6 ms·

Here is the discussion on the Chromium embedder-dev mailing list: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/embedder-dev/c/NXm7GIKTNTE https://groups.google.co

Here is the discussion on the Chromium embedder-dev mailing list: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/embedder-dev/c/NXm7GIKTNTE https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/embedder-dev/c/NX... Most interesting to me is that even though the Chrome team specifically provided API keys for open-source Chromium builds to use back in 2013, they are now claiming that "the Terms of Service don't allow this usage, and [the previous developer] didn't have authority to change the terms."

izacus 6y ago
The way Google is communicating in that topic is downright horrible - like talking to a corporate robot. Hiring Oracle managers is seriously starting to show it seems.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Don't blame Oracle for this. Page/Pichai sign off on these plans.
  - paxys 6y ago
    I highly doubt this decision went all the way up to Page or Pichai.
    - x0x0 6y ago
      I would be surprised if, given the antitrust sensitivity around chrome, these decisions aren't being approved at a very high level.
      - jfrunyon 6y ago
        That would ruin their plausible deniability.
        wegs 6y ago
        My experience from other organizations: * Corruption runs to the top. * The top is very careful to communicate verbally, through implications, or otherwise. Dunno about Google.
        x0x0 6y ago
        They've already been sued! Lawsuits already claims that chrome, with eg 60% US marketshare, is used as a distribution channel for google! Any plausible deniability they have had is gone, and lawyers are in the loop for all sorts of decisions now. Not least because having counsel on a thread can help prevent that discussion from being subpoenaed.
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      Ultimately the buck stops there, regardless of whether they were directly responsible. If this happened it’s because they built or facilitated a culture that does these things.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- lrossi 6y ago
  He is not an ex Oracle PM. He’s an old time chrome engineer who switched to management, he said it himself on the thread. But this kind of corporate robot attitude is common for Google. It’s always the same story with them: they deprecate some service, write a heartfelt message about how they are aware this might destroy some projects/businesses and how difficult it was for them to make this decision, but they’re gonna do it anyways. Thank you very much for doing business with Google, have a nice day.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    I get that it's frustrating but I don't understand what the real issue here is, or how this relates to anti-trust as some other comments are suggesting. They are under no obligation to offer any further explanation for why they won't operate a free service forever. It's a business, you can safely assume the explanation is always "because money."
throwaway45349 6y ago
This is terrible. I've never seen a Googler get thrown under the bus so publicly by one of their own. Just doesn't fit the company profile.
- drtillberg 6y ago
  Perhaps there is a new profile.
  - Ygg2 6y ago
    Just be evil™ There. Google can thank me later.
- seba_dos1 6y ago
  What do you think the company profile was? This seems very fitting to me. Google seemed nice last maybe 10 years ago or so.
Aeolun 6y ago
It ver much looks like the Google people there have zero clue about what the actual issue is, as well as how to communicate about it. The only reason given was literally ‘we suddenly want to enforce our policies’, which is really no answer at all...
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  It's more likely that corporate has decided it's a liability to reveal their exact reasoning.
  - cutemonster 6y ago
    I wonder if it'd be a liability if they wrote: "we think it'd be a liability to reveal our reasoning" At least I'd find that more polite
MikeUt 6y ago
They no longer need to lure new users in, so they're revoking their gifts.
- cybert00th 6y ago
  Calling Chromium features gifts is a bit generous - they're more like bait.
morpheuskafka 6y ago
That key thing always seemed really weird to me. You had to join some special Google Group and then they would magically show in Google Cloud Platform. And you could set the OAuth name to whatever you wanted.
lrossi 6y ago
The response of the Director of Engineering towards the slackware package maintainer comes off as very arrogant. I guess this is the end of the open source project. Chromium was never truly open source, more like free source, but now it’s not even that. It’s just another proprietary software. Sad to see Google become the old Microsoft.
supermatt 6y ago
Yet more bait and switch by google. Only recently was there discussion about how they used free access to widevine as bait while pushing EME, and now they conveniently ignore licensing requests... More fuel for the ECs antitrust investigation I guess :)

izacus 6y ago

The way Google is communicating in that topic is downright horrible - like talking to a corporate robot. Hiring Oracle managers is seriously starting to show it seems.

alisonkisk 6y ago
Don't blame Oracle for this. Page/Pichai sign off on these plans.
- paxys 6y ago
  I highly doubt this decision went all the way up to Page or Pichai.
  - x0x0 6y ago
    I would be surprised if, given the antitrust sensitivity around chrome, these decisions aren't being approved at a very high level.
    - jfrunyon 6y ago
      That would ruin their plausible deniability.
      - wegs 6y ago
        My experience from other organizations: * Corruption runs to the top. * The top is very careful to communicate verbally, through implications, or otherwise. Dunno about Google.
      - x0x0 6y ago
        They've already been sued! Lawsuits already claims that chrome, with eg 60% US marketshare, is used as a distribution channel for google! Any plausible deniability they have had is gone, and lawyers are in the loop for all sorts of decisions now. Not least because having counsel on a thread can help prevent that discussion from being subpoenaed.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    Ultimately the buck stops there, regardless of whether they were directly responsible. If this happened it’s because they built or facilitated a culture that does these things.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
lrossi 6y ago
He is not an ex Oracle PM. He’s an old time chrome engineer who switched to management, he said it himself on the thread. But this kind of corporate robot attitude is common for Google. It’s always the same story with them: they deprecate some service, write a heartfelt message about how they are aware this might destroy some projects/businesses and how difficult it was for them to make this decision, but they’re gonna do it anyways. Thank you very much for doing business with Google, have a nice day.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  I get that it's frustrating but I don't understand what the real issue here is, or how this relates to anti-trust as some other comments are suggesting. They are under no obligation to offer any further explanation for why they won't operate a free service forever. It's a business, you can safely assume the explanation is always "because money."

throwaway45349 6y ago

This is terrible. I've never seen a Googler get thrown under the bus so publicly by one of their own. Just doesn't fit the company profile.

drtillberg 6y ago
Perhaps there is a new profile.
- Ygg2 6y ago
  Just be evil™ There. Google can thank me later.
seba_dos1 6y ago
What do you think the company profile was? This seems very fitting to me. Google seemed nice last maybe 10 years ago or so.

Aeolun 6y ago

It ver much looks like the Google people there have zero clue about what the actual issue is, as well as how to communicate about it. The only reason given was literally ‘we suddenly want to enforce our policies’, which is really no answer at all...

themacguffinman 6y ago
It's more likely that corporate has decided it's a liability to reveal their exact reasoning.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  I wonder if it'd be a liability if they wrote: "we think it'd be a liability to reveal our reasoning" At least I'd find that more polite

MikeUt 6y ago

They no longer need to lure new users in, so they're revoking their gifts.

cybert00th 6y ago
Calling Chromium features gifts is a bit generous - they're more like bait.

morpheuskafka 6y ago

That key thing always seemed really weird to me. You had to join some special Google Group and then they would magically show in Google Cloud Platform. And you could set the OAuth name to whatever you wanted.

lrossi 6y ago

The response of the Director of Engineering towards the slackware package maintainer comes off as very arrogant. I guess this is the end of the open source project. Chromium was never truly open source, more like free source, but now it’s not even that. It’s just another proprietary software. Sad to see Google become the old Microsoft.

supermatt 6y ago

Yet more bait and switch by google. Only recently was there discussion about how they used free access to widevine as bait while pushing EME, and now they conveniently ignore licensing requests... More fuel for the ECs antitrust investigation I guess :)