4 ms·

Wake me up when they do that "anything". In the mean time they've created useful and successful open-source products which anyone can benefit from.

zentiggr 5y ago
And yanked them out from underneath the adopters whenever it wasn't fun anymore. I don't trust in anything Google anymore except that internal politics and profit motive will override anything beneficial eventually. Look at Chrome if you're not sure what I mean.
cute_boi 5y ago
Yea I can see that with chrome. They created useful in that time that any opensource benefit others. After that they started writing their own spec for chrome, made youtube slow on firefox using shadow dom api etc. These I think google is more evil that microsoft. But many people enjoy free service thats why they are not complaining.
selfhoster11 5y ago
You must have not noticed that Chrome is the new IE, or that they recently revoked API keys that open source Chromium forks (including ones that just disable certain features, so they are 99% the same as official Chrome) have been using for years to allow them to sync bookmarks and the like.
- SquareWheel 5y ago
  > "Chrome is the new IE" Safari is the new IE. It's stagnated in the same way IE did, which has slowed the progression of web standards. How long did it take to get input type="date"? Apple's attack on PWAs also shows they wish to neuter the web to encourage use of their app store (where they take a 30% cut) instead. > "or that they recently revoked API keys..." The code is open-source, but they aren't obligated to grant access to their services.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    > Safari is the new IE. It's stagnated in the same way IE did, which has slowed the progression of web standards. Chrome is not like IE in that it stagnates the web. It's like IE in that it reinforces the dominance of nearly the entire web by a single company - Google. Chrome, also much like IE, has a stranglehold on what makes it into new web standards and what doesn't. That the web standards are technically open is irrelevant, if Google de-facto rules the whole standardisation process. What they decide goes, goes. What they decide doesn't go, doesn't. The W3C standards process is neutered at best, and corrupt at worst. Hypothetically, even if they weren't the dominant W3C stakeholder, their market share gives them control over the experience and control of an enormous amount of users. They can trial and enforce FLoC, Manifest v3, and other changes that take away user control. Once user expectations get readjusted, culture around such toxic features shifts and they become acceptable. I'd be surprised if that's the end of it. Some websites only get tested on/built for Chrome ("works best with IE"), because "everyone only uses, develops and tests on Chrome anyways". Non-Webkit/Blink browsers are collateral damage. Most webby runtimes like Electron, and most third party browsers, will also embed some variant of Blink these days. This leads to browser engine monoculture, and is capital-B Bad. Firefox managed to outmanouver IE by being bug-for-bug compatible enough, but these days, web standards are two orders of magnitude or more complex. The effort needed to build a new, compatible browser engine is more akin to building something like Wine[0] from scratch. [0] winehq.org > The code is open-source, but they aren't obligated to grant access to their services. Of course they aren't. But this is after letting open source projects do it for years. What changed now, all of a sudden? Besides, the open browsers that are more-or-less straight-up Chromium forks usually are not materially different. Just a different logo and maybe some telemetry ripped out, big deal. The kind of person that uses Google sync in a fork is the kind of person who already's in deep into the Google ecosystem. They really don't have a reason NOT to let people use FOSS-specific API keys, especially since any abuse they might get because of these is so miniscule it's not worth mentioning.
    - SquareWheel 5y ago
      > "The W3C standards process is neutered at best, and corrupt at worst." Bear in mind the W3C hasn't been driving standards for many years. The WHATWG has been effectively in charge of steering that process. They're made up of all large browser vendors, which is why they had the effective power to do this. While Google is a key player in the WHATWG, they're definitely not the only ones proposing and testing new features. Both Apple and Mozilla also test new APIs. Mozilla is the most reserved, but Apple hasn't been shy about testing new features either. It's why we have prefers-color-scheme now. > "They can trial and enforce FLoC, Manifest v3, and other changes that take away user control." I don't see how FLoC takes away user control, personally. It should be trivial to opt out of a cohort if you wish. It's an over-engineered solution but it's one that strikes a compromise between ad networks and users' privacy concerns. Why should we compromise at all, you ask? Because millions of small businesses rely on ads to stay afloat. Decimating the ad networks overnight will have far more casualties than Google's coffers. We need to transition the ad ecosystem to one that's privacy-conscious. Manifest v3 is a massive API change so you'll need to be more specific there. If you're referring to their content blocking API, it's essentially a more powerful version of Safari's content blocker. They've addressed most of the criticisms people had early on (eg. dynamic rules, header blocking). They're switching to a declarative model to prevent malicious extensions from tracking users. > "Most webby runtimes like Electron, and most third party browsers, will also embed some variant of Blink these days. This leads to browser engine monoculture, and is capital-B Bad." I agree that monoculture is bad, but it's a product of their own success. Blink and V8 are more portable than Gecko or even Trident, and that allows them to be embedded in applications like Electron. Servo would have been Mozilla's answer to this, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards now. > "The effort needed to build a new, compatible browser engine is more akin to building something like Wine[0] from scratch." I agree. Personally I'd like to see certain APIs (like IndexedDB) deprecated to reduce that complexity, but the web has a strong focus on preserving backwards compatibility. > "What changed now, all of a sudden?" I can only speculate, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a legal concern. ie. these users are using our services but haven't agreed to our terms of use.

