Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Will the Pre Bask in a Verizon Ad Blitz?

palmprePalm’s App Catalog took another step toward maturity as the company opened an online version of the store, allowing consumers (and, just as importantly, potential users) to browse through webOS offerings on PCs in addition to their handsets. While the move was entirely expected, it is sure to raise awareness of the platform among both consumers and developers. But the real test for webOS — and for Palm as a company — will come early next year when Verizon Wireless launches the Pre.

The Pre’s momentum has dissipated since its June launch on Sprint’s network, and Palm last month had to raise roughly $313 million for working capital and general corporate purposes with a public offering of 20 million common shares of its stock. But while the company could get a boost from the Pixi — an affordable webOS handset aimed at younger users and scheduled to hit the market in time for the holidays — Verizon could play the role of Palm’s redeemer. The nation’s largest carrier operates arguably the best network around, and Verizon has consistently demonstrated its acumen at marketing smartphones.

But it’s that latest factor — marketing — that’s a concern. Verizon is already promoting the Droid with an impressive ad blitz, and it’s likely to back the upcoming Storm 2 with some serious marketing muscle as well. It’s possible the Pre could get lost in Verizon’s suddenly impressive smartphone portfolio. If Verizon chooses to invest heavily to promote the Pre, the handset could be a huge hit. If not, Palm’s days may be numbered.

Linux Prospects, Post-Windows 7

With the release of Microsoft's Windows 7 operating system slated for tomorrow, several Linux releases and announcements are arriving. Paula Rooney at ZDNet suggests that the Linux flurry may represent wave-making in reaction to the release of the much discussed new version of Windows. Does Windows 7 threaten to stifle Linux, and what are the prospects for Linux as Windows 7 rolls out?

As Rooney notes, this week IBM and Canonical announced the launch of the IBM Cliet for Smart Work package. It allows cloud- and Linux-based online work via Ubuntu and IBM's Lotus Symphony suite of productivity applications. Novell has also introduced SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 Service Pack 3, which brings many software upgrades and more support for hardware. Meanwhile, Red Hat is out with a new beta release of its Fedora Linux dubbed "Constantine." Is the timing of all of this meant to make waves as Windows 7 approaches?

As we noted here, Microsoft was very shrewd to open its beta and release candidate testing for its new operating system to anyone, and the company got a slew of pre-orders for Windows 7 through the effort, as well as good early reviews. The company has also already delivered the new OS to Microsoft's volume licensees. The actual Windows 7 rollout has been a multi-step process and doesn't just consist of fanfare to take place tomorrow.

Microsoft has stated that it is aiming Windows 7 squarely at the hot netbook market, and it's there that I'm hoping Linux and Linux-based platforms can maintain some entrenchment. Large computer makers such as Acer and Dell have continued with efforts to keep Linux and Linux-based operating systems alive on netbooks. Acer is even going to offer a dual-boot version of its Aspire One netbook that runs Windows as well as Android.

The netbook market has largely been driven by rock-bottom pricing, and open source operating systems and applications can continue to usher in impressive prices. That's the stated goal with netbooks that will run the Moblin operating system, for example.

But Windows 7 is also likely to gain strong market share as a desktop operating system, partly because there hasn't been a completely trustworthy version of Windows for businesses to bank on in many years. Microsoft hopes to reverse that trend with Windows 7. Large players on the Linux front continue to fail to market Linux with the same fervor that Microsoft markets Windows, and the marketing blitz that will surround Windows 7 could be a blow to desktop Linux. We'll see how this all plays out soon, but I'm especially watching the prospects for Linux and variants on mobile devices. There, where cost and choice have been so important, Linux has a chance to make a difference.

Microsoft Said to Ink Twitter, Facebook Data Mining Deal

bingMicrosoft is set to announce this morning separate nonexclusive deals with Twitter and Facebook during the Web 2.0 Summit, according to Kara Swisher over at AllThingsD, which would enable Microsoft to serve real-time status updates from those two social sites within its Bing search engine. This news comes one day after Twitter CEO Evan Williams deferred a question about pending data mining deals with Microsoft and Google.

Financial terms of the deals are unknown. And the implications will be different for Twitter than for Facebook. While most status updates on Twitter are publicly searchable, updates on Facebook are primarily kept private between users and their friends. Not all of Facebook’s status updates will be searchable in Bing’s real-time feed, according to Swisher.

