4 ms·

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

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?