4 ms·

It's a hedge against Google. Google, through V8, Chromium, Chrome, Chrome OS, Android, and Dart, has a large say in the future of the web platform, browsers, a

by niftich 10y ago

It's a hedge against Google. Google, through V8, Chromium, Chrome, Chrome OS, Android, and Dart, has a large say in the future of the web platform, browsers, apps, the future of Javascript, etc. Time and time again, Google has used their substantial influence and market share to make unilateral decisions affecting the web platform [1][2][3][4][5][6]; the individual merits of each decision notwithstanding, Google can do just about anything and it will affect enough of the userbase that others must compensate or follow suit. By offering an alternative to V8 monoculture, they can protect against Google using its influence to drive the Javascript platform in its own direction. [1] SHA1 sunset: https://security.googleblog.com/2014/09/gradually-sunsetting-sha-1.html https://security.googleblog.com/2014/09/gradually-sunsetting... [2] NPAPI discontinuation: https://blog.chromium.org/2014/11/the-final-countdown-for-npapi.html https://blog.chromium.org/2014/11/the-final-countdown-for-np... [3] Block Flash by default: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/chromium-dev/HTML5$20by$20default/chromium-dev/0wWoRRhTA_E/__E3jf40OAAJ https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/ch... [4] Chrome ignoring autocomplete=off: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=468153#c164 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=468153... [5] VP9 available in WebRTC: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2016/01/vp9-webrtc?hl=en https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2016/01/vp9-webrtc... [6] H.264 in WebRTC still gated behind a flag: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=500605 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=500605

SBArbeit 10y ago
This. As much as I personally don't like JavaScript, it's not up to me whether it exists and is used, and having an advertising company de facto in charge of how people perceive its implementation simply isn't a Good Thing for the web in general.
kuschku 10y ago
#5 and #6 are even worse, because it basically means Google can dictate whatever terms onto you, if you develop a competing browser. As VP9 is heavily patented, and the license only allows you to use it if you don't ever sue Google, you're out of luck if Google ever fucks you over somewhere else.
- themihai 10y ago
  The alternative is worse(H.264)
  - kuschku 10y ago
    H.264 is worse, but at least it's available with pretty straightforward license terms (just pay). VP.9's license might actually violate antitrust laws.
    - themihai 10y ago
      VP9 is a open and royalty free video coding format. You are safe as long as you don't sue Google for VP9 patent infringements. It seems to target MPEG so that if they sue Google their license is revoked and Google can claim patents infringements as well. That being said I take VP9 anytime over h.264. It's not only about the payment to MPEG but your license can also be revoked or not granted in the first place. How f is that compared to VP9?
      - kuschku 10y ago
        Yes, but imagine you're a startup which has developed a bunch of awesome new algorithms, and patented them. And now you want to use them in combination with VP.9. As soon as you do, Google can use your algorithms and patents without ever paying you, and you can't sue them for it, or your product can't use VP.9 anymore. How fucked up is that? That's a huge cost there for startups that's always treated as "free" while in reality it can be selling out your entire product for a video codec.
        themihai 10y ago
        Something tells me that you are wrong. Just because Edge is shipped with VP9 support that doesn't mean the MS grants all the windows patents to Google, right? Of course if you want to develop a VP9++ and patent it that could be an issue but I don't think that's necessary a bad thing for the codecs industry. Last thing I want is another proprietary codec to lock the content on specific players.
devsquid 10y ago
I think all 6 of those examples are good decisions on Google's part. Google has a heavy stake in making sure the web runs great. Chrome holds a large share of the browser market, but it doesn't control a controlling share. I'm all for MS releasing a competing open source JS engine. Personally I have been burned so many times by MS in the past when they had "substantial influence" I have no interest in using it.
- stephenr 10y ago
  > Google has a heavy stake in making sure the web runs great. Google has a heavy stake in making sure people keep using Google.com and it's associated services.
  - devsquid 10y ago
    Yes they also have that, however Google.com is a search engine for the web. If users stop using the web, they stop using their search engine.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      Not if they use Android or ChromeOS, they will just use the G App instead.
      - devsquid 10y ago
        Then this isn't really about V8 anymore and the web and as far as that's concerned MS is already extremely dominant.
        pjmlp 10y ago
        Depends on what one understands for web. For me, the network protocols are what actually matters. An on the mobile space for the time being, Apple and Google rule.
pjmlp 10y ago
The whole "do no evil" mantra was only a thing while they were a small startup looking for geek credo across SV Starbucks. After GMail, Web Search, Chrome and Android, they are just like any other corporation out there.
hochchristoph 10y ago
> Google, through V8, Chromium, Chrome, Chrome OS, Android, and Dart, has a large say in the future of the web platform, browsers, apps, the future of Javascript, etc. > Time and time again, Google has used their substantial influence and market share to make unilateral decisions affecting the web platform [1][2][3][4][5][6]; the individual merits of each decision notwithstanding, Google can do just about anything and it will affect enough of the userbase that others must compensate or follow suit. Funny, that 15 years ago you could say the exact same thing about Microsoft. Google's increasingly like the old Microsoft.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  And before Microsoft maybe IBM or DEC. What is strange is that many still don't get these cycles. :)

