What's stopping Chrome from shipping proprietary features?
Our goal is to drive innovation and improve the compatible, open web platform, not to add a ton of features and break compatibility with other browsers.
Normally I'd be assuaged by something straight from the horse's mouth, but in the case of Google, I feel like waiting until the horse has run a couple of races to be able to trust it.
EDIT: You've seemed relatively quiet lately TS. Hope all is OK.
So you think they'd spend the time and money to make the engine better a goal of making the effort and cost advantageous? Talk about a straw man! Clearly the entire point of this is so they can leverage the advantages that can arise just as Apple leverages the advantages from forking KHTML and making their own ARM designs, and just as how Google has taken advantage by making V8 instead of using Nitro.
Those aren't the advantages I'm talking about. Apple didn't create Safari because it wanted to write a browser, they did it to insure that the Mac could provide users with a decent browser so they didn't end up 2nd class Internet citizens, which was a real danger at that moment in history.
Now, there seems not to be, nor has there ever been, any realistic threat that Google was going to be shut off any platform because web browsers would somehow lock them out. They might pay out a little less money to others if everyone used Chrome, but I don't see that as enough of a motivation to engage in this much effort. And, clearly, Chrome is not a public service project.
So, what exactly are their motivations here and what's their goal? (And no, GG, we aren't going to take their word for it. Google doesn't exactly have a record of honesty in its public statements.)
In every other sphere of activity, Google has followed a policy of using whatever strategy they can apply to make users more dependent on them to access information. Why exactly do you believe that Chrome/Blink/V8 are some exception from everything else Google does?
And as for why they haven't done any of this yet, because Chrome and V8 have been around for a while, there is clearly such a thing as a tipping point here. If Google acts before reaching that point, Chrome becomes marginalized, so they have to play nice. Once they reach that point, as IE did, they can do whatever they want, and there's no reason to believe they won't.
Those aren't the advantages I'm talking about. Apple didn't create Safari because it wanted to write a browser, they did it to insure that the Mac could provide users with a decent browser so they didn't end up 2nd class Internet citizens, which was a real danger at that moment in history.
Now, there seems not to be, nor has there ever been, any realistic threat that Google was going to be shut off any platform because web browsers would somehow lock them out. They might pay out a little less money to others if everyone used Chrome, but I don't see that as enough of a motivation to engage in this much effort. And, clearly, Chrome is not a public service project.
So, what exactly are their motivations here and what's their goal? (And no, GG, we aren't going to take their word for it. Google doesn't exactly have a record of honesty in its public statements.)
In every other sphere of activity, Google has followed a policy of using whatever strategy they can apply to make users more dependent on them to access information. Why exactly do you believe that Chrome/Blink/V8 are some exception from everything else Google does?
And as for why they haven't done any of this yet, because Chrome and V8 have been around for a while, there is clearly such a thing as a tipping point here. If Google acts before reaching that point, Chrome becomes marginalized, so they have to play nice. Once they reach that point, as IE did, they can do whatever they want, and there's no reason to believe they won't.
All these anti-Google arguments are the exact same ones people had against Apple about forking KHTML and making their own browser engine that requires web developers to do extra work. There was no universal rejoicing over another browser engine to test for. Back then Firefox was king (although IE was still the most used) that many scratched their head over why anyone would use Safari, which wasn't supported by many sites over Firefox, which was.
That makes Apple's move to Safari a much worse decision than you're making Blink out to be as Blink is at least a fork from a popular browser (I think WebKit-based browsers are the most commonly installed browser in the world).
So why all the reactionary comments without any high-level considerations? Lets remember that Blink is open-source. If Blink is better than WebKit and the WebKit team can't keep up with Blink then I would want aspects of Blink to be adopted by WebKit, and if that isn't enough then Blink to be adopted by Apple. Just as there is Chrome Frame which allows you to use a native IE browser on Windows but with the Chrome engines I would expect this to happen with Safari on Mac OS X.
PS: I care not for Apple or Google or any other company that makes technology. I only care about having the state of the art and for the state of the art to be constantly pushing ahead as fast as it can possibly go. Usually I buy Apple's products because they are the best in every way for my needs nearly every time, but if their competitor can do better I will not hesitate to buy from them. I guess I'm alone on this front because this thread is filled with people defending Apple's move for progress and pooh-poohing Google's, and it's not the first time this double-standard has come up here.