So what, exactly, is Google planning to do with On2 Technologies' video software? The search giant isn't saying. The planned $106.5 million transactio

So what, exactly, is Google planning to do with On2 Technologies' video software?

The search giant isn't saying. The planned $106.5 million transaction isn't going to make too much of a dent in Google's coffers, but the transaction comes during a hot debate about which future technologies will power Web video. CNET News' Stephen Shankland and Tom Krazit pondered the implications of the deal, and here's what they thought:

Shankland: When I heard about the acquisition, I immediately wondered if the move could tidy up the mess that is that Web video or clutter it up even more.

On2 offers video compression technology that's used, among other notable places, in Adobe's Flash software and the Hulu video site. The company licenses various "codecs"--the software used to encode video so it's compact enough to squeeze down a narrow Internet pipe, then to expand it at the other end. It's a major technical challenge--one that's getting more important people to spend more time watching online video and more companies to attempt to profit from that.

Krazit: Well, it all depends on what they do with it, right? Google's being coy about this particular acquisition, but there really are only two reasons to do this: open-source the codec and throw a third wrench into the HTML 5 video tag standards debate, or bake it into existing technologies like YouTube--in hopes of getting that business to start making money--or mobile software.

At the moment, my bet is on the YouTube-mobile option: does Google really want to risk holding up HTML 5 adoption any further, regardless of the hint they dropped in the press release that "video compression technology should be a part of the Web platform"?

Shankland: Those alternatives aren't mutually exclusive. Google might just be buying trying to lower its costs by sidestepping YouTube's current streaming technology, which uses Adobe Systems' Flash software. Dan Rayburn, executive vice president at StreamingMedia.com, says Google doesn't have to pay Adobe fees to use Flash at YouTube. But Laura Martin, an analyst with Soleil-Media Metrics, believes that using On2 technology could trim YouTube's network bandwidth costs.

In the long run, though, getting On2's technology accepted as a built-in Web video standard could help both YouTube and Google's grander ambitions for the Web.

Google controls Chrome, of course, but getting the other 97 percent of the browser world to move will be harder. When it comes to building support for Web video straight into the Web, rather than using a plug-in such as Flash or Microsoft's Silverlight, Apple's Safari uses H.264 while Mozilla and Opera use a license-free alternative called Ogg Theora. Chrome will support both, but Internet Explorer doesn't have any support at all.

Right now, that video variety has been a thorny issue for the effort to hammer out HTML 5, the next incarnation of the Hypertext Markup Language that's used to describe Web pages. Even though the video tag looks like a big part of HTML 5, specification author (and Google employee) Ian Hickson so far isn't naming a codec.

Krazit: "Thorny issue" seems like an understatement. Why would injecting a third standard (that not everyone believes is necessarily a superior option) make sense, at this point? I suppose that there's a Clintonian "third way" argument to be applied here, in that if Apple and Mozilla are lining up on opposite sides of the debate over H.264 versus Ogg Theora, a freely available version that has clear patent ownership collected in one place might solve some of the sticking points on either side. Still, we'd be once again dependent on Google's "Dude, you can totally trust us. We're Google!" argument that it won't later subvert the standard with patent claims.

Not to mention the fact that Microsoft and its Internet Explorer are still unlikely to play ball, no matter what Google proposes.

Shankland: Well, one way Google could win over Mozilla at least is by releasing the codec as open-source software. That may or may not be possible, depending on what On2 has had to license, but Google apparently isn't happy enough with Ogg Theora's quality to bring it to YouTube, according to Hickson.

But I wouldn't rule out Microsoft quite so fast, even though I'm sure that it would like to get as much royalty revenue as possible through Silverlight video streaming and its own video codecs. Google has an affinity for open-source licenses such as Apache that permit use of code in proprietary software. That could reduce the philosophical barriers to Microsoft. And if Google can offer a high-quality codec in the HTML 5 standardization effort, maybe making On2's codec into open-source software could help coax the Internet Explorer team on board.

Let's not forget that HTML 5 is under the auspices of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), and they don't like standards encumbered by royalty constraints.

Also, if I were writing standards, I'd favor codecs such as On2's that also work on mobile devices. The iPhonedoesn't support Flash, and I'm sure that Google wants YouTube on as many handsets as possible.

