Web technology: 5 things to watch in 2013

Chrome on iOS has a chance to shake up the OS-browser alignment in the mobile market.

The evolution of the Web is a messy process.

We do so much with the Web today that it's easy to take it for granted. Banking, social networking, word processing, travel planning, education, shopping -- the Web is reaching to new domains and tightening its grip where it's already used. To match that expansion, the Web is evolving.

But the Web is built by countless individuals -- browser engineers who enable new technology, Web developers who bring that technology online, and standards group members who iron out compatibility wrinkles. With so many constituents, it's no wonder there's so much craziness in charting the Web's future.

The new year will bring new chaos on the Web, and things will be sorted out in only some areas. Here's a look at what'll settle down in 2013 -- and what won't.

Alternabrowsers
iOS comes with Safari. Windows Phone comes with Internet Explorer. Android comes with its own browser and, for Android 4.x users, Chrome. It's a very different way of doing things compared to the browser free-for-all in the PC market.

In 2013, though, there's a chance people will exercise choice where they can and reject a future where browsers end up being effectively locked to the mobile OS.

The forces for lock-in are strong, if for no other reason that it's just simpler to use a smartphone's built-in browser. But don't forget -- there was a day when IE ruled the desktop browser world. In 2012, programmers laid the groundwork for big-name alternabrowsers.

Today, the companies that control the mobile operating systems -- Apple and Google -- lead the race for mobile browser usage.

(Credit: data from Net Applications; chart by Stephen Shankland/CNET)

We saw the arrival of Chrome on iOS and the reboot of Firefox on Android. iOS and Windows Phone place restrictions on third-party browsers, but Android is open, and other browsers there include Dolphin, Opera Mini, Opera Mobile, and UC Browser.

The restriction on iOS is that third-party browsers must use an Apple-supplied version of the WebKit browser engine that's more secure but slower than the version Safari uses. Windows Phone and Windows RT have related restrictions.

On personal computers, it's completely ordinary to switch to other browsers depending on security, performance, features. In the mobile world, that's not the case.

But the alternative browsers -- especially when companies like Google put marketing muscle and brand equity behind them -- could convince people that maybe they should venture farther afield. With Android spreading into more hands than iOS, it's possible the openness of the PC industry could

Oh, one more thing -- don't be surprised to see a Mozilla browser on iOS, too.

Firefox OS makes a peep
Mozilla announced some early progress with Firefox OS in 2012 -- though it failed to deliver it during the year as it had planned. Expect the browser-based operating system, which runs Web apps and is geared for budget smartphones, in early 2013.

Firefox is barred from iOS and Windows RT, and it is a rarity on Android. Without a presence in the mobile market, Mozilla can't use its browser as leverage to pursue its goal of an open Internet. Firefox OS, geared for smartphones and running browser-based apps, is Mozilla's answer. With it, Mozilla hopes to break the ecosystem lock that is settling people into the phone-OS-app store-cloud service silos from Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.

The first big Firefox OS partner is Telefonica, which plans to offer phones in Latin America with the operating system as a cheaper smartphones alternative.

"Mozilla's prediction is that in 2013, the Web will emerge as a viable mobile platform and a third, alternative option to closed, proprietary walled gardens," said Jay Sullivan, Mozilla's vice president of products. Firefox and Firefox OS obviously are key parts of Mozilla's effort to make that happen

Firefox OS won't be an easy sell since inexpensive Android phones are common and iPhones continue to spread. But carriers can't be happy ceding power to Google and Apple. And Mozilla doesn't need to have 40 percent market share to claim victory: as long as its foothold is big enough to keep Web programmers from coding mobile sites only for the big boys.

Web standards divisiveness persists
Those hoping the end of a rift in Web standards governance most likely will have to keep on waiting.

The new frontier of emerging Web standards is populated by a hodge-podge of acronyms.

(Credit: Bruce Lawson)

The World Wide Web Consortium long has played a central role in revising the standards out of which the Web is built, but a decade ago it chose to push a standard called XHTML that wasn't compatible with HTML. The browser makers, it turned out, had veto power, and largely ignored XHTML in favor of advancing HTML on their own through a group called WHATWG. This split persists -- and it's not going away.

The W3C is enthusiastic about HTML and related Web standards such as CSS for formatting. But even as it's ramped up its efforts, with plans to finish HTML5 standardization in 2014, the WHATWG has moved to a "living document" model that constantly updates HTML.

W3C CEO Jeff Jaffe has been trying to speed up Web standardization, with some success, and the W3C has remained relevant when it comes to CSS and some other work. But it has yet to fully regain its status with HTML itself, despite new members, new editors, and new energy. In fact, the cultural gulf in some ways appears to be widening. Even as the W3C's formal committee machinations expand with new members, the WHATWG's HTML editor, Ian Hickson, is moving the other direction. He said in a Google+ post:

Consensus (also known as "design by committee") is a terrible way to design a language or platform. Committee design dilutes responsibility and blame (everyone just starts saying things like "yeah, I didn't like it, but we had to do that to get consensus") while letting everyone take credit for everything (since their ok is necessary to get consensus), which makes it an attractive proposition for people who want to further their careers without really doing any work...

