4 ms·
Thinking cynically, it could be a power-move by Google to strengthen their hold on the ecosystem. Right now when they go out and make their own API changes wit
by _bxg1 7y ago
Thinking cynically, it could be a power-move by Google to strengthen their hold on the ecosystem.
Right now when they go out and make their own API changes without consensus (which already happens), it's possible to distinguish the "for Chrome" case and still support the standard. But if there were no User-Agent, and Google wanted to strongarm the whole group into something, and 90% of browsers are Chromium-based, devs will likely just support the Chromium version and everyone else will have no choice but to fall in line.
- jaywalk 7y agoI think it's perfectly fair to lean towards cynicism whenever Google goes out on their own making changes to Chrome.
- ldng 7y agoYou mean, like SPDY/HTTP2 ?
- klodolph 7y agoAs far as I can tell, HTTP/2 is such a major improvement that no strong-arming is necessary. Speaking as a consumer of the web, as an individual who runs their own website, and at a developer working at a company with a major web presence. The web suffers a ton from the “red queen” rule in so many different ways anyway—you have to do a lot of work just to stay in the same place.
- ldng 7y agoBut, is it really such an improvement ? Or is it just an improvement for Cloud provider that keep pushing the Kool-Aid ? I still see a lot of contradicting benchmark and, apart from some Google Apps, personnally, I have not seen a lot of sites actually really leveraging HTTP2 (including push). But maybe you did put and leverage HTTP2 on your own website ? At your company ? Did you use push ? Do you use it with CDN ?
- klodolph 7y ago> But, is it really such an improvement? Yes, unequivocally. It’s amazing, even without push. The websites that use it are faster, and the development process for making apps or sites that load quickly is much more sane. You don’t have to resort to the kind of weird trickery that pervades HTTP/1 apps. > Or is it just an improvement for Cloud provider that keep pushing the Kool-Aid ? I don’t see how that makes any sense at all. Could you explain that? > But maybe you did put and leverage HTTP2 on your own website ? At your company ? Did you use push ? Do you use it with CDN ? From my parent comment, > Speaking as a consumer of the web, as an individual who runs their own website, and at a developer working at a company with a major web presence. My personal web site uses HTTP/2. It serves a combination of static pages and web apps. No push. HTTP/2 was almost zero effort to set up, and instantly improved performance. With HTTP/2, I’ve changed the way I develop web apps, for the better. My employer’s website uses every technique under the sun, including push and CDNs.
- jefftk 7y ago> My employer’s website uses every technique under the sun, including push and CDNs. Are you actually seeing good results from push? I have seen many projects try to use it, but am not aware of any that have ended up keeping it. (Disclosure: I work at Google)
- klodolph 7y ago> Are you actually seeing good results from push? Push isn’t worth it, from what I understand. I think that’s the conclusion at work.
- ldng 7y agoWell, that is a shame, it was to me the main selling point that could eventually win me over.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- collinmanderson 7y ago
- wolco 7y agoIt is a power move because they use a chrome id to identify you. User agent isn't important to them by very important to others.