Krazit: Google's trying to pull off a lot these days, when it comes to making the Web the future platform for developers. It's a huge proponent of the HTML 5 push, devoting an entire day of Google I/O in May to explaining why this move is so important, and preaching to developers about how open standards and browser-based development are the wave of the future.

But you'd think that at some point, the company would start thinking of ways to differentiate its own products against the rest. Chrome and the forthcoming Chrome OS are ostensibly being developed with the hope that they will gain traction in the market. How will they do that, however, if they are just cookie-cutter versions of the same standards-based technologies on which everybody else jumps?

One way would be through offering excellent video performance that isn't widely available to the rest of the world, i.e., keeping VP8 and future On2 codec derivatives either in-house or available for a fee. Is Google going to open-source everything it ever develops under the strategy that anything that gets people on the Web ultimately comes back to its bottom line? Surely, that can't scale.

Shankland: No, Google won't open-source everything--and stop calling me Shirley. The company loves improving the Web as a foundation for applications, an effort that needles companies such as Microsoft or Apple that have their own developer ecosystems to nuture. But when it comes to the applications themselves--Gmail and Google Docs, for example--Google isn't so into sharing.

So I guess that some of this On2 situation comes down to the extent to which the video codec work is an end or merely a means to an end, like Chrome.

Krazit: Google isn't saying, at least for now. There's little doubt that online video is a crucial component of the future Web (CBS' David Poltrack is telling television critics this week that big money is coming to online video), and something will need to assume a role as the future technology enabler of Web video.

In the end, however, it must be nice to be able to make $100 million bets with relative ease. Nothing could come of On2's technology, and Google would hardly be worse off than it was a day ago.

On Mobile Phones, Firefox’s Big Bet Is Nokia & Android


fennec_logoWith little or no chance of ever being able to make it through the draconian approval process of Apple’s iTunes App Store, Mozilla, the not-for-profit organization behind the Firefox browser, is betting on two major, if emerging, mobile operating platforms: Maemo, Nokia’s new Linux-based operating system, and Google’s Android OS. But don’t count on Mozilla supporting RIM’s BlackBerry OS anytime soon.

This weekend, during my onstage interview with Mozilla CEO John Lilly, I asked him what his plans were to get Firefox going on mobiles, especially since Webkit had gained so much attention and market share. “It is a different day, same story on the mobile as it was on the desktop,” Lilly quipped. On the desktop, Firefox continues to try to disrupt the entrenched incumbent, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. “Sure, we are behind, but we didn’t want to do a browser that didn’t do the whole web,” Lilly said. “We wanted to build a browser that did everything — Javascript, CSS, Flash, SVG, video and audio. What that meant was we had to wait for a while for devices to get better to handle this modern browser.” Lilly said that Mozilla’s mobile browser, code-named Fennec, is Firefox with the most advanced rendering engine. “It is the most advanced mobile browser,” he said. Fennec is based on the Firefox 3.6 engine, which is not even available on the desktop just yet.

fennecmaemo3_thumbAnd Lilly isn’t just tooting his own horn. I’ve been playing around with an early version of Nokia’s N900 device, and Firefox is perhaps its single biggest standout feature. It works just like it does on a desktop and, thanks to the seamless integration of AwesomeBar, a smarter version of a URL bar that uses Mozilla Weave, I can get access to all my bookmarks, my browsing history and other preferences. (Related Post: “Coming Soon: A Mozilla App for the iPhone“)

When I asked Lilly about why Mozilla is interested in the Nokia Maemo, which is still not a viable platform, he explained that Mozilla was betting on the future and Maemo was a modern mobile OS built with the Internet in mind. “Nokia is invisible in the U.S., but that is not the case in rest of the world,” Lilly said. Even if N900 doesn’t prove to be the device that gets explosive adoption, then the next Maemo device will be the one that gets traction. Mozilla will release Firefox for Windows Mobile and then Android, he said.

Why? Because he thinks there is a lot of overlap among folks who use Firefox and those who might buy Android-based devices. When I asked why not develop Firefox for BlackBerry, Lilly said that because the BlackBerry is a Java-based platform, Mozilla had no interest in building a browser for it, regardless of the number of devices in use. Mozilla also has some misgivings about Symbian, preferring to develop for Maemo instead.