You end up with a technology that doesn't know what it is and doesn't do anything well.

Web standards continue to evolve, but at least regarding HTML itself, it doesn't look like either side will agree the other has the superior process.

High-res images on the Web
Apple's Retina displays -- the high-resolution screens used in iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks -- enable a new level of crispness and clarity in images and text. Software makers have been gradually updating their programs with new icons, graphic elements, and abilities to take advantage of the displays. It's been work, but not exactly a major re-engineering effort.

The W3C's new HTML5 logo stands for more than just the HTML5 standard.

(Credit: W3C)

But Retina on the Web is a very different matter. First of all, nobody likes slow-loading pages, and Retina imagery has four times the pixels as conventional imagery. Worse, more of the Web is moving toward mobile devices that have an even harder time managing big images and whose data usage is pricey, and you especially don't want mobile users downloading multiple versions of the same image when they don't need to.

At the same time, mobile devices are often held closer to the eye than PCs but using physically smaller screens with higher pixel densities. That means old assumptions no longer are valid about how many pixels wide a graphic should be. The technology to fix this has the label "responsive images."

Standards to the rescue! But uh-oh: Two camps each favor their own approach -- one called the srcset attribute, the other known as the picture element.

Resolution probably will come in 2013, though.

There have been emotional differences of opinion, but Robin Berjon, one of the five new HTML editors at the W3C, sees discussions as fruitful now. He said in a blog post:

We have two proposals for responsive images, the srcset attribute and the picture element. Both have now reached the level of maturity at which they can be most usefully compared, and this discussion is about to go through a new chapter.

Browser makers and Web developers are actively moving to high-resolution graphics and videos on Retina-capable devices, so regardless of what happens in standards groups, the responsive images issue will be fixed. After all, high-resolution displays are increasingly common, mobile devices are increasingly important, and nobody likes looking at pixelated, mushy images when they don't have to.

Web bloat
The good news is the Web is getting steadily more sophisticated, powerful, and useful. The bad news is there's a price to pay for those advantages. Unfortunately for those who have capped data plans or who live in rural areas with subpar broadband, that increase in Web sophistication means Web pages get bigger and take longer to fetch.

The HTTP Archive's records show a steady increase in the size of Web pages over the last two years.

(Credit: HTTP Archive)

There's an old adage in the computing industry that the new horsepower that chips deliver is immediately squandered by new software features, so computers don't actually appear to get faster. There's a corollary in the Web world: As broadband spreads and speeds up, as faster LTE supplants 3G, so Web pages sponge up the extra network capacity.

The HTTP archive keeps tabs on the state of the Web, and it shows just how things are ballooning in its sample of tens of thousands of Web pages.

From December 16, 2010 to December 15, 2012, the average Web page increased in size from 726KB to 1,286KB. The amount of JavaScript increased from 115KB to 211KB. And the images ballooned from 430KB to 793KB.

An optimist can find good news here, too. Google has an entire team devoted to making the Web faster, introducing new technology such as SPDY to speed up servers and browsers. Browser makers obsessively best new versions to try to catch any regressions that would slow things down. New standards make it easier for Web developers to time exactly how fast their pages actually load.

And don't forget the bloat is there for a reason. Do you really want to dial the Web back to 1997?

Read More

Huawei linked to plan to sell restricted equipment to Iran

Already considered a potential threat to U.S. national security, Huawei is again finding itself under scrutiny, linked to an offer to sell embargoed computer equipment to Iran.

A major partner of the Chinese telecommunications gear maker offered to provide 1.3 million euros ($1.7 million) of Hewlett-Packard computer equipment to Iran in 2010, according to documents reviewed by Reuters. However, Huawei says neither it nor Hong Kong-based Skycom, its privately owned partner, provided the equipment to Mobile Telecommunication Co of Iran, known as MCI.

The proposal focused on expanding MCI's subscriber billing system and included at least 13 pages marked "Huawei confidential" and carrying the Huawei company logo, according to Reuters. Those documents featured a price list for new HP equipment that included one server, 20 disk arrays, and 22 switches, as well as software.

In a statement, Huawei called the proposal a bidding document and said it was submitted by Skycom.

Huawei's business in Iran is in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations including those of the U.N., U.S. and E.U. This commitment has been carried out and followed strictly by our company. Further, we also require our partners to follow the same commitment and strictly abide by the relevant laws and regulations.

The two Chinese companies appear to have close ties, with Reuters noting that the two share headquarters in China and Skycom employees in Tehran wear Huawei badges.

