I'm not making claims that monoculture is good *or* bad. It presents risk, tho. In MSFTs example, big realised risk was disinvestment. On Gecko; wasn't NN/Mozilla's shipping engine until the 00s, right? I ran the nightlies, but it wasn't 1.0 until 2002, IIRC.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @plinss and
So what is an ideal scenario? Imagine multiple engines all compatible about 99% of features all the time, exploring the frontier of new features separately, but safely, then quickly converging. Assuming such a scenario represents a competitive platform, that's pretty
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @plinss and
To enable that ideal scenario, Blink invests massively in compat, tests, OT infra, process, etc. One concern now is that we've done a huge amount to get compat for existing features but are pulling away on investment levels for new work, endangering competitiveness.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @plinss and
Investment levels predict outcomes. Multiple impls require multiples on base impl investment + fixed compat (tests, standards) overhead. Our proprietary competition doesn't bear these costs. OSS is one cost-sharing approach; we can imagine others.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @plinss and
In a scenario where the web is succeeding, all of these costs are investments in resilience. In scenarios where it's losing, they look more like competitive drag. So we should try to situate ourselves in the competitive analysis and weigh up risks from that perspective.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @plinss and
I wonder if maybe we'd benefit from some independent reliable source of data and analysis on the health and competitiveness of the web platform? I respect the "we shouldn't believe the web is in trouble just because Google says so" argument.
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @RickByers @slightlylate and
Data I’ve seen seem great. Desktop web is obv fine. Mobile web: users spend a huge % of their time on a tiny number of apps (Facebook, Twitter, Insta) and use the web for most other things. I don’t see the problem, but I’m not Google so I may not be looking for the right things
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @AdamRackis @RickByers and
Even if "Web" is losing v. "native" (category error, see next tweet), the record over ten years of overheated claims to push stuff (remember SOE and O.o? I do) that clearly 1/ wasn't ready; 2/ wouldn't help v native much or at all, disqualifies Google from being in sole overboss.
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @AdamRackis and
"overheated" suggests we aren't *actually* losing (badly) on mobile and that perf isn't a major component. Could be your view, but very much not mine.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @AdamRackis and
Need that neutral data Rick asked for. VisionMobile (bought and renamed) used to do studies. In meantime, less yappin more (bug) zappin. Later dude!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
ComScore still does:https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations-and-Whitepapers/2019/Global-State-of-Mobile …
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @AdamRackis and
FB has captive 2B-people audience, discount it. Work tail bogo-apps we all hate & I avoid (4 homescreens, time to cull). What makes them think they need native? Work the list in the standards bodies (I don't think WC V0 or O.o or SOE were ever top 10). Boring grunt work; so what?
0 replies 1 retweet 4 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.