“Until recently, Android was Java, but they released Android NDK which uses C/C++ and that is what we program in, so we are now looking at developing Firefox for Android,” said Jay Sullivan, vice president of Mobile for Mozilla.

“Mozilla Firefox will be the first mobile browser to support add-ons,” boasted Sullivan, pointing to the fact that nearly 2 billion Firefox add-ons have been downloaded to date, and they’ve spawned successful companies such as StumbleUpon. He expects similar traction for Firefox on the mobile. “We have been spending a lot of time on making sure that JavaScript and our engine work really fast on ARM processors,” Sullivan said. “That has taken some time.”

Subscribe to GigaOM Pro and get this indepth analysis of the mobile apps market for $79.

Subscribe to GigaOM Pro and get this indepth analysis of the mobile apps market for $79.

The reason: Mozilla wants developers to embrace the more open HTML5 standards instead of developing separately for different mobile platforms. “For a company of 20 people, it is hard to support multiple platforms,” Lilly said. “Even if one platform takes 20 percent of the market, there are other platforms you still need to develop for, and that isn’t easy for a small company. So that is why we are with Google in supporting HTML5 technologies.”

Like Lilly, Sullivan acknowledges that they have their work cut out for them: Webkit-based browsers and Opera are the dominant players in mobile, and Firefox will need to prove itself. The good news is that mobile is a much bigger market than desktops; multiple browsers and companies can thrive. With Nokia, Mozilla has a willing (and somewhat desperate) ally, and that is a good start.

Why Google Chrome? Fast browsing = $$$

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--On the Web, a site that responds a few milliseconds faster can make a big difference in people's engagement. It's for this reason that Google believes its new Web browser, Chrome, is a project worth investing in rather than a footnote in the history of the Internet.

Chrome, Google said during its Tuesday launch event, is much faster at showing Web pages than the most widely used browser, Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Google's hope is that performance will open up the bottleneck that chokes the speed and abilities of today's Web-based applications.

In short, Chrome is more of a long-term competitive threat to Microsoft Office and Windows than it is to Internet Explorer.

That may sound a little grand, but the evidence is on display in Google's own lobby, where the search company's computer kiosks present a browser only--no start menu, no desktop shortcuts, no operating system.

Why speed means money
Google benefits materially from fast performance. First, when it comes to search, Google discovered when its search page loads fractionally faster, users search more often, which of course leads to more opportunities for Google to place its highly lucrative text ads. Second, a faster Web application foundation means that Google's online applications for e-mail, word processing, spreadsheets, and calendars can become faster and fuller-featured.

CNET News Poll

Browser wars, redux
What browser is in your future?

Google Chrome
Internet Explorer
Firefox
Safari
Opera
Other



View results

Note that Google likes to talk about its three main efforts: search, ads, and apps, and with Chrome or a faster browser in general, all three benefit.

"Our business does well if people are using the Web a lot and are able to use it easily and quickly," Google co-founder Sergey Brin said.

Google faces many challenges with Chrome--convincing anyone other than a few early adopters and Web developers to adopt it, matching the pace of development of rival browsers, and assuring the Google-phobic that it's OK for the company to be in charge of yet another essential element of computing. But Google's influence is strong enough that just talking about performance and rattling its chrome-plated saber is probably enough to advance its Web-application agenda.

Brin was loath to call Chrome an operating system, but it was clear at Tuesday's event that he defines Chrome's success in terms of the applications that can be run.

"The word 'operating system' comes with a lot of baggage. We have a lightweight, fast engine for executing Web applications," Brin said. But, he added, "I think we'll see more and more Web applications of greater sophistication. All the things (you see) today are pretty challenging to do."

And, Brin added, Google benefits even if Chrome has no other influence than to get the competitive juices flowing faster among developers of competing browsers: "Even if IE 9 was much, much faster as a result of Chrome, we would consider that a success," Brin said.

Chrome's V8 engine
Google's has a two-part claim to faster performance. One is its use of the open-source WebKit project, also used in Apple's Safari, to render Web pages on the browser screen engine for showing Web pages. More important for Web applications, though, is the brand-new V8 project for running programs written in JavaScript.

Lars Bak is proud of Chrome's JavaScript performance.

Lars Bak is proud of Chrome's JavaScript performance.

