5 ms·

I don't see a lot of barriers against others implementing the same. The vast majority of the legwork seems to be carried by HTML5 (+CSS3 +ECMAScript +...), afte

I don't see a lot of barriers against others implementing the same. The vast majority of the legwork seems to be carried by HTML5 (+CSS3 +ECMAScript +...), after all.

rbarooah 16y ago
Sure but it's the non-standard part that matters. If they keep going like this and get mass adoption the web will end up defined as "whatever Google puts in chrome", which will presumably be chosen to maximize their own interests. The fact that other people could copy them (assuming what Google chooses is a good design for others too) doesn't make it into an open process.
- true_religion 16y ago
  I think its best we look at these two ideas seperately: 1. What Google decides to put into their browser. 2. What is the accepted standard The first does not, and should not be an 'open process' because creative work doesn't do well when made my committees of people with disparate ideologies and motives. The second is currently adjudicated by the various standard bodies, and is an open process. You're arguing that Google might become a 'defacto standard' and implying that it would be harmful for the web in general. However, historically the only harm that has come from a defacto standard is if it is either (a) overlaps with an official standard without using the same process or (b) fallen behind an official standard. This is the case with Internet Explorer over the past few years. On the other hand, the things that IE did innovate on have been copied and become part of official standards (in some way or the other) to the benefit of us all (e.g. XMLHttpRequest Object).
  - rbarooah 16y ago
    Suggesting that the only harms that can occur in the future are ones that have happened in the past doesn't seem very reasonable. However your argument raises an interesting point. What if Microsoft hadn't just let IE rot, but had actually continued to innovate it into an ever richer environment of their own design? Might they not have ended up with control over the web? We have plenty of examples that when someone takes the design lead, it can be very hard to keep up with them by just trying to copy what they do - for one thing you're playing catch up by definition, and for another you may have made different design decisions that make following them more work. Furthermore, following at all further entrenches the design leader as the one for developers to target - "We can safely target these Chrome custom features because we know that firefox will be forced to adopt them too in order to stay relevant." It seems entirely possible that given enough market share - which they don't have now, but might well be on track to acquire simply because they can advertise Chrome all over their site - Google could render the standards process irrelevant, and just develop the web to their own tastes.
    - true_religion 16y ago
      I view the standards process as an ending remark. Browsers should innovate in as many directions as possible, while keeping the technology patent free so others can copy them if need be. Then a standards body can cement the innovation into a standard that everyone has to implement. That said, I don't see how this particular innovation is any different from say a Firefox plugin. Yes, its proprietary to a single browser but can we argue then that if Firefox took the majority share on the web, we'd have to worry about people copying their plugin structure just to stay relevant?
      - rbarooah 16y ago
        Sure - I think the concern applies to any browser becoming seriously dominant and being controlled by a single corporation. We've seen what an effect even a neglected dominant browser can have. Clearly an actively developed one would have an even greater effect. Simply being able to copy it after the fact wouldn't change the fact that Google would be in control - not forgetting that everyone gets upgraded silently to the latest version whether they like it or not. Just copying features later wouldn't enable anyone to displace it. We are already seeing Google give preferential support for their own browser in their services. Surely this trend will only continue. Moreover what's to stop Google from having a head start taking advantage of browser features they haven't even released yet? Why would a standards body even be relevant at that point? I think history shows us quite clearly that a dominant browser has a massive effect on what other people can do with the web. For Microsoft it served their interests in keeping their OS relevant for longer. Why wouldn't Google use that position to serve their own interests?

I don't see a lot of barriers against others implementing the same. The vast majority of the legwork seems to be carried by HTML5 (+CSS3 +ECMAScript +...), after all.

rbarooah 16y ago

Sure but it's the non-standard part that matters. If they keep going like this and get mass adoption the web will end up defined as "whatever Google puts in chrome", which will presumably be chosen to maximize their own interests. The fact that other people could copy them (assuming what Google chooses is a good design for others too) doesn't make it into an open process.

true_religion 16y ago
I think its best we look at these two ideas seperately: 1. What Google decides to put into their browser. 2. What is the accepted standard The first does not, and should not be an 'open process' because creative work doesn't do well when made my committees of people with disparate ideologies and motives. The second is currently adjudicated by the various standard bodies, and is an open process. You're arguing that Google might become a 'defacto standard' and implying that it would be harmful for the web in general. However, historically the only harm that has come from a defacto standard is if it is either (a) overlaps with an official standard without using the same process or (b) fallen behind an official standard. This is the case with Internet Explorer over the past few years. On the other hand, the things that IE did innovate on have been copied and become part of official standards (in some way or the other) to the benefit of us all (e.g. XMLHttpRequest Object).
- rbarooah 16y ago
  Suggesting that the only harms that can occur in the future are ones that have happened in the past doesn't seem very reasonable. However your argument raises an interesting point. What if Microsoft hadn't just let IE rot, but had actually continued to innovate it into an ever richer environment of their own design? Might they not have ended up with control over the web? We have plenty of examples that when someone takes the design lead, it can be very hard to keep up with them by just trying to copy what they do - for one thing you're playing catch up by definition, and for another you may have made different design decisions that make following them more work. Furthermore, following at all further entrenches the design leader as the one for developers to target - "We can safely target these Chrome custom features because we know that firefox will be forced to adopt them too in order to stay relevant." It seems entirely possible that given enough market share - which they don't have now, but might well be on track to acquire simply because they can advertise Chrome all over their site - Google could render the standards process irrelevant, and just develop the web to their own tastes.
  - true_religion 16y ago
    I view the standards process as an ending remark. Browsers should innovate in as many directions as possible, while keeping the technology patent free so others can copy them if need be. Then a standards body can cement the innovation into a standard that everyone has to implement. That said, I don't see how this particular innovation is any different from say a Firefox plugin. Yes, its proprietary to a single browser but can we argue then that if Firefox took the majority share on the web, we'd have to worry about people copying their plugin structure just to stay relevant?
    - rbarooah 16y ago
      Sure - I think the concern applies to any browser becoming seriously dominant and being controlled by a single corporation. We've seen what an effect even a neglected dominant browser can have. Clearly an actively developed one would have an even greater effect. Simply being able to copy it after the fact wouldn't change the fact that Google would be in control - not forgetting that everyone gets upgraded silently to the latest version whether they like it or not. Just copying features later wouldn't enable anyone to displace it. We are already seeing Google give preferential support for their own browser in their services. Surely this trend will only continue. Moreover what's to stop Google from having a head start taking advantage of browser features they haven't even released yet? Why would a standards body even be relevant at that point? I think history shows us quite clearly that a dominant browser has a massive effect on what other people can do with the web. For Microsoft it served their interests in keeping their OS relevant for longer. Why wouldn't Google use that position to serve their own interests?