This is a huge development IMHO. If executed correctly, this has the potential to change how we look at the web. This is something that can be the starting point of web 3.0.
[EDIT: I agree. The example applications given are not that appealing.]
I have an opinion that instead of some crappy and difficult to use address like unite://mymac.chrismills.operaunite.com/ they should register a TLD (I guess it is possible. Isn't it?) like .OP or something and start using that. So my address will be simply niyaz.op
I think, (as always) someone else will come along and do it better than Opera does and opera will be forgotten again. Sad, but true.
Anyway I love the Opera for these innovations. They are the pioneers in many cool things in the web. Kudos guys!
This doesn't change how hackers look at the web. There's a reason we use servers -- 24x7 availability with network redundancies, backup power, etc, etc. Most hackers I know can run servers off their local box by using either static IPs from their provider or a proxy service. But many don't because of the reasons above. And now that there are so many great (mostly free) turnkey hosting services like App Engine and Heroku, it's never been simpler to offload all the server issues to a cloud.
The main target audience for this would be users who can't use any of the cloud hosting and also don't need high availability. My folks live by a lake with satellite broadband -- bad latency, frequent dropouts due to weather, and a host of other issues, like simply not wanting to keep their computer on all day, every day. They couldn't use this service. Other users would likely confront at least one of the issues. I've just browsed the Opera material, but I don't see a database/datastore -- maybe submitted data is supposed to go to disk? (The blog example has submitted forms going to memory!)
This is not about reliability. We are not talking about traditional servers and applications.
This is a huge development because when everyone can host applications for free in their own browser we will soon start seeing new paradigms in the way how we use the internet and how applications are served.
I am not smart enough to forecast HOW this will be done, but I have a gut feeling that this will lead us to something really game-changing.
What kinds of apps is this supposed to unleash? If the application is sufficiently complex to require programming or a database, which is true of just about any non-trivial app, then the user is savvy enough to host apps for free in several cloud hosting services with very easy deployment. If we're just talking about file or photo sharing, then there are other services like Dropbox that work well and don't require constant connectivity and compute power on the client side.
I'm typically a fan boy of new tech, but other than a nice proxy service, I don't see why this is revolutionary or game changing. Time will tell, but if there really is a market for something like this, it'll be served by a really cool and simple app development tool which autosyncs to a cloud. Building the app in a brain-dead way is the chokepoint for people coming up with personal apps, not the server infrastructure (at least now in 2009). Why bother with client-side computers for a web-facing personal presence?
OK, I'm willing to take downvotes here, because I'm going to slap HN a little. Why are many people upvoting niyazpk's comments (+14/4 vs other +1 comments before I head to sleep)? To sum up his arguments: it's cool and he's got a gut feeling that it's a web game changer. Meanwhile, there's a bunch of more critical comments that point out Opera's insignificant examples and reasons why the developers that can most use this technology would be better to use more reliable cloud hosting. And these comments get some ups then get pushed back to 1 point. Aren't we supposed to be more analytical here? If you're going to upvote something, make sure there some substance behind the comment rather than what's tantamount to a "that's cool, Opera rox."
Turning a browser into a web server is not a big leap in technology. That is not a hard problem.
Why I am excited about Opera Unite and not about this firefox extension is that Opera themselves thinks that this will change the face of internet applications. They are excited about it and they will persue this to the end. That is the whole point.
It is not about technology. It is about how you push it and persue it. It is all about your vision.
]
Well, they do show how to create a Blog (without any kind of database server setup and believe me - it's very simple!), although I need to find a way to save it between sessions (when you close Opera - entries are gone). They have sandboxed filesystem, so there's probably just a way to dump JSON to a file and reload on start.
Which is cool, but again when you decide to leave for vacation for a week and take your laptop with you to look up dinner options where you're going and don't leave it running all day in your hotel room - no one can read your blog! Am I missing something?
That's also what I'm looking forward to see.
Personally my solution here would be distributed P2P: encrypted content dispatched through neighbours/servers (for some part of the content only, you could choose, for your blog but not necessarily all your shared disk).
I think this + some distributed P2P could well be the web3.0: a new way poeple could use and share their data (a huge open facebook killer).
You are maybe to young to have known it, but HyperCard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercard) is typically the kind of application that could be distributed via Opera Unite.
It was more like a database that you could program graphically and that was accessible for newbies.
And actually, Ward Cunningham wrote the first wiki with it.
One of the common use-cases that pops into my head is as an equivalent for Flickr except massively de-centralized.