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET News)

JavaScript has grown from modest beginnings into the language of many fancy, interactive Web sites and the foundational technology for rich Web applications using a technology called Ajax. However, for many applications, it's not powerful enough, which is why Picnik's online photo editing tools use Adobe's Flash and why Microsoft is pushing its own technology called Silverlight.

Google, Yahoo, and others, though, are JavaScript fans, and speeding it up will boost countless Web sites, not just bleeding-edge applications such as Google Docs. Faster JavaScript performance is why Mozilla is so eager to talk about a project called TraceMonkey coming with Firefox 3.1, why WebKit programmers are working hard on a project called SquirrelFish, and one reason why Microsoft is eager to move people to its forthcoming Internet Explorer 8.

With a JavaScript speed test Google showed during the event, Chrome trounced IE 7, Microsoft's current browser, but I was leery of generalizing too much from a press conference demonstration. Lars Bak, though, the Google engineer who was the technical leader for V8, is confident in the technology.

Bak wouldn't share any specific numbers, but he said Chrome is "many times faster" than IE 7. How aboutFirefox, now and later with TraceMonkey? "Many times faster. I guarantee you."

Of course, Bak was basing his claims on Google's own suite of JavaScript benchmarks, available on the V8 Web site. But at first blush, the tests, with 11,000 lines of code, aren't a wildly skewed set.

New horizons for Web developers?
Faster JavaScript means that applications can be faster, but also that programmers can push the Web application limits farther. "You can include more code in the browser. It really opens up the creativity of the Web app developer," Bak said.

And Sundar Pichai, a Google vice president of product management, was salivating over the possibilities.

"Most developers don't use JavaScript a lot because it doesn't run very fast," he said. V8 "will enable a whole new class of applications for tomorrow."

The biggest buzzkill for Google's vision, though, is that the Internet is just as much a boat anchor as an engine of innovation. Firefox has achieved notable market penetration and has inflamed the passions of many Net aficionados, but it still lags the market share of Internet Explorer 6, which was introduced in 2001, when the first Internet bubble was still in the process of bursting.

And Google didn't have much to convince me that average users would be moving to Chrome anytime soon. Faster browsing and various features for user interface, security, privacy, and search are handy, but not enough to get most people to take the trouble of downloading and installing a new browser.

But even if Chrome never gets far beyond the stage of publicity, don't discount the power of Google promotion. The company has a lot of power in setting the technology agenda. And as long as the company is willing to count a faster IE as a successful outcome, its Chrome project looks like it'll be a win.

Click here for full coverage of the Google Chrome launch.

Mozilla chairman unfazed by Google Chrome

Things just got a lot more complicated for Mitchell Baker, the Mozilla Foundation's chairman and "chief lizard wrangler."

Gone are the days when Microsoft's Internet Explorer was the sole rival for Mozilla's Firefox. A new open-source browser, Google Chrome, has come to town, and it's from the company that provided $66 million of the Mozilla Foundation's $75 million in 2007 revenue.

Mozilla Foundation Chairman Mitchell Baker

Mozilla Foundation Chairman Mitchell Baker

(Credit: Mozilla)

There are other browser alternatives--Opera and Safari, for example--but Chrome is likely to catch on with the same techno-savvy, early-adopter, Google-proficient crowd that's been so passionate about Firefox. Baker, though, isn't worried.

For one thing, she argues, Mozilla gets its Google revenue from shared advertising revenue generated when people use Mozilla's built-in Google search abilities. In other words, Mozilla is just another advertising partner--a status Google was willing to extend to a far greater competitor, Yahoo, though, of course, Google backed away from that deal whenthreatened with a Justice Department antitrust lawsuit.

For another, she doesn't feel threatened by Chrome's market share. That's not to say she's complacent about it, though. I asked her opinion about Google, Chrome, the new HTML version 5, the future of the Web, and other matters on Tuesday. Here's an edited transcript of our chat.

Q: Mozilla pulled in $75 million in 2007. How significant is that figure?
Baker: It's a significant number to us. It's about what we expected. We're happy with it. It's an amount of money that allows us to be sustainable, plus has some savings. And it's generated in way that allows us flexibility and freedom.

It's only a 12 percent increase over Mozilla's 2006 revenue, which had grown faster. Surely, there are more users doing more searches. Why is the growth rate tapering off?
Baker: As in many cases, there's (effectively) a discount with bulk and volume. With volume, you often get paid less per unit. The revenue per search isn't linear.

