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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @plinss @mikesherov and
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!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 @slightlylate and
"there’s no need for competing engines with other approaches, needs, and viewpoints”. Literally no one is saying this!!!!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mikesherov @plinss and
Certainly not me! And I'd like for us to all have a more nuanced view of the way different approaches, needs, and viewpoints can be accommodated beyond simple repo location.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
E.g., Brave and Samsung Internet take very different views on some web features from Chrome, but all use Blink. Is that diversity not real? Not useful? Overfocusing on engine lineage leaves us somewhat blind to the full range of diversity we should be looking to encourage.
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.