During the first day of the Google I/O conference in San Francisco the good fellows of the search giant announced WebM a new open web media format. Why is this important? Well, it seems that this could be the end game for the HTML5 video element.

Not as in the end of HTML5, but the controversy surrounding the video element itself, which didn't limit the codec used to render video. This led to fragmentation as both Mozilla Firefox and Opera only supported open and patent-free standards like Ogg Theora. The competition, including Apple Safari and Google Chrome did add support for the software patent infested H.264, making it hard to target all browsers at once. The newly announced WebM project is here to end it. With a new standard based on the VP8 codec from the recently purchased On2 Technologies, Google is opening up a new codec that offers better quality than Ogg Theora (while still using Ogg Vorbis for audio), as well as keeping it open and patent-free.

But announcing just a new codec isn't going to help by itself. For it to succeed Google needed friends and here there! On the software side both Mozilla and Opera have joined the league, Microsoft announced that IE9 will enable VP8 if it's installed, making Apple the only one left. But there is more, yes Adobe Flash is there too. Other software parties are: (Google/OHA) Android OS, CoreCodec, Skype and more. But software isn't everything, hardware acceleration would be nice too, so the following hardware companies joined as well: AMD, ARM, Broadcom, freescale, Imagination, Logitech, Marvel, MIPS, NVIDIA, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments and more. Of course, being Google means that this time all videos on YouTube will be available in an HTML 5 with WebM combination.

Google promises that tonight the new codec will be added to Chromium (and end up somewhat later in the development stream of builds), while both Mozilla and Opera already released the first test builds of their respective browsers. Hopefully the world will adopt this one standard so we can all enjoy the unity.

Google may be the biggest competitor to Microsoft on a whole scale of non traditional ways, but one thing is definitely true, they are pushing new technologies where they can.

Where Apple dominated the new wave of touch-screen mobile devices, Android is opening up the market by exposing a similar OS albeit with multi-tasking and customization. In the same approach not pleased with the slow development of Firefox (hey where is that new update approach coming from Mozilla, and why?) they introduced a new way of browsing the web with the fastest JS performance and multi-processes.

Today is the day that they push technology in another way, though with a sharp edge to it. We already know that HTML 5 comes with the video-tag and that there have been arguments about whether support for the different encoders should be part of the specification. Currently encoders don't play a role, and Google opted for the most superior encoder out there, but with a cost.

H.264 is the new standard to be used for Google's latest HTML 5 experiment for YouTube, but the thing is only Chrome (Frame) and Safari support it. H.264 requires that you pay a certain sum, and although Mozilla must have the money (from the Google search deal), they do not support it, heck they only support the open-source OGG format.

Anyway, if you have Chrome (Frame) or Safari, you can now enjoy the HTML 5 video-tag without the need for Flash, and with perhaps better quality at the new YouTube page. You can opt-in here if you have a supported browser.

First Microsoft announced and showed performance benchmarks of Internet Explorer 9, which leverages your GPU to speed up rendering. Playing a so-can-we-game, Bas Schouten demonstrated a Firefox build using Direct2D, the replacement for GDI.

Suffice to note is that competition is good. With Microsoft and Mozilla sparring on another dimension of gaining performance, instead of just the JavaScript engine, we the users can only benefit. As you may know from before, Opera Software is working silent (but deadly?) on Vega, which would introduce GPU powered rendering for at least several HTML 5 / SVG elements. Plans from Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome are unknown, but you can bet they'll keep a close eye on it all.

So what are the gains of using the GPU, through the means of Direct2D, for rendering? Well, looking at the graph on Bas' blog, it can reduce time twice as much when browsing popular web sites such as Facebook, Google and Twitter. There is one catch though, you'll need Windows Vista or Windows 7 and a preferably a DX10+ card.

When Direct2D support in Firefox is included by default, and if it will also become cross platform (with the use of OpenGL) is still unknown, but surely the development of GPU usage is a warm welcome to increase performance overall.

Before time began, there was the cube. Whoops, before Firefox there was the Mozilla Suite. Once Firefox took off as the most popular Mozilla project the Suite was more or less abandoned to focus all resources on it. However several users and developers thought otherwise and took up the project under the SeaMonkey project.

Today version 2.0 of SeaMonkey has appeared sporting improvements along all the bundled applications of the internet suite hosted by Mozilla. The first big (yet maybe transparent) improvement is that it's based on Firefox 3.5.x, meaning a newer rendering engine, improved extensions and themes support. Other improvements have not been seen yet in any other stable release, such as tabbed support in MailNews (it will appear in Thunderbird 3), new default theme, and RSS/Atom feed support.

