3 ms·

Hmmm. Agreeing with the sentiment of your argument while looking at the flip side of the coin, the fruit borne of the ad-hoc lack of coordination you describe i

Hmmm. Agreeing with the sentiment of your argument while looking at the flip side of the coin, the fruit borne of the ad-hoc lack of coordination you describe is sadly easily overwhelmed by domain domination exerted from committees and bureaucracies with vested interests in specific fields. Which kind of information-leaks that either VR is hype noone really cares about, or that none of said committees (with attendant lumbering bureaucracy) have really noticed it yet. Wait, I just described the same thing two different ways. But yeah, no, it would not do to have The Web℠ Platformᴳ, errrrr, "excel". :P

thu2111 7y ago
Yes, there's a certain robustness that comes from an evolutionary approach. And some of the web's competitors died because they couldn't (in my view) correctly analyse and match the web's strengths, because those strengths were never planned or written down anywhere. Figuring out why the web is strong is sort of like trying to figure out how our own bodies work. Sure, we can see the component parts. How they come together to make the whole a success is often less clear. On the other hand, let's not kid ourselves. The web wasn't actually built by making a melting pot of diverse ideas with an evolutionary process to select between them. The web has always been controlled by one dominant company, and the stuff that gets added (or not) reflects the agenda of their internal committees. The web went from being controlled very, very briefly by Tim BL to being controlled by Netscape who added forms, cookies, JavaScript, CSS etc. Then to Microsoft, who added a pile of other stuff and then froze development for years whilst Mozilla tried to get off the ground. Mozilla added relatively little to the web given the resources invested into Firefox; virtually all their energy went into trying to fix their own architectural mis-fires. Then WebKit came along and very briefly Apple was in charge. That era didn't last long until Google came along and took the crown, which they've had ever since. Unlike Apple and Mozilla, Google actually have added a lot of stuff to the web platform but it reflects a consumer driven agenda. Hence WebVR, WebRTC etc. To the extent the other players exerted any influence on the Chrome team during this time it's - in my view - been mostly negative. Mozilla lost to Chrome because their technical choices just weren't that good, but they've continued to exercise outsized influence on decision making despite dwindling market share. Additionally the lack of any real support for libraries or dependencies in the web platform means many of the new APIs added to HTML can't be challenged by competitors. WebAudio sucks but nobody can make a better one because of the sandbox. In the end the web isn't really the result of ad-hoc coordination so much as a dysfunctional lurching tug-of-war between different groups of engineers who all work down the road from each other at different firms in California (with a detour through Seattle).

thu2111 7y ago

Yes, there's a certain robustness that comes from an evolutionary approach. And some of the web's competitors died because they couldn't (in my view) correctly analyse and match the web's strengths, because those strengths were never planned or written down anywhere. Figuring out why the web is strong is sort of like trying to figure out how our own bodies work. Sure, we can see the component parts. How they come together to make the whole a success is often less clear. On the other hand, let's not kid ourselves. The web wasn't actually built by making a melting pot of diverse ideas with an evolutionary process to select between them. The web has always been controlled by one dominant company, and the stuff that gets added (or not) reflects the agenda of their internal committees. The web went from being controlled very, very briefly by Tim BL to being controlled by Netscape who added forms, cookies, JavaScript, CSS etc. Then to Microsoft, who added a pile of other stuff and then froze development for years whilst Mozilla tried to get off the ground. Mozilla added relatively little to the web given the resources invested into Firefox; virtually all their energy went into trying to fix their own architectural mis-fires. Then WebKit came along and very briefly Apple was in charge. That era didn't last long until Google came along and took the crown, which they've had ever since. Unlike Apple and Mozilla, Google actually have added a lot of stuff to the web platform but it reflects a consumer driven agenda. Hence WebVR, WebRTC etc. To the extent the other players exerted any influence on the Chrome team during this time it's - in my view - been mostly negative. Mozilla lost to Chrome because their technical choices just weren't that good, but they've continued to exercise outsized influence on decision making despite dwindling market share. Additionally the lack of any real support for libraries or dependencies in the web platform means many of the new APIs added to HTML can't be challenged by competitors. WebAudio sucks but nobody can make a better one because of the sandbox. In the end the web isn't really the result of ad-hoc coordination so much as a dysfunctional lurching tug-of-war between different groups of engineers who all work down the road from each other at different firms in California (with a detour through Seattle).