All these anti-Google arguments are the exact same ones people had against Apple about forking KHTML and making their own browser engine that requires web developers to do extra work. There was no universal rejoicing over another browser engine to test for. Back then Firefox was king (although IE was still the most used) that many scratched their head over why anyone would use Safari, which wasn't supported by many sites over Firefox, which was.
That makes Apple's move to Safari a much worse decision than you're making Blink out to be as Blink is at least a fork from a popular browser (I think WebKit-based browsers are the most commonly installed browser in the world).
So why all the reactionary comments without any high-level considerations? Lets remember that Blink is open-source. If Blink is better than WebKit and the WebKit team can't keep up with Blink then I would want aspects of Blink to be adopted by WebKit, and if that isn't enough then Blink to be adopted by Apple. Just as there is Chrome Frame which allows you to use a native IE browser on Windows but with the Chrome engines I would expect this to happen with Safari on Mac OS X.
PS: I care not for Apple or Google or any other company that makes technology. I only care about having the state of the art and for the state of the art to be constantly pushing ahead as fast as it can possibly go. Usually I buy Apple's products because they are the best in every way for my needs nearly every time, but if their competitor can do better I will not hesitate to buy from them. I guess I'm alone on this front because this thread is filled with people defending Apple's move for progress and pooh-poohing Google's, and it's not the first time this double-standard has come up here.
Neither would have I cared had the Nazis or Imperial Japan had developed a nuclear bomb first, ...neither do I care if Google has roamed through the world shooting Street View while riding an antenna shotgun to peer on people's privacy. All of them were moving the ball forward, and the sooner we get to tech Nirvana the better for the common good...
Why should ethical constraints dictate humanity's glorious march forward towards a dutiful and blissful partnership between technology and the top-down power game...? After all, who or what more appropriate than a Schmidt or a Messerschmidt's wingspan for brushing...themselves safely harbored... a 'clair-obscure' tableau of the human race from high up above ground...
Let the good tech times roll...and solipsism takes its toll...
Neither would have I cared had the Nazis or Imperial Japan had developed a nuclear bomb first, ...neither do I care if Google has roamed through the world shooting Street View while riding an antenna shotgun to peer on people's privacy. All of them were moving the ball forward, and the sooner we get to tech Nirvana the better for the common good...
Why should ethical constraints dictate humanity's glorious march forward towards a dutiful and blissful partnership between technology and the top-down power game...? After all, who or what more appropriate than a Schmidt or a Messerschmidt's wingspan for brushing...themselves safely harbored... a 'clair-obscure' tableau of the human race from high up above ground...
Let the good tech times roll...and solipsism takes its toll...
So Apple forking a browser engine is great but Google doing it equates the murder of millions. Shame on you! :no:
If there was ever any valid argument you have completely destroyed it for everyone against forking of any open-sourced LGPL projects.
Neither would have I cared had the Nazis or Imperial Japan had developed a nuclear bomb first, ...neither do I care if Google has roamed through the world shooting Street View while riding an antenna shotgun to peer on people's privacy. All of them were moving the ball forward, and the sooner we get to tech Nirvana the better for the common good...
Why should ethical constraints dictate humanity's glorious march forward towards a dutiful and blissful partnership between technology and the top-down power game...? After all, who or what more appropriate than a Schmidt or a Messerschmidt's wingspan for brushing...themselves safely harbored... a 'clair-obscure' tableau of the human race from high up above ground...
Let the good tech times roll...and solipsism takes its toll...
Comparing Apple's competitors to the Axis powers in WWII is a bit over the top, don't you think?
All these anti-Google arguments are the exact same ones people had against Apple about forking KHTML and making their own browser engine that requires web developers to do extra work. ...
No they aren't. A few people have remarked about that but it has nothing at all to do with what I've written about, and you know that. That's at least 2 straw man responses from you in this thread, increasing my impression that you aren't here for honest discussion, but merely to "hone" your debating skills.
Dunno, that's a pretty sweet April fools gag... Turning your boss' Tesla into a pink batmobile.
The tweet didn't state it was an April Fools joke. If that's the case then I like it. I just assumed that was some guady hipster "ironic" choice to make the car as "cool" as possible by making it as ugly as possible.
The tweet didn't state it was an April Fools joke. If that's the case then I like it. I just assumed that was some guady hipster "ironic" choice to make the car as "cool" as possible by making it as ugly as possible.
A few of the comments mentioned it, and seeing as how it's the time of year, and how notorious Google is for pranks (and how manly Sergey Brin is), it only makes sense.