There are obviously many dis-advantages to using a non-centralized system, largest in my mind is the loss of the community feel, but for some people the fact that you are 100% in control of how your information is dealt with might be enough to win them over.
It's likely too that other developers will think of new and exciting things to do that will be unique to the platform, one killer app could make Unite really shine.
That's the biggest feature that pushed flickr to the top of the photo sharing heap. Which is why this is a losing proposition for just about every existing-app-killer idea. Maybe it'll provide a dead simple way to do something new, but any system that relies on consistency and availability (most social networking apps) will suck.
How many 404's before you delete the bookmark and stop coming back?
What kinds of apps is this supposed to unleash? If the application is sufficiently complex to require programming or a database, which is true of just about any non-trivial app, then the user is savvy enough to host apps for free in several cloud hosting services with very easy deployment.
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. Don't think permanent services or sites. Don't think technical people wanting to host solutions.
Rather think end-users just wanting to get stuff done, minimal fuzz.
Anyone can install a local application like MSN, but your mom and dad wouldn't be able to deploy the needed infrastructure on a server. If you can install a application and the required "server"-infrastructure by simply adding a widget to your browser, and invite people to it by simply sending them a link, that is quite a major leap in simplicity and will allow for entirely new forms of spontaneous collaboration.
I'm not saying this is the second coming of Christ and it may even end up as a total dud, but if you are looking at this from a hacker/tech perspective and all you can think of is "but hosting stuff in a datacenter is better" you haven't really gotten what the idea is all about.
will allow for entirely new forms of spontaneous collaboration
... that require pre-packaged apps to be added as plugins to mom and dad's browser, then e-mails sent containing urls to their new service, then mom and dad not turning off their computer and having a good enough connection for whatever type of app they've installed. (Rule out real-time with my parents' place.)
As opposed to our current model where the app writer hosts said new form of spontaneous collaboration (e.g., twitter, skype) on servers and mom and dad discover the service through word of mouth. Then mom and dad install clients where appropriate (e.g., twitter on both computer and cell phone, or skype on macbook with built-in camera). And then there's Google Wave which seems like a better platform for new forms of spontaneous collaboration (more robust, easier to determine recipients/access, open & published protocol).
The main benefit of the Opera system seems to be the app/service store, which adds discoverability, and the url namespace through its proxy service. If there is a market due to these strengths, I'd expect Google's new Wave platform to do better.
Do your folks currently have their own server, how about your cousin with the Nintendo DS (Opera browser) or perhaps you have a server on your iPhone (serving by bluetooth maybe?) ... my post from the 14th, http://alicious.com/2009/opera-about-to-change-the-world/
You forgot file sharing. It's the easiest way that I know that's guaranteed to work for both Internet and Intranet. The rest are really useless, I agree, but the file sharing service just works.
To attract a truly formidable user base, though, (as in, beyond college students and technophiles) I think they need a killer app which has nothing to do with "a file."
Unfortunately, I think that standard computer/web users know or care less and less about what "a file" even is. Is it a photo from their Photo Library, or an album, or the photo library itself? Is it a piece of music they have which shows up in their video editing and music listening programs and also in their personal web space? Where is that file even located?
If Opera's file sharing system also can hook in to everyday users' existing media and document databases, it might go somewhere, but watching the moms, dads, and other casual users of the world have to actually find a file on their computer in this era of iTunes and iMovie and Office 2007+ managing and obfuscating where things are, is fairly painful and distressing. I like that there are systems which let people use computers in this abstracted way which is a lot closer to how people naturally think about things, but I don't like that the abstraction is one layer up from the OS itself, so that when one actually has to do things like, say, find where one's MP3 player is storing your copy of Kenny Loggins' The Danger Zone, for many people it's no longer an instant "a ha" moment.
Oops this post isn't entirely about what it was originally about anymore. Sorry for the ramblin.
I think it might be possible to use CNAME DNS record (athough needs testing) for that task or use modern registrars redirect domain / framed domain features.
update: Just tested, no, CNAMEs don't work for Unite.
[EDIT: I agree. The example applications given are not that appealing.]
I have an opinion that instead of some crappy and difficult to use address like unite://mymac.chrismills.operaunite.com/ they should register a TLD (I guess it is possible. Isn't it?) like .OP or something and start using that. So my address will be simply niyaz.op
I think, (as always) someone else will come along and do it better than Opera does and opera will be forgotten again. Sad, but true.
Anyway I love the Opera for these innovations. They are the pioneers in many cool things in the web. Kudos guys!