Mozilla gets paid by Google for the browser search box and the start page, both of which default to Google, correct?
Baker: That's correct. But the one thing most people forget is, we have an arrangement not just with Google but also with Yahoo. The combination of Google's market share and the default piece means the vast majority (of Mozilla revenue) comes from Google. We also get a small amount of revenue from Amazon.

Is the revenue based on Firefox downloads? Search queries?
Baker: It's analogous to what you see on Web sites with Google AdSense (in which other sites show Google ads, and Google shares the resulting revenue when people click on those ads). It's a mechanism for ad distribution.

So Mozilla is funded by ad revenue?
Baker: That's right. It's not the AdSense program, but it's from ad revenue.

Are you concerned the revenue will dry up, now that Google has Chrome?
Baker: We're careful, and we watch. But are we particularly worried? No. We expect Chrome to have some amount of market share, but we don't expect it to balloon. Our market share continues to grow, and we expect it to be healthy. The relationship between Google and Mozilla is good, in a business sense, for both organizations.

What effect has Chrome had on Firefox development?
Baker: It hasn't changed the way we work--our open-source and community way. Google is full of very smart people and more resources than the rest of us could imagine. We expect to see interesting and innovative things come out of Google and Chrome. We hope so. Good ideas move around in the browser world. New things showing in Chrome can benefit all of us. One thing about Mozilla is, we do not have the not-invented-here syndrome.

Has it changed your thinking? Google has touted Chrome's JavaScript performance, for example. Has it lit a fire under your developers?
Baker: The JavaScript fire has been lit anyway. I'd say we've been increasing our focus on performance for some time. JavaScript performance...is equal or better than Chrome. We've seen an across-the-board change over the last six to eight months. That was in the works already.

There are some interesting things in Chrome. Everybody seems to have private-browsing features, so we will as well. We're not as convinced that this is as helpful, but it's certainly something that people are looking for.

Chrome has vanishing market share, compared to Internet Explorer. How do you view your competition with Microsoft?
Competition with Microsoft is a bit different. There's no question (that Internet Explorer) as a product is improving. Thank goodness. If 70 (percent) of the world were still using IE 6, it would be much worse world for all of us.

It still does not remotely approach Firefox as a product, and we don't expect IE to challenge Firefox supremacy as the technical innovator in the near-term time frame. We do hope to see IE standards compliance and its modern features improved. The single biggest problem now in moving the Web forward is having to deal with people using back versions of IE.

What are Mozilla's spending priorities in the future?
Baker: We have a few. The mobile space is one. Innovation is another--how to promote innovation that's not locked up in a single proprietary stack. We're not taking about giant amounts of money (but rather) experiments to find out what's important and interesting.

There are some educational and research initiatives on which we'll be increasing our focus in the next year. And there are some initiatives we're looking at in the (Mozilla) labs space. Synchronizing data, not just Foxmarks data(such as bookmarks and passwords) but other data as well. That could require investments. Also, there are technologies to move the Web forward. We're looking carefully at video.

Firefox 3.1 has support for the Ogg video format.
Baker: Exactly.

Is the time line to release Firefox 3.1 in early 2009?
Baker: Yes, that's our plan.

What comes after that?
Baker: We're looking at Fennec releases (a version of Firefox for mobile devices) and at some of the things coming out of Mozilla Labs, like synchronization of services. Will that end up as a project? Were not sure. We're also looking at Thunderbird (Mozilla's open-source e-mail software). Thunderbird 3 should be shipping in the first half of 2009, (bringing) add-ons and ecosystem opportunities there.

And, of course, there's more work on Firefox. The role of Firefox is to display the Web as the Web moves forward. We also think we're in the early stages of graphics and video, and what people do with it.

What do you think of HTML 5, the next version of the standard for displaying Web pages? Will it solve the world's problems?
Baker: We're eager to see it happen. It's certainly not the panacea miracle cure, but it's important. We've spent a lot of time trying to move beyond HTML 4. We have the same issues (as earlier HTML versions) of getting it implemented in browsers.

Because it's a large specification, it's likely that only portions will get implemented. What if some browser isn't going to implement something in HTML 5, what are we doing to do to move the Web forward?