by niftich 10y ago

SBArbeit 10y ago

This. As much as I personally don't like JavaScript, it's not up to me whether it exists and is used, and having an advertising company de facto in charge of how people perceive its implementation simply isn't a Good Thing for the web in general.

kuschku 10y ago

#5 and #6 are even worse, because it basically means Google can dictate whatever terms onto you, if you develop a competing browser. As VP9 is heavily patented, and the license only allows you to use it if you don't ever sue Google, you're out of luck if Google ever fucks you over somewhere else.

themihai 10y ago
The alternative is worse(H.264)
- kuschku 10y ago
  H.264 is worse, but at least it's available with pretty straightforward license terms (just pay). VP.9's license might actually violate antitrust laws.
  - themihai 10y ago
    VP9 is a open and royalty free video coding format. You are safe as long as you don't sue Google for VP9 patent infringements. It seems to target MPEG so that if they sue Google their license is revoked and Google can claim patents infringements as well. That being said I take VP9 anytime over h.264. It's not only about the payment to MPEG but your license can also be revoked or not granted in the first place. How f is that compared to VP9?
    - kuschku 10y ago
      Yes, but imagine you're a startup which has developed a bunch of awesome new algorithms, and patented them. And now you want to use them in combination with VP.9. As soon as you do, Google can use your algorithms and patents without ever paying you, and you can't sue them for it, or your product can't use VP.9 anymore. How fucked up is that? That's a huge cost there for startups that's always treated as "free" while in reality it can be selling out your entire product for a video codec.
      - themihai 10y ago
        Something tells me that you are wrong. Just because Edge is shipped with VP9 support that doesn't mean the MS grants all the windows patents to Google, right? Of course if you want to develop a VP9++ and patent it that could be an issue but I don't think that's necessary a bad thing for the codecs industry. Last thing I want is another proprietary codec to lock the content on specific players.

devsquid 10y ago

I think all 6 of those examples are good decisions on Google's part. Google has a heavy stake in making sure the web runs great. Chrome holds a large share of the browser market, but it doesn't control a controlling share. I'm all for MS releasing a competing open source JS engine. Personally I have been burned so many times by MS in the past when they had "substantial influence" I have no interest in using it.

stephenr 10y ago
> Google has a heavy stake in making sure the web runs great. Google has a heavy stake in making sure people keep using Google.com and it's associated services.
- devsquid 10y ago
  Yes they also have that, however Google.com is a search engine for the web. If users stop using the web, they stop using their search engine.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Not if they use Android or ChromeOS, they will just use the G App instead.
    - devsquid 10y ago
      Then this isn't really about V8 anymore and the web and as far as that's concerned MS is already extremely dominant.
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        Depends on what one understands for web. For me, the network protocols are what actually matters. An on the mobile space for the time being, Apple and Google rule.

pjmlp 10y ago

The whole "do no evil" mantra was only a thing while they were a small startup looking for geek credo across SV Starbucks. After GMail, Web Search, Chrome and Android, they are just like any other corporation out there.

hochchristoph 10y ago

> Google, through V8, Chromium, Chrome, Chrome OS, Android, and Dart, has a large say in the future of the web platform, browsers, apps, the future of Javascript, etc. > Time and time again, Google has used their substantial influence and market share to make unilateral decisions affecting the web platform [1][2][3][4][5][6]; the individual merits of each decision notwithstanding, Google can do just about anything and it will affect enough of the userbase that others must compensate or follow suit. Funny, that 15 years ago you could say the exact same thing about Microsoft. Google's increasingly like the old Microsoft.

pjmlp 10y ago
And before Microsoft maybe IBM or DEC. What is strange is that many still don't get these cycles. :)