3 ms·
The reason why it’s expensive is that no HTML5 proposals are taking into account the cost of development and maintenance. “Anything goes” as long as it competes
by edejong 9y ago
The reason why it’s expensive is that no HTML5 proposals are taking into account the cost of development and maintenance. “Anything goes” as long as it competes with the walled-garden platforms. Spending without budgeting nor cost evaluation is similar to going to a casino spending your life savings thinking you’re the lucky one.
- roca 9y agoDeciding just to cede applications and content to single-vendor platforms isn't that appealing for the open Web.
- edejong 9y agoThat implies a binary decision. The war is won in many battles. Deciding which ones to go into is the deciding factor. Bringing your men to each is a sure way to lose, and it’s what is currently happening with the modern web.
- roca 9y agoIf individual browser vendors decide that some feature is not worth the effort, they can just not implement it and not support those apps fully. Maybe change that decision if the feature gets popular. If the feature never gets popular it can be removed. This actually happens all the time. But vendors getting together and saying "no, we're just not going to compete with native platforms in this space" seldom happens. As a proponent of the open Web, I think that's a good thing.
- edejong 9y agoBrowser vendors usually do not have this choice. Either they proposed the change themselves, forcing other vendors to follow, or a prisoners-dilema occurs where either all vendors act, or non at all. These are well studied problems in oligopolies and are the prime reason we need a certain amount of governance of (independent) standards bodies.
- roca 9y agoBrowser vendors always have the choice not to implement, or to delay implementing, standards are are seeing little uptake. I know, I did this work for over a decade and made many such decisions.