Irrelevance for whom? Maybe not being able to use the web as a tool, to compete with native platforms makes it irrelevant for Google, but Google doesn’t speaks for everyone. Without engine diversity the web is no longer open, and that is its largest appeal over native.
-
-
Replying to @Kevin_Kamimura @RickByers and
Engine diversity absolutists need to describe what concrete benefits it provides that can't be achieved other ways in the medium-term (e.g., OSS forking, which has created huge divergence in the KHTML-lineage engines)
8 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @Kevin_Kamimura and
This is unworthy of you, Alex.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @torgo @Kevin_Kamimura and
Asking that we understand our values, rather than simply using them as a cudgel? I hope not.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @torgo and
FWIW, I can make a strong case for engine diversity (ceteris paribus), but not one that trumps platform competitiveness. The mental exercises to demonstrate where you personally come down on this aren't hard to conjure.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @torgo and
In plain language, Web competes with Native. Google has a native platform but with as little lock in as possible (no hardware, payments nor browser lock in). Apple has a native platform with complete hardware, revenue and browser lock-in. Which do you think wants Web to win? 1/2
2 replies 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @mikesherov @slightlylate and
Not nefariously, but Apple has less incentive in the web winning, and underinvests in Safari. Now, imagine Google, trying desperately to get the Web to win, but gets beat up for it because it doesn't always wait for perfect consensus. Again, G err'd with aSS, but not much more.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @mikesherov @slightlylate and
The problem with “wanting the web to win”, but not being willing to wait for consensus about what the web *should be* is that it turn the _open_ web into Google’s web. Which is just another way of destroying the web.
2 replies 13 retweets 33 likes -
Replying to @plinss @slightlylate and
Again, it depends what you mean by consensus! Do you mean full absolutely zero detractors every time consensus? Even given unequal investment and motivation from all participants? Or do you mean Rough Consensus, where sometimes a thing has to move from theory to reality to learn?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mikesherov @slightlylate and
Consensus doesn’t mean unanimity, but it has to mean more than “what Google thinks is a good idea”. Google has some great engineers, but they’re not always right, and can’t possibly take everyone else’s needs and views into account in isolation.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
We force our engineers through this laborious, time-consuming, open process and challenge them to show their work *exactly* because we know we're likely to be wrong in some ways. The TAG gets consulted *for this very reason*. We're us-skeptics too!
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @mikesherov and
And that is appreciated more than you realize, but it doesn’t equate to “we’re doing this well enough that there’s no need for competing engines with other approaches, needs, and viewpoints”.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @plinss @mikesherov and
Again, that's categorically not what happened here (because our process works to prevent it). Follow the links and look at the evidence: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/308 … https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!msg/blink-dev/irhrlr6n5YQ/LOS8xSGsBwAJ …https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!topic/blink-dev/gL2EVBzO5og/discussion …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 14 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.