6 ms·

The article is just an opinion and some claims, supported by zero evidence. Yes, Google is interested that Web continues to live. But article omits that Google

by n1vz3r 6y ago

The article is just an opinion and some claims, supported by zero evidence. Yes, Google is interested that Web continues to live. But article omits that Google only wants the Web that exists on Google's terms. That's why they practically rebuilt the web themselves, on all levels, from protocol to the client (spdy, webp, amp, dart, chromeos & android, chromium).

tssva 6y ago
Your comment is just an opinion and some claims supported by zero evidence.
- zakki 6y ago
  Aren’t all protocols gp mentioned the evidence, are they?
  - Chyzwar 6y ago
    spdy become HTTP2, quic become HTTP3 it is expensive in time and money to develop and test new ideas in protocols. I think it is a bit unfair to to bundle android, chromium and AMP into same bag. AMP is clearly driven by money but there is a lot of open source that benefit everyone. Google is big company. I think trying to paint whole google as evil is not effective.
    - rhacker 6y ago
      It's like this beast that does these benevolent things, but at some point it catches up to them and they shut something down after getting people kinda hooked. For example Picasa - massively popular - free and pretty amazing desktop photo management tool. It slowly morphed such that all of the users of it were just folded into a cloud offering: Drive. Chrome and all of it's open source awesomeness, again, mostly used to fold people into the bigger profitable picture. So even though there are developers that work at Google creating protocols that help everyone, including non-Chrome browsers - that benevolence has a product manager paying that developer's time. At some stage it's not all free beer.
  - tssva 6y ago
    It is a list of protocols, applications and operating systems which the the commenter is assigning some sort of nefarious intent to with no evidence.
MattGaiser 6y ago
I would classify those threats as different. Microsoft as one of dominant neglect and Google and one of dominance.
- wlesieutre 6y ago
  Google has a reputation for getting bored of projects and shutting them down, if they controlled the web it’d be gone in six months and everything would have to be AMP
  - xnx 6y ago
    It cuts both ways. Shutting down projects that aren't core can also be seen as focusing on what matters. Google shutting down products also gives room for other companies to fill that need. The Google Reader shutdown was the besting thing ever to happen to Feedly. I wish Firefox was a little more aggressive in shutting down some of its side-projects to focus on the things where they can provide value that other strictly-commercial companies will not.
    - edoceo 6y ago
      Looking at Pocket. Hey, FF I want to love you but I feel you lack focus. Also, fix the autocompleter on the URL bar on mobile - it should not aggressively autocomplete when I'm pressing bksp !
      - Tijdreiziger 6y ago
        I haven't personally encountered that problem on mobile, but Fenix (the new Firefox for Android) was rushed out, and it sadly does show.
        edoceo 6y ago
        I'm on Android, using Firefox 79.0.5 (Build #2015758619) - which is like freshest bits for GP - it's where they moved the address bar to the bottom. So, go to a long URL, like paging through a forum. Then edit the URL. Place cursor at end and hit bksp. As you continue to delete chars the purple-phantom highlight where it tries to autocomplete goes crazy and flickers the heck out of the UI. It's definitely a regression. I don't know the best way to capture screen on this device tho, and I don't have time to spin up any emulators and go through those steps
badrabbit 6y ago
They make changes to web standards and force it's adoption. Innovation is one thing but this is far from a democractic internet.
- blinkingled 6y ago
  But that is also progress. If it wasn't for Google's investment we would still maybe running Flash. People have had a lot of time to advance the web before Google came along. The standard is open, the code is open - I don't understand how "is Chrome the new IE?" even a question. It's not like they're bundling it only on ChromeOS and Android , it's not like they have the equivalent of VbScript /ActiveX and plenty of people are making browsers based on Chromium.
  - xrisk 6y ago
    it’s about the kind of ecosystem they’re attempting to build – look at AMP for example
  - earthboundkid 6y ago
    If Google had succeeded we’d be using Dart (yuck) instead of ES6 (yum).
  - userbinator 6y ago
    The standard is open, the code is open "standard" means nothing when Google is churning it every day. It coined the completely idiotic term "living standard" and has basically used its propagandic powers to drag everyone else along. Its idea of "progress" is the exact opposite of what the web needs. Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961613
  - badrabbit 6y ago
    I do think google innovated a lot but I think htlm5 killed flash not google. Html5 is a web standard. Chrome is very much the new IE, it use to be I was forced to run IE for some b.s. legacy corporate webapp now I am forced to run Chrome. Why? Because devs have to prioritize a browser and the amount of non standard supposed engineering by google means they can't support other browsers. Google is playing a winner takes all game of dominance. Imagine if Ford became so popular that mechanics can't be bothered to fix other cars because Ford does everything differently. People are being forced to base browsers on Chromium because no one will use anything else due to sites depending on Chromium only features! This is very anti-innovation. You came up with a cool new feature in firefox (like containers) and you want to standardize it? Well if uncle google says no you're out of luck. Standards exist for a reason and engineers(even at google) use to have enough professionalism to respect the concept and process of having an internet where everyone participates democratically. I hate to keep on coming to similar conclusions but Browsers need to be regulated if the browser industry is always being overrun by some monopoly.
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
Don't forget WebRTC, currently on the HN front page. Web-based peer-to-peer introduced by Google.
ekianjo 6y ago
> But article omits that Google only wants the Web that exists on Google's terms. That's probably why the team behind Chromium is composed of so many contributors who are not at Google?
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I hear this argument come up a lot and frankly it's just misleading to even bring it up. When a company controls an open source project, the project follows their vision–regardless of whether there are a couple other groups with slightly-more-than-nominal contributions. Ask yourself whether any one group could prevent a commit from going in that Google corporate had decided they wanted in Chromium–the answer is of course no. It'd be like saying Apple doesn't have essentially full control over WebKit's direction, even though this page lists a bunch of people who aren't from Apple: https://webkit.org/team/ https://webkit.org/team/
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    Free and Open-Source projects, unlike IE, can be forked anytime by just anyone or any other organization. There is nothing preventing anyone to go ahead and rework Chromium for their own needs - and that's what happening in practice already with Brave, Edge, etc... The day that people/organizations are upset with the direction Google takes with Chromium is the day where a real fork will start existing and being actively developed by a larger community.
    - afiori 6y ago
      For this I would propose a litmus test for forkability of a project. If the original parent company disappeared would the fork be able to sustain its development and maintenance alone? For current chromium forks (and also for firefox forks) the answer is no. The only fork that would have the resources would be from microsoft, but it would be a huge, expensive, and non-trivial task.
      - ekianjo 6y ago
sebazzz 6y ago
I think you forget AMP and related technologies to empower it like HTTP Signed Exchanges.

