3 ms·

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

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?

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?