&#8217;re basically saying &#8220;we should have control over all your traffic&#8221;. Because what is a P2P network without a tracker that can initiate the connection?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2009/06/16/opera-unite-a-first-look/comment-page-1/#comment-21155</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:42:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peterelst.com/blog/?p=2181#comment-21155</guid>
		<description>Jens, I&#039;m not saying it has no place on the contrary -- its just that I think it shouldn&#039;t be implemented in the browser software but rather on the web technology level. 

As in the example you give a site like YouTube it makes perfect sense and it is the video player on the website that would initiate the P2P connection. 

What Opera Unite seems to be doing is starting it from the browser, this means that only Opera plugin services can take advantage of it. Its sort of like a closed ecosystem if you know what I mean.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jens, I&#8217;m not saying it has no place on the contrary &#8212; its just that I think it shouldn&#8217;t be implemented in the browser software but rather on the web technology level. </p>
<p>As in the example you give a site like YouTube it makes perfect sense and it is the video player on the website that would initiate the P2P connection. </p>
<p>What Opera Unite seems to be doing is starting it from the browser, this means that only Opera plugin services can take advantage of it. Its sort of like a closed ecosystem if you know what I mean.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jens Wegar</title>
		<link>http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2009/06/16/opera-unite-a-first-look/comment-page-1/#comment-21154</link>
		<dc:creator>Jens Wegar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:56:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peterelst.com/blog/?p=2181#comment-21154</guid>
		<description>Like you said, looks like P2P under a different name. I&#039;m not sure I agree with you that this type of stuff has no place in the browser though. High traffic media sites, like YouTube, Flickr, etc. I think could see a major benefit (both from a consumer and producer perspecive) if their content would be shared through P2P technology by people that view a particular piece of content, in addition to being downloadable from their servers. This would of course all have to happen in the background. E.g. user A starts to watch a video on YouTube. While he is watchin, user B also starts to watch the same video. The YouTube server notices that there are two users watching the same video and asks their browsers to initiate a P2P connection for that content. YouTube gets a slightly smaller server load, while the users get faster content delivery. Not sure if this is what is envisioned with Opera Unite, but that&#039;s the first thing that comes to mind.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Like you said, looks like P2P under a different name. I&#8217;m not sure I agree with you that this type of stuff has no place in the browser though. High traffic media sites, like YouTube, Flickr, etc. I think could see a major benefit (both from a consumer and producer perspecive) if their content would be shared through P2P technology by people that view a particular piece of content, in addition to being downloadable from their servers. This would of course all have to happen in the background. E.g. user A starts to watch a video on YouTube. While he is watchin, user B also starts to watch the same video. The YouTube server notices that there are two users watching the same video and asks their browsers to initiate a P2P connection for that content. YouTube gets a slightly smaller server load, while the users get faster content delivery. Not sure if this is what is envisioned with Opera Unite, but that&#8217;s the first thing that comes to mind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lawrie</title>
		<link>http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2009/06/16/opera-unite-a-first-look/comment-page-1/#comment-21153</link>
		<dc:creator>Lawrie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:28:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peterelst.com/blog/?p=2181#comment-21153</guid>
		<description>Thanks for this interesting write up Peter. I had a quick look at Opera Unite this morning - but couldn&#039;t make much out from their videos.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for this interesting write up Peter. I had a quick look at Opera Unite this morning &#8211; but couldn&#8217;t make much out from their videos.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