by n1vz3r 6y ago

tssva 6y ago

Your comment is just an opinion and some claims supported by zero evidence.

zakki 6y ago
Aren’t all protocols gp mentioned the evidence, are they?
- Chyzwar 6y ago
  spdy become HTTP2, quic become HTTP3 it is expensive in time and money to develop and test new ideas in protocols. I think it is a bit unfair to to bundle android, chromium and AMP into same bag. AMP is clearly driven by money but there is a lot of open source that benefit everyone. Google is big company. I think trying to paint whole google as evil is not effective.
  - rhacker 6y ago
    It's like this beast that does these benevolent things, but at some point it catches up to them and they shut something down after getting people kinda hooked. For example Picasa - massively popular - free and pretty amazing desktop photo management tool. It slowly morphed such that all of the users of it were just folded into a cloud offering: Drive. Chrome and all of it's open source awesomeness, again, mostly used to fold people into the bigger profitable picture. So even though there are developers that work at Google creating protocols that help everyone, including non-Chrome browsers - that benevolence has a product manager paying that developer's time. At some stage it's not all free beer.
- tssva 6y ago
  It is a list of protocols, applications and operating systems which the the commenter is assigning some sort of nefarious intent to with no evidence.

MattGaiser 6y ago

I would classify those threats as different. Microsoft as one of dominant neglect and Google and one of dominance.

