4 ms·

Because? Edit: I'm not the first person to make this comparison. Witness the Chrome section in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_an

by lysace 2y ago

Because? Edit: I'm not the first person to make this comparison. Witness the Chrome section in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish#Google_Chrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

bawolff 2y ago
Well it may be possible to make the comparison in other things google does (they have done a lot of things) it makes no sense for quic/http3. What are they extending in this analogy? Http3 is not an extension of http. What are they extinguishing? There is no plan to get rid of http1/2, since you still need it in lots of networks that dont allow udp. Additionally, its an open standard, with an rfc, and multiple competing implementations (including firefox and i believe experimental in safari). The entire point of embrace, extend, extinguish is that the extension is not well specified making it dufficult for competitors to implement. That is simply not what is happening here.
- lysace 2y ago
  What I meant with Microsoft's Embrace, extend, and extinguish (EEE) scheme taken to the next level is what Google has done to the web via Chromium: They have several thousand C++ browser engineers (and as many web standards people as they could get their hands on, early on). Combined with a dominant browser market share, this has let them dominate browser standards, and even internet protocols. They have abused this dominant position to eliminate all competitors except Apple and (so far) Mozilla. It's quite clever.
  - jauntywundrkind 2y ago
    Microsoft just did shit, whatever they wanted. Google has worked with all the w3c committees and other browsers with tireless commitment to participation, with endless review. It's such a tired sad trope of people disaffected with the web because they can't implement it by themselves easily. I'm so exhausted by this anti-progress terrorism; the world's shared hypermedia should be rich and capable. We also see lots of strong progress these days from newcomers like Ladybird, and Servo seems gearing up to be more browser like.
    - lysace 2y ago
      Yes, Google found the loophole: brute-force standards complexity by hiring thousands of very competent engineers eager to leave their mark on the web and eager to get promoted. The only thing they needed was lots of money, and they had just that. I think my message here is only hard to understand if your salary (or personal worth etc) depends on not understanding it. It's really not that complex.
      - bawolff 2y ago
        > I think my message here is only hard to understand if your salary (or personal worth etc) depends on not understanding it. It's really not that complex. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they don't understand you. However, if you think google is making standards unneccessarily complex, you should read some of the standards from the 2000s (e.g. SAML).
        wesselbindt 2y ago
        > Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they don't understand you. This is generally true of course, but here the complete non-engagement with parent's arguments shows either bad faith or actual lack of understanding. It's more likely to be the former, as the concept is not that difficult to grasp, and quite widely accepted. Heck, even the wikipedia page on EEE has chromium as an example.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > What I meant with Microsoft's Embrace, extend, and extinguish (EEE) scheme taken to the next level is what Google has done to the web via Chromium I think this argument is reasonable, but QUIC isn't part of the problem.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    > They have abused this dominant position to eliminate all competitors except Apple and (so far) Mozilla. But that's like all of them. Except edge but that was mostly dead before chrome came on the scene. It seems like you are using embrace, extend, extinguish to just mean, "be succesful", but that's not what the term means. Being a market leader is not the same thing as embrace, extend, extinguish. Neither is putting competition out of business.
ratorx 2y ago
Contributing to an open standard seems to be the opposite of the classic example. Assume that change X for the web is positive overall. Currently Google’s strategy is to implement in Chrome and collect data on usefulness, then propose a standard and have other people contribute to it. That approach seems pretty optimal. How else would you do it?
- lysace 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ratorx 2y ago
    How does this have any relevance to my comment?
    - lysace 2y ago
      How does your comment have any relevance to what we are discussing throughout this thread?

by lysace 2y ago

bawolff 2y ago

Well it may be possible to make the comparison in other things google does (they have done a lot of things) it makes no sense for quic/http3. What are they extending in this analogy? Http3 is not an extension of http. What are they extinguishing? There is no plan to get rid of http1/2, since you still need it in lots of networks that dont allow udp. Additionally, its an open standard, with an rfc, and multiple competing implementations (including firefox and i believe experimental in safari). The entire point of embrace, extend, extinguish is that the extension is not well specified making it dufficult for competitors to implement. That is simply not what is happening here.

lysace 2y ago
What I meant with Microsoft's Embrace, extend, and extinguish (EEE) scheme taken to the next level is what Google has done to the web via Chromium: They have several thousand C++ browser engineers (and as many web standards people as they could get their hands on, early on). Combined with a dominant browser market share, this has let them dominate browser standards, and even internet protocols. They have abused this dominant position to eliminate all competitors except Apple and (so far) Mozilla. It's quite clever.
- jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  Microsoft just did shit, whatever they wanted. Google has worked with all the w3c committees and other browsers with tireless commitment to participation, with endless review. It's such a tired sad trope of people disaffected with the web because they can't implement it by themselves easily. I'm so exhausted by this anti-progress terrorism; the world's shared hypermedia should be rich and capable. We also see lots of strong progress these days from newcomers like Ladybird, and Servo seems gearing up to be more browser like.
  - lysace 2y ago
    Yes, Google found the loophole: brute-force standards complexity by hiring thousands of very competent engineers eager to leave their mark on the web and eager to get promoted. The only thing they needed was lots of money, and they had just that. I think my message here is only hard to understand if your salary (or personal worth etc) depends on not understanding it. It's really not that complex.
    - bawolff 2y ago
      > I think my message here is only hard to understand if your salary (or personal worth etc) depends on not understanding it. It's really not that complex. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they don't understand you. However, if you think google is making standards unneccessarily complex, you should read some of the standards from the 2000s (e.g. SAML).
      - wesselbindt 2y ago
        > Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they don't understand you. This is generally true of course, but here the complete non-engagement with parent's arguments shows either bad faith or actual lack of understanding. It's more likely to be the former, as the concept is not that difficult to grasp, and quite widely accepted. Heck, even the wikipedia page on EEE has chromium as an example.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  > What I meant with Microsoft's Embrace, extend, and extinguish (EEE) scheme taken to the next level is what Google has done to the web via Chromium I think this argument is reasonable, but QUIC isn't part of the problem.
- bawolff 2y ago
  > They have abused this dominant position to eliminate all competitors except Apple and (so far) Mozilla. But that's like all of them. Except edge but that was mostly dead before chrome came on the scene. It seems like you are using embrace, extend, extinguish to just mean, "be succesful", but that's not what the term means. Being a market leader is not the same thing as embrace, extend, extinguish. Neither is putting competition out of business.

ratorx 2y ago

Contributing to an open standard seems to be the opposite of the classic example. Assume that change X for the web is positive overall. Currently Google’s strategy is to implement in Chrome and collect data on usefulness, then propose a standard and have other people contribute to it. That approach seems pretty optimal. How else would you do it?

lysace 2y ago
[flagged]
- ratorx 2y ago
  How does this have any relevance to my comment?
  - lysace 2y ago
    How does your comment have any relevance to what we are discussing throughout this thread?