(BTW, the 'manly' comment is in reference to Sergey Brin calling smartphones 'emasculating'...)
Oh yeah, forgot to mention, Russians hate hipsters (but ironically love beards).
Oh, i remember this. Haavard logged in his alter-ego to accuse any dissents as a mere product of vodka addiction. Surely those personal and a bit racist attacks were blessed by moderators.
When this did not helped he finally banned my account and, leaving last words for himself, disabled any forth comments.
Good thing was that Opera webmasters always messed what is e-mail, what is password, what is buddy nickname and what is login, so as one surfed through all *.opera.com servers his account got cloned in process and while them banned one my account, they missed the clone they promptly created for me year before. Well, Opera moderators were always fast, when asked by their superiors :-)
Let's play conspiracy! May Google's switch for Blink be a price they paid to corrupt Opera into abandoning Presto ? :-D
Comments
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
What's stopping Chrome from shipping proprietary features?
Our goal is to drive innovation and improve the compatible, open web platform, not to add a ton of features and break compatibility with other browsers.
Normally I'd be assuaged by something straight from the horse's mouth, but in the case of Google, I feel like waiting until the horse has run a couple of races to be able to trust it.
EDIT: You've seemed relatively quiet lately TS. Hope all is OK.
It's not, but that's unrelated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So you think they'd spend the time and money to make the engine better a goal of making the effort and cost advantageous? Talk about a straw man! Clearly the entire point of this is so they can leverage the advantages that can arise just as Apple leverages the advantages from forking KHTML and making their own ARM designs, and just as how Google has taken advantage by making V8 instead of using Nitro.
Those aren't the advantages I'm talking about. Apple didn't create Safari because it wanted to write a browser, they did it to insure that the Mac could provide users with a decent browser so they didn't end up 2nd class Internet citizens, which was a real danger at that moment in history.
Now, there seems not to be, nor has there ever been, any realistic threat that Google was going to be shut off any platform because web browsers would somehow lock them out. They might pay out a little less money to others if everyone used Chrome, but I don't see that as enough of a motivation to engage in this much effort. And, clearly, Chrome is not a public service project.
So, what exactly are their motivations here and what's their goal? (And no, GG, we aren't going to take their word for it. Google doesn't exactly have a record of honesty in its public statements.)
In every other sphere of activity, Google has followed a policy of using whatever strategy they can apply to make users more dependent on them to access information. Why exactly do you believe that Chrome/Blink/V8 are some exception from everything else Google does?
And as for why they haven't done any of this yet, because Chrome and V8 have been around for a while, there is clearly such a thing as a tipping point here. If Google acts before reaching that point, Chrome becomes marginalized, so they have to play nice. Once they reach that point, as IE did, they can do whatever they want, and there's no reason to believe they won't.
All these anti-Google arguments are the exact same ones people had against Apple about forking KHTML and making their own browser engine that requires web developers to do extra work. There was no universal rejoicing over another browser engine to test for. Back then Firefox was king (although IE was still the most used) that many scratched their head over why anyone would use Safari, which wasn't supported by many sites over Firefox, which was.
That makes Apple's move to Safari a much worse decision than you're making Blink out to be as Blink is at least a fork from a popular browser (I think WebKit-based browsers are the most commonly installed browser in the world).
So why all the reactionary comments without any high-level considerations? Lets remember that Blink is open-source. If Blink is better than WebKit and the WebKit team can't keep up with Blink then I would want aspects of Blink to be adopted by WebKit, and if that isn't enough then Blink to be adopted by Apple. Just as there is Chrome Frame which allows you to use a native IE browser on Windows but with the Chrome engines I would expect this to happen with Safari on Mac OS X.
PS: I care not for Apple or Google or any other company that makes technology. I only care about having the state of the art and for the state of the art to be constantly pushing ahead as fast as it can possibly go. Usually I buy Apple's products because they are the best in every way for my needs nearly every time, but if their competitor can do better I will not hesitate to buy from them. I guess I'm alone on this front because this thread is filled with people defending Apple's move for progress and pooh-poohing Google's, and it's not the first time this double-standard has come up here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
All these anti-Google arguments are the exact same ones people had against Apple about forking KHTML and making their own browser engine that requires web developers to do extra work. There was no universal rejoicing over another browser engine to test for. Back then Firefox was king (although IE was still the most used) that many scratched their head over why anyone would use Safari, which wasn't supported by many sites over Firefox, which was.
