5 ms·

mmmmh, delicious delicious high quality open source implementation completely controlled by Google. Because Chrome is definitely not known for implementing stuf

by pikzen 9y ago

mmmmh, delicious delicious high quality open source implementation completely controlled by Google. Because Chrome is definitely not known for implementing stuff on their own and ignoring standards. Same way Google is not known for purposefully worsening performance and experience on their websites to non-Chrome users, and same way Google is not transitioning all important Android capabilities into Google Play Services, which itself is closed source. What could happen with Chrome if they were the only ones on the market, I wonder.

sqeaky 9y ago
Have any citations for those bold Anti-competitive claims?
- pcwalton 9y ago
  Google Earth.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    That is a noun, please expand.
- pikzen 9y ago
  - Implementing the newest Google Earth through pNaCl, basically ActiveX by Google - Play Store website threw you out if you were using Firefox on Android | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1131601 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1131601 - Gmail delivered an inferior mobile version to Firefox on Android | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668275 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668275 - Actually, Google fucks with Firefox on Android all the time https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668288 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668288 - Inbox is still Chrome only - Youtube refused to serve webm to Firefox for a while | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1233970 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1233970 Is that enough for now? Google is no better than old Microsoft/IE team often. But hey, since you get a shiny browser that implements non standard things, it's okay, right?
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    That is a list of bugs and one has an apology and a fix from Google. Most are even fixed. Even what you consider anti-competive "Youtube refused to serve webm to Firefox for a while", shows bias because the first comment of the ticket explains that it served videos. It probably worked for a ton of people. Even with the NaCL thing I was able to find and implementation [1] of it that was under a open source license when I was trying to find a NaCl spec. NaCl existed because webassembly didn't, Google wanted other browsers to implement it. Bugs happens, Technologies don't get adopted; Google is made of people and mistakes happen. Your disingenuous crying of anti-competitive wolf dilutes real claims of anti-competition. [1] - https://chromium.googlesource.com/native_client/src/native_client.git/+/master https://chromium.googlesource.com/native_client/src/native_c...
    - pcwalton 9y ago
      As I explained elsewhere in this thread, (P)NaCl is only open source in the sense that Chromium is. Because of the dependency on Pepper, Google's implementation is Chrome only. The problem with this is that Google solicited feedback on Pepper on the plugin-futures mailing list early on. The other browser vendors correctly pointed out that Pepper was unnecessary. Google completely ignored the feedback and did it anyway. Years later, it is obvious that the unanimous consensus of the other browser vendors was right. PNaCl is dead, and Web Assembly uses the Web APIs instead of Pepper, which is precisely what everyone else had advocated early on. The lack of adoption of PNaCl is Google's problem. As is obvious with Web Assembly, nobody has any problem with adding a portable low-level IR to the browser. The biggest problem was the insistence on Pepper. If they had listened to feedback, maybe we would have had Web Assembly much sooner.
      - sqeaky 9y ago
        I am taking what you say about historical events as you say it, but It still doesn't seem like the move is "anti-competitive". At worst its bad engineering. Its not like there is some new killer feature in the new google maps that makes it not work on Firefox, I have used it from Firefox in the past week and it worked fine. Even if there were some killer feature, they are free to release it in such a way that it only works with their software. I hate microsoft but I still don't give them flak for not releasing Linux versions of office and excel. They are allowed to not do that. Where it steps into anti-competitive is when they start breaking other's people things or maliciously manipulating standards. Google has demonstrated a willingness to go out of their way and fix things for most things not NaCl related. Even per your recounting of history they weren't trying to coerce the standards body, they just asked for comments and then unilaterally did something else. They didn't force it on anyone else.

by pikzen 9y ago

sqeaky 9y ago

Have any citations for those bold Anti-competitive claims?

pcwalton 9y ago
Google Earth.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  That is a noun, please expand.
pikzen 9y ago
- Implementing the newest Google Earth through pNaCl, basically ActiveX by Google - Play Store website threw you out if you were using Firefox on Android | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1131601 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1131601 - Gmail delivered an inferior mobile version to Firefox on Android | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668275 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668275 - Actually, Google fucks with Firefox on Android all the time https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668288 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668288 - Inbox is still Chrome only - Youtube refused to serve webm to Firefox for a while | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1233970 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1233970 Is that enough for now? Google is no better than old Microsoft/IE team often. But hey, since you get a shiny browser that implements non standard things, it's okay, right?
- sqeaky 9y ago
  That is a list of bugs and one has an apology and a fix from Google. Most are even fixed. Even what you consider anti-competive "Youtube refused to serve webm to Firefox for a while", shows bias because the first comment of the ticket explains that it served videos. It probably worked for a ton of people. Even with the NaCL thing I was able to find and implementation [1] of it that was under a open source license when I was trying to find a NaCl spec. NaCl existed because webassembly didn't, Google wanted other browsers to implement it. Bugs happens, Technologies don't get adopted; Google is made of people and mistakes happen. Your disingenuous crying of anti-competitive wolf dilutes real claims of anti-competition. [1] - https://chromium.googlesource.com/native_client/src/native_client.git/+/master https://chromium.googlesource.com/native_client/src/native_c...
  - pcwalton 9y ago
    As I explained elsewhere in this thread, (P)NaCl is only open source in the sense that Chromium is. Because of the dependency on Pepper, Google's implementation is Chrome only. The problem with this is that Google solicited feedback on Pepper on the plugin-futures mailing list early on. The other browser vendors correctly pointed out that Pepper was unnecessary. Google completely ignored the feedback and did it anyway. Years later, it is obvious that the unanimous consensus of the other browser vendors was right. PNaCl is dead, and Web Assembly uses the Web APIs instead of Pepper, which is precisely what everyone else had advocated early on. The lack of adoption of PNaCl is Google's problem. As is obvious with Web Assembly, nobody has any problem with adding a portable low-level IR to the browser. The biggest problem was the insistence on Pepper. If they had listened to feedback, maybe we would have had Web Assembly much sooner.
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      I am taking what you say about historical events as you say it, but It still doesn't seem like the move is "anti-competitive". At worst its bad engineering. Its not like there is some new killer feature in the new google maps that makes it not work on Firefox, I have used it from Firefox in the past week and it worked fine. Even if there were some killer feature, they are free to release it in such a way that it only works with their software. I hate microsoft but I still don't give them flak for not releasing Linux versions of office and excel. They are allowed to not do that. Where it steps into anti-competitive is when they start breaking other's people things or maliciously manipulating standards. Google has demonstrated a willingness to go out of their way and fix things for most things not NaCl related. Even per your recounting of history they weren't trying to coerce the standards body, they just asked for comments and then unilaterally did something else. They didn't force it on anyone else.