3 ms·
Google Shouldn’t Have Open-Sourced SPDY
- frewsxcv 15y agoSo after reading the article, the author has yet to give a reason why it should be propietary
- oscar-the-horse 15y agoThanks for that frewsxcv, I've updated the article.
- rbanffy 15y agoWhat if Apple and Amazon start supporting SPDY? Google will have less load on their servers and most probably more ad revenue. Why would that be a good thing? Why keeping it proprietary, something only Google Chrome users had access to, and only when accessing Google servers, would be a competitive advantage? In order to be a competitive advantage, Google should be making money with Chrome and Android. Instead, it makes money when people accesses sites with AdSense banners on them (that includes Gmail) and when people do search through Google.
- oscar-the-horse 15y agoIt doesn't really effect load. SPDY works by wrapping multiple HTTP transactions into one. So it helps with latency. Google could use it for their own mobile applications. Making services (such as gmail) better on Android devices. This then encourages users of their services to buy Android phones. If Google controls the mobile platform then it can influence how search is done. It's vertical integration.
- rbanffy 15y ago> If Google controls the mobile platform then it can influence how search is done. It's vertical integration. You know some Android sets don't even use Google for search.
- oscar-the-horse 15y ago>You know some Android sets don't even use Google for search. That's why I said influence, rather than force.
- mooism2 15y agoThe question is, which web sites (not owned by Google) use SPDY? None afaik, which means it's a server-side competitive advantage for Google, and that they want it as widespread as possible client-side.
- oscar-the-horse 15y agohowever, once it's on all new browsers there's no advantage; there's incentive for others to use it, which they will if it's advantageous.