3 ms·

> I'm curious, what are the politics behind this? What are the 'other reasons'? Google is very good at seeing their own needs and deciding that what is good fo

> I'm curious, what are the politics behind this? What are the 'other reasons'? Google is very good at seeing their own needs and deciding that what is good for them, at their Gigascale, must be good for everyone else on the internet too. And then they push it in their own products and in their own browser, without any proper concern about internet standards and the processes for being then established in a proper and cooperative way. Like they did with SPDY, which is now the overly complex and buggy HTTP/2.0. If they didn't have their own browser, they would not be in a position to do things like this. I sometimes wish for an antitrust case against Google: that they cannot operate the major websites and have their own browser at the same time, much like the ruling against Microsoft over bundling Internet Explorer.

SquareWheel 11y ago
SPDY was developed as an open protocol. It was adopted for HTTP/2 because it was a significant improvement over 1.x. https://http2.github.io/faq/#whats-the-relationship-with-spdy https://http2.github.io/faq/#whats-the-relationship-with-spd... Google essentially donated the spec and started phasing out SPDY for HTTP/2, giving up control of it. How you get "anti-trust case" from this is beyond me. But all of your comments here seem to have an anti-Google slant.
phamilton 11y ago
> Google is very good at seeing their own needs and deciding that what is good for them Even within Google the Chrome team is known to make moves that piss off others at the company. The Chrome/Flash debacle last summer was a good example. The AdX teams, like the rest of the ad industry, were not thrilled with the change being forced on the industry.
- ascagnel_ 11y ago
  They'll be even less happy today [0]. [0] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/html5-by-default-googles-plan-to-make-chromes-flash-click-to-play/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/html5-...
tracker1 11y ago
I'd rather see Sony for owning Bluray as well as media companies, and some of the shady dealings they did with killing HD-DVD. Nobody else was forced to implement SPDY, and there are plenty of others in the committees that gave us HTTP/2. In the end, it's what we have been saddled with. I would have preferred to see a more streamlined HTTP/2+SSL that didn't have as much round-trip cost. In any case, buggy software happens.

SquareWheel 11y ago

SPDY was developed as an open protocol. It was adopted for HTTP/2 because it was a significant improvement over 1.x. https://http2.github.io/faq/#whats-the-relationship-with-spdy https://http2.github.io/faq/#whats-the-relationship-with-spd... Google essentially donated the spec and started phasing out SPDY for HTTP/2, giving up control of it. How you get "anti-trust case" from this is beyond me. But all of your comments here seem to have an anti-Google slant.

phamilton 11y ago

> Google is very good at seeing their own needs and deciding that what is good for them Even within Google the Chrome team is known to make moves that piss off others at the company. The Chrome/Flash debacle last summer was a good example. The AdX teams, like the rest of the ad industry, were not thrilled with the change being forced on the industry.

ascagnel_ 11y ago
They'll be even less happy today [0]. [0] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/html5-by-default-googles-plan-to-make-chromes-flash-click-to-play/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/html5-...

tracker1 11y ago

I'd rather see Sony for owning Bluray as well as media companies, and some of the shady dealings they did with killing HD-DVD. Nobody else was forced to implement SPDY, and there are plenty of others in the committees that gave us HTTP/2. In the end, it's what we have been saddled with. I would have preferred to see a more streamlined HTTP/2+SSL that didn't have as much round-trip cost. In any case, buggy software happens.