Hacker News Reader

This. As much as I personally don't like JavaScript, it's not up to me whether it exists and is used, and having an advertising company de facto in charge of how people perceive its implementation simply isn't a Good Thing for the web in general.

> Google, through V8, Chromium, Chrome, Chrome OS, Android, and Dart, has a large say in the future of the web platform, browsers, apps, the future of Javascript, etc.

> Time and time again, Google has used their substantial influence and market share to make unilateral decisions affecting the web platform [1][2][3][4][5][6]; the individual merits of each decision notwithstanding, Google can do just about anything and it will affect enough of the userbase that others must compensate or follow suit.

Funny, that 15 years ago you could say the exact same thing about Microsoft. Google's increasingly like the old Microsoft.

And before Microsoft maybe IBM or DEC.

What is strange is that many still don't get these cycles. :)

I think all 6 of those examples are good decisions on Google's part. Google has a heavy stake in making sure the web runs great. Chrome holds a large share of the browser market, but it doesn't control a controlling share.

I'm all for MS releasing a competing open source JS engine. Personally I have been burned so many times by MS in the past when they had "substantial influence" I have no interest in using it.

> Google has a heavy stake in making sure the web runs great.

Google has a heavy stake in making sure people keep using Google.com and it's associated services.

Yes they also have that, however Google.com is a search engine for the web. If users stop using the web, they stop using their search engine.

Not if they use Android or ChromeOS, they will just use the G App instead.

Then this isn't really about V8 anymore and the web and as far as that's concerned MS is already extremely dominant.

Depends on what one understands for web.

For me, the network protocols are what actually matters.

An on the mobile space for the time being, Apple and Google rule.

The whole "do no evil" mantra was only a thing while they were a small startup looking for geek credo across SV Starbucks.

After GMail, Web Search, Chrome and Android, they are just like any other corporation out there.

#5 and #6 are even worse, because it basically means Google can dictate whatever terms onto you, if you develop a competing browser.

As VP9 is heavily patented, and the license only allows you to use it if you don't ever sue Google, you're out of luck if Google ever fucks you over somewhere else.

The alternative is worse(H.264)

H.264 is worse, but at least it's available with pretty straightforward license terms (just pay).

VP.9's license might actually violate antitrust laws.

VP9 is a open and royalty free video coding format. You are safe as long as you don't sue Google for VP9 patent infringements. It seems to target MPEG so that if they sue Google their license is revoked and Google can claim patents infringements as well. That being said I take VP9 anytime over h.264. It's not only about the payment to MPEG but your license can also be revoked or not granted in the first place. How f is that compared to VP9?

Yes, but imagine you're a startup which has developed a bunch of awesome new algorithms, and patented them.

And now you want to use them in combination with VP.9.

As soon as you do, Google can use your algorithms and patents without ever paying you, and you can't sue them for it, or your product can't use VP.9 anymore.

How fucked up is that? That's a huge cost there for startups that's always treated as "free" while in reality it can be selling out your entire product for a video codec.

Something tells me that you are wrong. Just because Edge is shipped with VP9 support that doesn't mean the MS grants all the windows patents to Google, right? Of course if you want to develop a VP9++ and patent it that could be an issue but I don't think that's necessary a bad thing for the codecs industry. Last thing I want is another proprietary codec to lock the content on specific players.

> H.264 is worse, but at least it's available with pretty straightforward license terms (just pay).

That's pretty much discriminating against a wide range of software - namely Free and Open Source. VP9 on the other hand, is compatible with a such development model.

Sure, yet VP9 is discriminating against about every startup with innovative patented algorithms that also wants to support VP.9

At the example of Pied Piper from SiliconValley: If they used VP.9 for video encoding before compressing and sending it, Google/hooli would now have the right to use their (potentially) patented algorithm for whatever they want, without ever getting sued.

Now that's great, eh?

The VPx cross-license does not work that way.

You are granted patents to use VPx (you can not use these patents outside VPx scope) and you are granting patents necessary to use VPx[1]. If you have some other patents that are not necessary for the VPx, they are not subject of the cross-license.

[1] - "that must necessarily be infringed by the act of Exploiting Licensed Products in the Licensed Field of Use"

Surely is only so long as you don't sue google over VP9 codec issues. It can't be a blanket "Never be sue'd" statement.

These patents are all about a corporate cold war esque standoff and a licence term like that to me sounds like a dead hand.

It is a blanket "Never be sued over any patents" statement.

That makes it quite problematic, because if you, as a company, want to implement WebRTC compatible with Chrome, Google can now use all your patents for free, and you can't do anything about it.

It heavily surpresses innovation in the sector - existing big players can easily make a patent deal, but a new startup?