5 ms·

You don't understand what "extend embrace extinguish" meant. It's a tactic MS used to take control of a technology it, with the goal of making it unviable -- se

by bla3 6y ago

You don't understand what "extend embrace extinguish" meant. It's a tactic MS used to take control of a technology it, with the goal of making it unviable -- see the "extinguish' part. Back then, it was in Microsoft's interest that people used native windows apps to keep them in the MS ecosystem. The web was good for makers of other OSs like Apple. Nowadays, Apple tries to keep the web in lame duck mode for the same reason. Google wants the web to be powerful not to neuter it but because it's in their interest. You can argue if the web _should_ be an app platform, but applying "embrace extend extinguish" to Chrome misunderstands the motivation of Google.

kreeben 6y ago
>> Google wants Google to be powerful >> applying "embrace extend extinguish" to Chrome hits the nail on its head when it comes to the motivation of Google Fixed some things for you.
afandian 6y ago
I'm more interested in Firefox vs Chrome. I simply want to be able to use the web without using Google. By raising the bar on shiny but non-essential features, they make it harder for an open source browser to play. The new features may be fun options today but sooner or later those features will become standard, and website X won't work without Chrome. From TFA: > There is a long tail of human interface devices (HIDs) that are too new, too old, or too uncommon to be accessible by systems' device drivers I can easily imagine a banking website one day requiring custom USB drivers for security. Similar things happened with ActiveX and IE in the MS EEE days.
userbinator 6y ago
Google's version of EEE is to churn the "standards" continuously by changing and adding to them rapidly to make it hard to even implement them, while also spreading widely the propaganda to cause developers to use the new parts --- even if not actually necessary. See all the static content sites turned into (increasingly often, Chrome-only) horrible SPAs. There's a reason the word "deprecate" occurs so ridiculously often in the web development --- Google's weapon of monopoly is change: they are basically trying to outrun competitors. It's not Microsoft's proprietariness, but a brazenly open show of sheer power.
- scrollaway 6y ago
  Occam's razor, and my familiarity with the industry, both tell me it's not malicious but rather just various shades of incompetence & misaligned incentives that are producing such high amount of "spec churn". But if it were a strategy, "EEE" or "Embrace Extend Extinguish" is not a good term for it. Maybe call it EEEE. "Extend Extend Extend Extend".
  - mattkevan 6y ago
    In Google’s case it’s perhaps EELIE, embrace, extend, lose interest, extinguish.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- toomim 6y ago
  > while also spreading widely the propaganda to cause developers to use the new parts --- even if not actually necessary There's a good argument to be made that WebHID is exactly that. There is already a HID API. This new one is just supposed to be "better" ... somehow... in some way... I'm not exactly sure what it is... but some googler on the internet says you should support it.

by bla3 6y ago

kreeben 6y ago

>> Google wants Google to be powerful >> applying "embrace extend extinguish" to Chrome hits the nail on its head when it comes to the motivation of Google Fixed some things for you.

afandian 6y ago

I'm more interested in Firefox vs Chrome. I simply want to be able to use the web without using Google. By raising the bar on shiny but non-essential features, they make it harder for an open source browser to play. The new features may be fun options today but sooner or later those features will become standard, and website X won't work without Chrome. From TFA: > There is a long tail of human interface devices (HIDs) that are too new, too old, or too uncommon to be accessible by systems' device drivers I can easily imagine a banking website one day requiring custom USB drivers for security. Similar things happened with ActiveX and IE in the MS EEE days.

userbinator 6y ago

Google's version of EEE is to churn the "standards" continuously by changing and adding to them rapidly to make it hard to even implement them, while also spreading widely the propaganda to cause developers to use the new parts --- even if not actually necessary. See all the static content sites turned into (increasingly often, Chrome-only) horrible SPAs. There's a reason the word "deprecate" occurs so ridiculously often in the web development --- Google's weapon of monopoly is change: they are basically trying to outrun competitors. It's not Microsoft's proprietariness, but a brazenly open show of sheer power.

scrollaway 6y ago
Occam's razor, and my familiarity with the industry, both tell me it's not malicious but rather just various shades of incompetence & misaligned incentives that are producing such high amount of "spec churn". But if it were a strategy, "EEE" or "Embrace Extend Extinguish" is not a good term for it. Maybe call it EEEE. "Extend Extend Extend Extend".
- mattkevan 6y ago
  In Google’s case it’s perhaps EELIE, embrace, extend, lose interest, extinguish.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
toomim 6y ago
> while also spreading widely the propaganda to cause developers to use the new parts --- even if not actually necessary There's a good argument to be made that WebHID is exactly that. There is already a HID API. This new one is just supposed to be "better" ... somehow... in some way... I'm not exactly sure what it is... but some googler on the internet says you should support it.