You can download this entirely new release from the SeaMonkey project site, it's certainly worth a look when you have Firefox and Thunderbird installed.

Google compared to Microsoft seems to be the young fella, the one that dares to do things. With a seemingly large group of magical developers they present Google Chrome Frame, their brave new attempt to drag grandpa Internet Explorer into the future.

Google Chrome Frame, as the name suggests, is based on the core of the Chrome web browser (and operating system). And simply put, Chrome Frame brings those technologies to the IE world, enabling ultra-fast JS through V8 as well as support for new HTML5 technologies (eg. <canvas> tag).

So how does it work? Well Google Frame is an early stage, open-source, plug-in for Internet Explorer, that injects all the Chrome core technologies into IE. Why would you want to do that? Well, if you can drag IE into the future, you also drag the largest portion of web citizens along (who haven't switched yet to a proper web browser).

To support Chrome Frame, adding a simple tag will trigger its functionality when visiting an enabled web site. Optionally you can redirect the user to install the Chrome Frame plug-in. Of course it's still in an early phase and has some known issues (no printing support in Chrome Frame, nor UI feedback on downloads), but I'm sure it will be completed in time.

This new Google technology sounds interesting to me. Of course we all want everyone to switch to Chrome, Firefox, Opera or Safari. But sometimes you need to do it all with baby steps, one at a time.

Since the early days Opera Software has been renowned for their web browser, their support for (open) web standards, and their strictness in following it. But besides supporting the web they are known as innovators, at a level where other companies, including the oh so beloved Apple, look at for the next step in their own web browsers.

But recently it seems that a lot of (casual) people regard Opera Software entirely differently. While ignoring history and Opera's innovations, people seem to see Opera as a sore loser, who has failed where Firefox succeeded, and is on the verge of extinction. People especially see the recent case by the European Commission, to bring equilibrium in the browser market, as Opera Software's doing. But nothing is that simple...

Let's start with the European Commission case (which currently only applies to EU citizens). Originally Opera Software asked the EC to take a look into the case where Microsoft bundles Internet Explorer with Windows, and causes unfair competition. This applies only to Windows, because Microsoft controls a monopoly (which is specified in the EU rules) and therefor also has a strong grip on the web (which they first failed to pick up in the early days).

Long ago when Netscape was still a good company, everything changed, Microsoft began bundling IE with Windows (especially using OEM releases) and slowly but surely gained enough momentum (in combination with Netscape's failing in bringing the rewrite on time) to capture the market. After that innovation stalled, IE broke the web with flawed standards support. While Netscape survived in the shape of Mozilla, it was a time when Opera was one of the few survivors that kept working on web standards and innovation. Well, we know how it goes after that, Mozilla Suite didn't get a lot of people, but with hard good work Firefox came to be, and at the right time with the insecureness awareness of Windows and IE they created enough momentum to become popular. Of course there must have been some jealousy at Opera Software on how Firefox was embraced and gained popularity. But there has never been hate up in the north, and truth to be told, Opera did gain a lot of users as well, as people got aware, awakened if you'd like. Even Opera learned from Firefox, as it became free when enough revenue was gained from other sources, such as Google and Yahoo! searches. Currently Opera Software is financially strong, and has a strong hand in the mobile (Windows, Symbian, Java) market, as well as devices (Wii, DS, Zii). Like any healthy company Opera Software wants more, more market share, more money, etc. But unlike other companies, they still value their own vision, of keeping the web open, on any device, for any one out there.

But back to the EC case against Microsoft. After it was decided that Microsoft needed to create a Windows XP N Edition, without the Windows Media Player, the legal munchos at Opera Software saw fit to ask, I said ask not force, the EC to look into the browser market. As it nearly seems an identical case the EC was quick to pick up, as this time there are several companies still at stake here. Note that from this point on Opera Software hasn't done anything, the EC was asked to investigate and have found out that Microsoft indeed has been misusing their position for their web browser. Any decision by the EC is done without Opera, Mozilla, Apple, Google or Microsoft. All the companies are free to give their comments, advice and support for the case. So has Opera Software done for the last months, they've suggested a ballot screen and apparently EC (and several allies) finds in interesting as well. You'll have to understand that things like this are more or less organic developments, as you've probably read Microsoft has turned around and worked on documents for the ballot screen with their proposal of rules for inclusion and display. It's up to the EC to approve or disapprove, and the folks at Opera/Mozilla have spoken aloud on the web what they thought of it. So as you can see, Opera cannot force the EC, as they work independently, any justice or injustice directed at Microsoft comes from the EC directly.