The report emerges just months after Cisco Systems ended its relationship with ZTE -- another Chinese telecommunications gear maker -- after it was revealed that ZTE was selling Cisco-branded networking equipment to Iran. The Shenzhen, China-based telecommunications giant reportedly sold restricted and banned computer equipment developed by Cisco and other U.S.-based companies to Iran's telecoms firms.

In October, the U.S. House Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Huawei and ZTE of being threats to U.S. security and discouraging U.S. companies from buying their equipment.

"U.S. network providers and systems developers are strongly encouraged to seek other vendors for their projects," the committee wrote in its 52-page report. "Based on available classified and unclassified information, Huawei and ZTE cannot be trusted to be free of foreign state influence and thus pose a security threat to the United States and to our systems."

How Huawei is working to soften its image

Read More

Type 'sell' into Google Finance and take a bite out of Apple

---

Update, 5:40 p.m. PT: Google says the situation isn't deliberate. See the note at the end of this story.

---

Fiscal cliff or not, Google Finance seems to have developed a sense of humor.

A Reddit reader noticed earlier today that if you type "sell" into the search field at Google Finance, the site serves up Apple's presently somewhat sullen stock chart.

Ouch. Is this some sort of nasty Christmastime Easter egg/lump of coal? That's what some in the blogosphere are currently trying to figure out -- Google watcher, Search Engine Land proprietor, and CNET contributor Danny Sullivan among them:

I've seen a few comments that this is due to the Reuters-description that Google Finance shows for Apple having the word "sell" in it several times. I doubt this is the reason.

I can see Amazon's page on Google Finance also has "sell" in its description twice, that exact word, whereas Apple has the "sells" form. If usage of "sell" in the description is the trigger, then Amazon would trump Apple.

Sullivan's investigation continues. "Sells" also brings up the Apple chart, he discovers, making him think it less likely that this is a gibe rigged up by a mischievous Google staffer (because "sells" just doesn't make sense, in terms of Street talk). And in support of some algorithmic oddness, he notes that "buy" brings up Best Buy's chart, so searches don't seem to be keyed to an exact company name or stock symbol.

(We tried "hold" and got a long list of companies such as Yingli Green Energy Hold. Co. Ltd., Longwei Petroleum Investment Hold Ltd., Chinese Estates Holdings Limited -- and many, many more. So it's possible there's some sort of algorithm burp happening -- as opposed to any assumptions one might make about an evil Android at work.)

So what gives? We have an e-mail out to Google for more information, and we'll let you know what we find out. (See the update below.)

In the meantime, we welcome your theories in the comments section.

Update, 5:40 p.m. PT: We've heard back from Google. A representative blamed search algorithms for the issue and said the company was working on a solution:

"This isn't deliberate -- our algorithms seem to be keying off of the words 'sell' and 'sells' in the description of this very popular stock symbol," Google spokesman Jason Freidenfelds said. "We're working on how to adjust things so it doesn't happen anymore."

(Via The Next Web)

Read More

Windows 8 wrestles with PC's legacy

I spend precious little time in Metro when using a traditional laptop.

(Credit: Microsoft)

I'm by no means the first one to say this but Windows 8 and older PCs make an odd couple.

But let me back up for a second. Before the release of Windows 8 on October 26, I tested Windows 8 on tablets only, such as the Intel-based Samsung slate that Microsoft sold in its stores. And I was impressed with Metro.

That was then. Windows 8 Pro 64-bit is now installed on my Dell Adamo laptop. And I rarely venture into the Metro UI unless if I'm forced to.

Of course if you're one of the relative few who have a tablet like the Samsung slate or Microsoft's Surface or a touch-screen laptop like Acer's Aspire S7, yeah, then Metro is front and center, as it should be.

But on a traditional laptop it's problematic. That's why Apple, probably the biggest single force behind the rise of the touch interface, hasn't done something similar with its OSes.

Making iOS the launch point and default interface on Macs would not go over well, Steve Job's edict nixing the idea of touch on laptops notwithstanding.

So, Microsoft is going where Apple won't. Intel -- still Microsoft's single most important hardware partner -- is going there too, by the way. The chipmaker said recently that it has chosen Windows 8 "as the standard operating system for Ultrabooks and tablets in our enterprise environment."

But I don't think -- despite Microsoft's upbeat announcement about Windows 8 licenses -- the hundreds of millions of users out there with plain old PCs will warm to the concept of a touch-based launch UI.

Acer's president, Jim Wong, stated this concern rather bluntly to Digitimes this week. The Windows 8 interface could "dramatically delay adoption by consumers," he said.

I'll expand on that by saying that until touch-based laptops and hybrids are both plentiful and cheap, Windows 8 may not gain much traction. And that may take a while.

Let me close on a positive note, though. I like Windows 8. It's faster than Windows 7 on my Dell and more stable. That's good enough for me.

And Microsoft should spend more time pitching these straightforward Windows 8 merits until touch becomes mainstream.

64-bit Windows 8 Pro on my Dell Adamo.

(Credit: Brooke Crothers)

Read More