11 ms·

I'm all for innovation, but I become wary when a company that controls a sizeable proportion of the browser market-share and also serves a not insignificant pro

I'm all for innovation, but I become wary when a company that controls a sizeable proportion of the browser market-share and also serves a not insignificant proportion of all web traffic makes extensions like this. SPDY, Dart and now this.

alexjeffrey 14y ago
arguably, google are well positioned to see where improvements to traffic protocols can be made due to both chrome's large market share and their massive traffic requirements for google search et al. Later on if/when their protocols are finalised and released, I'm sure one standards body or another will work to integrate them.
RexRollman 14y ago
So long as it is available for everyone to use in a free manner, I really don't have a problem with it.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Google is the least scary company in this regard. They're putting their extensions out into public hands instead of using an "embrace/extend" model. SPDY is open, soon to become an official web standard, and implemented by popular web server software and browsers (nginx, apache, firefox). The same is true of Chromium as well, the core of Chrome. I'd go so far as to say that in these areas Google is serving as a model corporate citizen, and I wish others would imitate them.
- taligent 14y ago
  >I'd go so far as to say that in these areas Google is serving as a model corporate citizen. Well that is a curious way to look at it. Instead of working with other companies to define a common standard they force it through attrition. That's the exact opposite of how this sort of thing should work. And given Google's disgraceful behaviour in abusing the FRAND process they are hardly a model citizen by any measure.
  - dietrichepp 14y ago
    Okay, can you name some standards which were created by multiple companies working together? (I'm not talking about maintenance -- HTML was invented by Tim Berners-Lee, SGML came out of IBM, JavaScript was Netscape, etc.)
    - taligent 14y ago
      The Java Community Process back in the day was a good example of how lots of large companies working together could define a standard and yet still leave room for innovation. H.264 and WiFi standards are recent examples of a lot of companies working together.
      - jbooth 14y ago
        Yeah, but 90% of those standards were TERRIBLE. Like, GOD AWFUL. EJB? SOAP? It's the hangover from those standards that leaves kids today thinking that Python or Ruby are simpler than Java. Eventually the JCP turned into "take popular open source ideas like hibernate and spring, and bless them with a JCP number". Which worked a lot better, and each of those individual projects was usually launched by an individual or small group initially.
        walls 14y ago
        > It's the hangover from those standards that leaves kids today thinking that Python or Ruby are simpler than Java. I would really love to hear how you could possibly believe otherwise.
        jbooth 14y ago
        The language Java is simpler than the language Python or Ruby. Fewer keywords, those keywords do fewer things. Ruby and Python seem simpler for most web work due to better frameworks and dynamic typing, which is less simple than static typing, but is easier to work with in most web situations. I guess I'm drawing a distinction between 'simple' and 'convenient'. Monkey patching in Ruby is not simple, but can be convenient and make rails possible.
- makomk 14y ago
  SPDY was heavily used by Google back when it was basically "do what Google do", putting other browser developers under pressure to implement it somehow or be seen as slower. (There was nominally documentation of how it worked. It was wrong.)
- zobzu 14y ago
  Having open-source implementation do not mean you're not going to "embrass and extend". It's a common misconception. If you're the only big player, that your stuff is open just means others can also implement your protocol. But since you're the only big player, they can't have their protocol. So you can make your protocol work for you, do things that will bring you more money, and have it open-source, AND force it upon others. Forking it doesn't mean shit if you're forced to use it to access _ANYTHING_ anyways.
  - pjscott 14y ago
    Chrome isn't the only major web browser. Google doesn't have the power to unilaterally decide what all the other browsers will do. Nor does it look like they're trying to get that power; they give hundreds of millions of dollars to Mozilla, one of Chrome's major competitors, and the Mozilla people don't always go along with what Google wants.
weareconvo 14y ago
Your kind of skepticism is ultimately one of the few things that holds corporations in check, so I am not discouraging you from persistently aiming it at Google, Facebook, et al. But that being said, I was a full-time dev there for 5 years, and I can say with a (however misguided) degree of certainty: all of those projects have one goal in mind - to make the experience of using the web better. Whatever else is true about the dangers of monoculture, Google's intentions are benign.
mtgx 14y ago
What's so scary about SPDY? It's an open protocol.
EwanToo 14y ago
I think it's entirely sensible to think about the influence that companies like Google are gaining. Each individual component is a sensible step forwards, but there's no doubt that Google could choose to do some pretty anti-competitive things if they wanted, and in the future there will always be different, more short-term, management in charge
- DanWaterworth 14y ago
  This. The point is not what they are doing, it's what they could do.
  - ori_b 14y ago
    A big company will always have the potential to do harm. If it's not about what they're doing, but what they could do, then any company that has influence in a market needs to be taken down.
    - DanWaterworth 14y ago
      I'm not against companies having influence; the first thing I said was that I was all for innovation and what's the point of innovating if you won't be heard? The point is that Google are in, not just a position of influence, but a position of control. Google don't need to seek the acceptance of the community at large for SPDY to be useful to them. This is a very different standpoint from, say, Mozilla.
duaneb 14y ago
Both SPDY and Dart are open, neither are patent encumbered, and nobody is forcing you to use either. I am wary too.... but I don't see anything obviously wrong.

alexjeffrey 14y ago

arguably, google are well positioned to see where improvements to traffic protocols can be made due to both chrome's large market share and their massive traffic requirements for google search et al. Later on if/when their protocols are finalised and released, I'm sure one standards body or another will work to integrate them.