That makes Apple's move to Safari a much worse decision than you're making Blink out to be as Blink is at least a fork from a popular browser (I think WebKit-based browsers are the most commonly installed browser in the world).
So why all the reactionary comments without any high-level considerations? Lets remember that Blink is open-source. If Blink is better than WebKit and the WebKit team can't keep up with Blink then I would want aspects of Blink to be adopted by WebKit, and if that isn't enough then Blink to be adopted by Apple. Just as there is Chrome Frame which allows you to use a native IE browser on Windows but with the Chrome engines I would expect this to happen with Safari on Mac OS X.
PS: I care not for Apple or Google or any other company that makes technology. I only care about having the state of the art and for the state of the art to be constantly pushing ahead as fast as it can possibly go. Usually I buy Apple's products because they are the best in every way for my needs nearly every time, but if their competitor can do better I will not hesitate to buy from them. I guess I'm alone on this front because this thread is filled with people defending Apple's move for progress and pooh-poohing Google's, and it's not the first time this double-standard has come up here.
Neither would have I cared had the Nazis or Imperial Japan had developed a nuclear bomb first, ...neither do I care if Google has roamed through the world shooting Street View while riding an antenna shotgun to peer on people's privacy. All of them were moving the ball forward, and the sooner we get to tech Nirvana the better for the common good...
Why should ethical constraints dictate humanity's glorious march forward towards a dutiful and blissful partnership between technology and the top-down power game...? After all, who or what more appropriate than a Schmidt or a Messerschmidt's wingspan for brushing...themselves safely harbored... a 'clair-obscure' tableau of the human race from high up above ground...
Let the good tech times roll...and solipsism takes its toll...
So Apple forking a browser engine is great but Google doing it equates the murder of millions. Shame on you! :no:
If there was ever any valid argument you have completely destroyed it for everyone against forking of any open-sourced LGPL projects.
Comparing Apple's competitors to the Axis powers in WWII is a bit over the top, don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru
Comparing Apple's competitors to the Axis powers in WWII is a bit over the top, don't you think?
Kind of in line with what I expect from this forum.
Reinforces the idea that Apple is a religion...
http://www.zdnet.com/anthropologist-confirms-apple-is-a-religion-7000006377/
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/05/19/apple.religion/index.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
After seeing this I take back what I said about not hating a company:
Dunno, that's a pretty sweet April fools gag... Turning your boss' Tesla into a pink batmobile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
All these anti-Google arguments are the exact same ones people had against Apple about forking KHTML and making their own browser engine that requires web developers to do extra work. ...
No they aren't. A few people have remarked about that but it has nothing at all to do with what I've written about, and you know that. That's at least 2 straw man responses from you in this thread, increasing my impression that you aren't here for honest discussion, but merely to "hone" your debating skills.
For the love of Pete, are those eyelashes over the headlights?
The tweet didn't state it was an April Fools joke. If that's the case then I like it. I just assumed that was some guady hipster "ironic" choice to make the car as "cool" as possible by making it as ugly as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The tweet didn't state it was an April Fools joke. If that's the case then I like it. I just assumed that was some guady hipster "ironic" choice to make the car as "cool" as possible by making it as ugly as possible.
A few of the comments mentioned it, and seeing as how it's the time of year, and how notorious Google is for pranks (and how manly Sergey Brin is), it only makes sense.
(BTW, the 'manly' comment is in reference to Sergey Brin calling smartphones 'emasculating'...)
Oh yeah, forgot to mention, Russians hate hipsters (but ironically love beards).
Three years ago,[B] "Dear Google: Please fork WebKit"[/B]
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2010/05/06/google-webkit
Forks are a feature of open source, not a bug.
The pink Tesla part? Yes.
Here's a blast from the past. . .
Three years ago, "Dear Google: Please fork WebKit"
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2010/05/06/google-webkit
Oh, i remember this. Haavard logged in his alter-ego to accuse any dissents as a mere product of vodka addiction. Surely those personal and a bit racist attacks were blessed by moderators.
When this did not helped he finally banned my account and, leaving last words for himself, disabled any forth comments.
Good thing was that Opera webmasters always messed what is e-mail, what is password, what is buddy nickname and what is login, so as one surfed through all *.opera.com servers his account got cloned in process and while them banned one my account, they missed the clone they promptly created for me year before. Well, Opera moderators were always fast, when asked by their superiors :-)
Let's play conspiracy! May Google's switch for Blink be a price they paid to corrupt Opera into abandoning Presto ? :-D