Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google.
Given Google's history around this whole HTTP/2.0 shenanigans, I see little reason to see anything in their favour.
They are probably gambling that Firefox will fold (like they forced them to with DRM) so that once again, they can have it their way internet-wide without having to wait for annoying things like feedback from others and standards-committees and such.
They will probably win.
People always bring up the fact that there is some value currently provided by Google's payment to Firefox like there's no problem with the vast majority of the Mozilla Foundation's funding coming from a competing entity. It's still a dangerous situation, even if Google is in a position where they're willing to continue paying the "default search engine" toll for the time being. Even their willingness to do that is compassionate, because we all know that Firefox would only harm itself by switching to another default search provider.
I still hope Mozilla is investing the money wisely, because this arrangement is temporary in any case. And I'm hopeful that FirefoxOS takes off!
It sounds overly mischievous though (and I doubt Mozilla will bend), so my bet is that it's a mistake.
> But none of this answers the original question: why do we have an <img> element? Why not an <icon> element? Or an <include> element? Why not a hyperlink with an include attribute, or some combination of rel values? Why an <img> element? Quite simply, because Marc Andreessen shipped one, and shipping code wins.
> That’s not to say that all shipping code wins; after all, Andrew and Intermedia and HyTime shipped code too. Code is necessary but not sufficient for success. And I certainly don’t mean to say that shipping code before a standard will produce the best solution. Marc’s <img> element didn’t mandate a common graphics format; it didn’t define how text flowed around it; it didn’t support text alternatives or fallback content for older browsers. And 17 years later, we’re still struggling with content sniffing, and it’s still a source of crazy security vulnerabilities. And you can trace that all the way back, 17 years, through the Great Browser Wars, all the way back to February 25, 1993, when Marc Andreessen offhandedly remarked, “MIME, someday, maybe,” and then shipped his code anyway.
> The ones that win are the ones that ship.
I'm not convinced it's a mistake, and it wouldn't be the first time a browser maker tried to influence the direction of web.
This whole thread is just full of some weird anti-Google paranoia way beyond any healthy level of scepticism.