zentiggr 5y ago

And yanked them out from underneath the adopters whenever it wasn't fun anymore. I don't trust in anything Google anymore except that internal politics and profit motive will override anything beneficial eventually. Look at Chrome if you're not sure what I mean.

cute_boi 5y ago

Yea I can see that with chrome. They created useful in that time that any opensource benefit others. After that they started writing their own spec for chrome, made youtube slow on firefox using shadow dom api etc. These I think google is more evil that microsoft. But many people enjoy free service thats why they are not complaining.

selfhoster11 5y ago

You must have not noticed that Chrome is the new IE, or that they recently revoked API keys that open source Chromium forks (including ones that just disable certain features, so they are 99% the same as official Chrome) have been using for years to allow them to sync bookmarks and the like.

SquareWheel 5y ago
> "Chrome is the new IE" Safari is the new IE. It's stagnated in the same way IE did, which has slowed the progression of web standards. How long did it take to get input type="date"? Apple's attack on PWAs also shows they wish to neuter the web to encourage use of their app store (where they take a 30% cut) instead. > "or that they recently revoked API keys..." The code is open-source, but they aren't obligated to grant access to their services.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  > Safari is the new IE. It's stagnated in the same way IE did, which has slowed the progression of web standards. Chrome is not like IE in that it stagnates the web. It's like IE in that it reinforces the dominance of nearly the entire web by a single company - Google. Chrome, also much like IE, has a stranglehold on what makes it into new web standards and what doesn't. That the web standards are technically open is irrelevant, if Google de-facto rules the whole standardisation process. What they decide goes, goes. What they decide doesn't go, doesn't. The W3C standards process is neutered at best, and corrupt at worst. Hypothetically, even if they weren't the dominant W3C stakeholder, their market share gives them control over the experience and control of an enormous amount of users. They can trial and enforce FLoC, Manifest v3, and other changes that take away user control. Once user expectations get readjusted, culture around such toxic features shifts and they become acceptable. I'd be surprised if that's the end of it. Some websites only get tested on/built for Chrome ("works best with IE"), because "everyone only uses, develops and tests on Chrome anyways". Non-Webkit/Blink browsers are collateral damage. Most webby runtimes like Electron, and most third party browsers, will also embed some variant of Blink these days. This leads to browser engine monoculture, and is capital-B Bad. Firefox managed to outmanouver IE by being bug-for-bug compatible enough, but these days, web standards are two orders of magnitude or more complex. The effort needed to build a new, compatible browser engine is more akin to building something like Wine[0] from scratch. [0] winehq.org > The code is open-source, but they aren't obligated to grant access to their services. Of course they aren't. But this is after letting open source projects do it for years. What changed now, all of a sudden? Besides, the open browsers that are more-or-less straight-up Chromium forks usually are not materially different. Just a different logo and maybe some telemetry ripped out, big deal. The kind of person that uses Google sync in a fork is the kind of person who already's in deep into the Google ecosystem. They really don't have a reason NOT to let people use FOSS-specific API keys, especially since any abuse they might get because of these is so miniscule it's not worth mentioning.
  - SquareWheel 5y ago
    > "The W3C standards process is neutered at best, and corrupt at worst." Bear in mind the W3C hasn't been driving standards for many years. The WHATWG has been effectively in charge of steering that process. They're made up of all large browser vendors, which is why they had the effective power to do this. While Google is a key player in the WHATWG, they're definitely not the only ones proposing and testing new features. Both Apple and Mozilla also test new APIs. Mozilla is the most reserved, but Apple hasn't been shy about testing new features either. It's why we have prefers-color-scheme now. > "They can trial and enforce FLoC, Manifest v3, and other changes that take away user control." I don't see how FLoC takes away user control, personally. It should be trivial to opt out of a cohort if you wish. It's an over-engineered solution but it's one that strikes a compromise between ad networks and users' privacy concerns. Why should we compromise at all, you ask? Because millions of small businesses rely on ads to stay afloat. Decimating the ad networks overnight will have far more casualties than Google's coffers. We need to transition the ad ecosystem to one that's privacy-conscious. Manifest v3 is a massive API change so you'll need to be more specific there. If you're referring to their content blocking API, it's essentially a more powerful version of Safari's content blocker. They've addressed most of the criticisms people had early on (eg. dynamic rules, header blocking). They're switching to a declarative model to prevent malicious extensions from tracking users. > "Most webby runtimes like Electron, and most third party browsers, will also embed some variant of Blink these days. This leads to browser engine monoculture, and is capital-B Bad." I agree that monoculture is bad, but it's a product of their own success. Blink and V8 are more portable than Gecko or even Trident, and that allows them to be embedded in applications like Electron. Servo would have been Mozilla's answer to this, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards now. > "The effort needed to build a new, compatible browser engine is more akin to building something like Wine[0] from scratch." I agree. Personally I'd like to see certain APIs (like IndexedDB) deprecated to reduce that complexity, but the web has a strong focus on preserving backwards compatibility. > "What changed now, all of a sudden?" I can only speculate, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a legal concern. ie. these users are using our services but haven't agreed to our terms of use.