However it doesn't help that several people at Opera Software have said things that were either, ripped from context, or simple reversed questions. A lot of what has been said were advice or (wild) ideas, and yes they sounded bad, like whining as some have said. No, I don't agree that Opera should be in Windows Update, I would go for a global unified update system that all apps, whether browser or not can plug into, such as the update feature in Linux (though apt, yum, etc.) or App Store (iPhone/iPod touch). Whether then to dismiss or argue any of the comments from some Opera folks you should ask yourself, am I too emotional, could they simply be wrong this time? EC case or not, use Opera, or any other browser because you like it, it's features, the looks. Remember that everybody is human, and no doubt some people say stuff with emotion or get wrongly quoted (for sensational purposes). Take some distance, and be "nuchter" about it (yeah look that word up... hint, it's dutch).

Looking at Opera 10 there are of course things missing and we all, yeah me too I confess, say bad stuff about it. It's not because the entire thing is bad or evil, but because we know, we feel that something could become so much more. Imagine Opera 11, with the super fast JavaScript engine (equal to Chrome), ICC profile version 4 support, Vegas for 3D acceleration, private browsing mode, etc. We know it's unrealistic to have it all in one go, however we also all know that it should be there to finish of the competition. But the truth is, it's not possible, not without a healthy balance between work force and financial results. Opera 10 comes already with so much more. First of all the folks listened to us by bringing spell check (with dictionary download), major improvements to the mail client (really there isn't much else out there that's free and good), auto-update, a brand new look, and much, much more.

Opera Software is still the same as we know it, innovation and fighting for an open web (heck why do you think they don't sue people with random patents). Remember this first and foremost, distance yourself from the EC case, and remain "nuchter" while seeking out the "why" someone says something, and remember that everybody makes mistakes.

Known for their benchmarks tools, Futuremark has released their first application to measure browser speed (on any platform). Futuremark hopes to provide the one true tool, while we've been toying with browser specific benchmarks, such as SunSpider.

The Peacekeeper benchmarking suite is now freely available as an online application. And, by use of a query parameter can be run in multiple browsers, without losing individual results. The tests done by Peacekeeper measure your browser's performance by testing its JavaScript functionality. The chosen functionality should be representative for popular sites, such as YouTube, GMail, Facebook, etc.

Running the benchmark on my own machine:

• 4425 .:. Safari 4.0.2
• 2595 .:. Chrome 3.0.197
• 1998 .:. Firefox 3.5.2
• 1414 .:. Opera 10 Build 6604

iMac with Mac OS X 10.5.8, 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (6 MB, 1.07 GHz FSB), 4 GB 800 MHz DDR2 SDRAM

As you can see, Nitro (Safari 4) wins as expected (it's after all Apple's turf), and V8 (Chrome) still needs some work, but clearly beats the rest already. For Firefox and Opera there is still some work to be done, while Firefox 3.6 will bring some extra speed, it won't be too big to close in on Chrome and Safari. Opera is working diligently on their new engine, but won't be part of Opera 10, so we'll have to wait until we'll see some real numbers.

So what kind of scores did you get? And do benchmarks make you switch browsers?

Update: The new Safari 4.0.3 now clocks at 4507 points on my iMac. Woohoo!

Update 2: The new Opera 10 Beta 3 (6613) clocks at 1550 points. Nice!

The Kronos Group has announced the formation of the WebGL webgroup, which should bring 3D graphics to the web. Using JavaScript bindings with OpenGL, it should bring 3D support without the need for any browser plug-ins.

The Kronos Group is known for their work on OpenGL 3, as well as the mobile OpenGL ES standards and the recent OpenCL standard. Previously the Kronos Group announced with Mozilla a joined effort to bring a 3D standard to the web, and now they've announced their final plans. Following Mozilla's prototype they plan to make a JavaScript binding between the browser and OpenGL ES 2.0. Third parties can work on APIs on top of this, to offer richer experiences (as OpenGL is the most abstract form).

Since the announcements other browser companies joined in, including Opera Software and Google. You might think why Google, as they already work on O3D. But O3D is a plug-in (which may be bundled with Chrome), and requires a separate installation, hampering easy adoption. However O3D also offers better 3D performance, which will unlikely be matched by WebGL. Henceforth Google will support WebGL, while work continues on O3D, which may offer more and better opportunities for faster and much richer 3D content (Runescape and Quake Live in O3D?).

No word yet on support from Apple (who participates in the Kronos Group) or Microsoft (another member), hopefully we'll see some announcement soon and prevent this upcoming standard from being yet another failed 3D standard.