wlesieutre 6y ago
Google has a reputation for getting bored of projects and shutting them down, if they controlled the web it’d be gone in six months and everything would have to be AMP
- xnx 6y ago
  It cuts both ways. Shutting down projects that aren't core can also be seen as focusing on what matters. Google shutting down products also gives room for other companies to fill that need. The Google Reader shutdown was the besting thing ever to happen to Feedly. I wish Firefox was a little more aggressive in shutting down some of its side-projects to focus on the things where they can provide value that other strictly-commercial companies will not.
  - edoceo 6y ago
    Looking at Pocket. Hey, FF I want to love you but I feel you lack focus. Also, fix the autocompleter on the URL bar on mobile - it should not aggressively autocomplete when I'm pressing bksp !
    - Tijdreiziger 6y ago
      I haven't personally encountered that problem on mobile, but Fenix (the new Firefox for Android) was rushed out, and it sadly does show.
      - edoceo 6y ago
        I'm on Android, using Firefox 79.0.5 (Build #2015758619) - which is like freshest bits for GP - it's where they moved the address bar to the bottom. So, go to a long URL, like paging through a forum. Then edit the URL. Place cursor at end and hit bksp. As you continue to delete chars the purple-phantom highlight where it tries to autocomplete goes crazy and flickers the heck out of the UI. It's definitely a regression. I don't know the best way to capture screen on this device tho, and I don't have time to spin up any emulators and go through those steps

badrabbit 6y ago

They make changes to web standards and force it's adoption. Innovation is one thing but this is far from a democractic internet.

blinkingled 6y ago
But that is also progress. If it wasn't for Google's investment we would still maybe running Flash. People have had a lot of time to advance the web before Google came along. The standard is open, the code is open - I don't understand how "is Chrome the new IE?" even a question. It's not like they're bundling it only on ChromeOS and Android , it's not like they have the equivalent of VbScript /ActiveX and plenty of people are making browsers based on Chromium.
- xrisk 6y ago
  it’s about the kind of ecosystem they’re attempting to build – look at AMP for example
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  If Google had succeeded we’d be using Dart (yuck) instead of ES6 (yum).
- userbinator 6y ago
  The standard is open, the code is open "standard" means nothing when Google is churning it every day. It coined the completely idiotic term "living standard" and has basically used its propagandic powers to drag everyone else along. Its idea of "progress" is the exact opposite of what the web needs. Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961613
- badrabbit 6y ago
  I do think google innovated a lot but I think htlm5 killed flash not google. Html5 is a web standard. Chrome is very much the new IE, it use to be I was forced to run IE for some b.s. legacy corporate webapp now I am forced to run Chrome. Why? Because devs have to prioritize a browser and the amount of non standard supposed engineering by google means they can't support other browsers. Google is playing a winner takes all game of dominance. Imagine if Ford became so popular that mechanics can't be bothered to fix other cars because Ford does everything differently. People are being forced to base browsers on Chromium because no one will use anything else due to sites depending on Chromium only features! This is very anti-innovation. You came up with a cool new feature in firefox (like containers) and you want to standardize it? Well if uncle google says no you're out of luck. Standards exist for a reason and engineers(even at google) use to have enough professionalism to respect the concept and process of having an internet where everyone participates democratically. I hate to keep on coming to similar conclusions but Browsers need to be regulated if the browser industry is always being overrun by some monopoly.

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

Don't forget WebRTC, currently on the HN front page. Web-based peer-to-peer introduced by Google.

ekianjo 6y ago

> But article omits that Google only wants the Web that exists on Google's terms. That's probably why the team behind Chromium is composed of so many contributors who are not at Google?

saagarjha 6y ago
I hear this argument come up a lot and frankly it's just misleading to even bring it up. When a company controls an open source project, the project follows their vision–regardless of whether there are a couple other groups with slightly-more-than-nominal contributions. Ask yourself whether any one group could prevent a commit from going in that Google corporate had decided they wanted in Chromium–the answer is of course no. It'd be like saying Apple doesn't have essentially full control over WebKit's direction, even though this page lists a bunch of people who aren't from Apple: https://webkit.org/team/ https://webkit.org/team/
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Free and Open-Source projects, unlike IE, can be forked anytime by just anyone or any other organization. There is nothing preventing anyone to go ahead and rework Chromium for their own needs - and that's what happening in practice already with Brave, Edge, etc... The day that people/organizations are upset with the direction Google takes with Chromium is the day where a real fork will start existing and being actively developed by a larger community.
  - afiori 6y ago
    For this I would propose a litmus test for forkability of a project. If the original parent company disappeared would the fork be able to sustain its development and maintenance alone? For current chromium forks (and also for firefox forks) the answer is no. The only fork that would have the resources would be from microsoft, but it would be a huge, expensive, and non-trivial task.
    - ekianjo 6y ago

sebazzz 6y ago

I think you forget AMP and related technologies to empower it like HTTP Signed Exchanges.