3 ms·
And yet, as a counterexample, HTML and HTTP persist. Maybe things aren't as straightforward as they seem.
by pjmorris 7y ago
And yet, as a counterexample, HTML and HTTP persist. Maybe things aren't as straightforward as they seem.
- lima 7y agoWith QUIC, even TCP is getting replaced because of the need to innovate despite protocol ossification. It's almost impossible to improve TCP at this point due to non-compliant endpoints and middleboxes. It's a similar "lowest common denominator" issue with IRC, XMPP, mail and many others. Yes, XMPP can - in theory - do almost everything Slack does, but there's dozens of clients supporting a different subset of the protocol. Of course nobody wants to use it.
- vntok 7y agoI don't get how your point is a counter example to the parent's argument? I think there is a lot of money to be made in building on HTML and HTTP. For one, a faster HTTP protocol directly means more cost efficiency in hosting and streaming content, better customer conversions, etc.
- pjmorris 7y agoIMO, HTTP and HTML are counter-examples to the statement 'There’s no money to be made in creating and building on open protocols.' because they're open protocols that have attracted a great deal of money, and plenty of people creating and building on them.