RexRollman 14y ago

So long as it is available for everyone to use in a free manner, I really don't have a problem with it.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Google is the least scary company in this regard. They're putting their extensions out into public hands instead of using an "embrace/extend" model. SPDY is open, soon to become an official web standard, and implemented by popular web server software and browsers (nginx, apache, firefox). The same is true of Chromium as well, the core of Chrome. I'd go so far as to say that in these areas Google is serving as a model corporate citizen, and I wish others would imitate them.

taligent 14y ago
>I'd go so far as to say that in these areas Google is serving as a model corporate citizen. Well that is a curious way to look at it. Instead of working with other companies to define a common standard they force it through attrition. That's the exact opposite of how this sort of thing should work. And given Google's disgraceful behaviour in abusing the FRAND process they are hardly a model citizen by any measure.
- dietrichepp 14y ago
  Okay, can you name some standards which were created by multiple companies working together? (I'm not talking about maintenance -- HTML was invented by Tim Berners-Lee, SGML came out of IBM, JavaScript was Netscape, etc.)
  - taligent 14y ago
    The Java Community Process back in the day was a good example of how lots of large companies working together could define a standard and yet still leave room for innovation. H.264 and WiFi standards are recent examples of a lot of companies working together.
    - jbooth 14y ago
      Yeah, but 90% of those standards were TERRIBLE. Like, GOD AWFUL. EJB? SOAP? It's the hangover from those standards that leaves kids today thinking that Python or Ruby are simpler than Java. Eventually the JCP turned into "take popular open source ideas like hibernate and spring, and bless them with a JCP number". Which worked a lot better, and each of those individual projects was usually launched by an individual or small group initially.
      - walls 14y ago
        > It's the hangover from those standards that leaves kids today thinking that Python or Ruby are simpler than Java. I would really love to hear how you could possibly believe otherwise.
        jbooth 14y ago
        The language Java is simpler than the language Python or Ruby. Fewer keywords, those keywords do fewer things. Ruby and Python seem simpler for most web work due to better frameworks and dynamic typing, which is less simple than static typing, but is easier to work with in most web situations. I guess I'm drawing a distinction between 'simple' and 'convenient'. Monkey patching in Ruby is not simple, but can be convenient and make rails possible.
makomk 14y ago
SPDY was heavily used by Google back when it was basically "do what Google do", putting other browser developers under pressure to implement it somehow or be seen as slower. (There was nominally documentation of how it worked. It was wrong.)
zobzu 14y ago
Having open-source implementation do not mean you're not going to "embrass and extend". It's a common misconception. If you're the only big player, that your stuff is open just means others can also implement your protocol. But since you're the only big player, they can't have their protocol. So you can make your protocol work for you, do things that will bring you more money, and have it open-source, AND force it upon others. Forking it doesn't mean shit if you're forced to use it to access _ANYTHING_ anyways.
- pjscott 14y ago
  Chrome isn't the only major web browser. Google doesn't have the power to unilaterally decide what all the other browsers will do. Nor does it look like they're trying to get that power; they give hundreds of millions of dollars to Mozilla, one of Chrome's major competitors, and the Mozilla people don't always go along with what Google wants.

weareconvo 14y ago

Your kind of skepticism is ultimately one of the few things that holds corporations in check, so I am not discouraging you from persistently aiming it at Google, Facebook, et al. But that being said, I was a full-time dev there for 5 years, and I can say with a (however misguided) degree of certainty: all of those projects have one goal in mind - to make the experience of using the web better. Whatever else is true about the dangers of monoculture, Google's intentions are benign.

mtgx 14y ago

What's so scary about SPDY? It's an open protocol.

EwanToo 14y ago

I think it's entirely sensible to think about the influence that companies like Google are gaining. Each individual component is a sensible step forwards, but there's no doubt that Google could choose to do some pretty anti-competitive things if they wanted, and in the future there will always be different, more short-term, management in charge

DanWaterworth 14y ago
This. The point is not what they are doing, it's what they could do.
- ori_b 14y ago
  A big company will always have the potential to do harm. If it's not about what they're doing, but what they could do, then any company that has influence in a market needs to be taken down.
  - DanWaterworth 14y ago
    I'm not against companies having influence; the first thing I said was that I was all for innovation and what's the point of innovating if you won't be heard? The point is that Google are in, not just a position of influence, but a position of control. Google don't need to seek the acceptance of the community at large for SPDY to be useful to them. This is a very different standpoint from, say, Mozilla.

duaneb 14y ago

Both SPDY and Dart are open, neither are patent encumbered, and nobody is forcing you to use either. I am wary too.... but I don't see anything obviously wrong.