Hacker News Reader

> Is Matt (or Google) afraid that other web browsers would block Google properties?

No, they're afraid that other web browsers will fail to implement features that Google needs unless Google has a significant say in the standardisation process by means of having a web browser. They'd be at the mercy of other web browsers for those features otherwise.

What about all those other companies not being Google, Apple and Microsoft?

Do they not get a 'significant say in the standardization process' because they don't have a web browser? And if not why should those who have a web browser get a say? Much less a significant one? The only way this matters is if you extend the capabilities of your browser outside the standards process. So if everybody would follow the standard then that wouldn't be a problem.

No more Microsoft sites that only work with IE (remember Active-X/COM objects?) no more Google using features that are only present in Chrome to cripple Google docs on Firefox.

The implementers, sad as it is, get the final say on what they implement. Standards organisations can standardise whatever they want, but if the implementers don't want to implement stuff they won't. Hence we don't have XForms and all the rest of XHTML 2.0, nobody's implemented Persona despite that being a standard, etc etc.

Google can pressure others to agree to follow a standard by being an implementer, and they do. (There is practically nothing accessible from a general web page on Chrome that isn't defined in a standards document or draft standards document.)

We, unfortunately, don't live in a perfect world where web developers can unilaterally force browser implementers to implement standards - Google is a large company that heavily depends on the web, and needs to be able to do that. For the most part, other companies can contribute to Firefox to get that, but Google likely decided the politics and potential bad PR of that ("Google are taking over Firefox") were not worth it for them.

If everybody merely followed the standard and didn't extend their browser, progress and innovation would slow down quite a bit. At the very least, with Chrome Google put some fire under javascript performance and encryption/SPDY.

Google Chrome adds a competitive edge in the browser market. We need that competition. You want them to be nice? They're being nice to consumers. Do they collect data about which sites we go to? Well I'm pretty sure that they have opt-in programs for that but that's not by default. Unless you can show otherwise.

> Without Chrome, we’d be at the mercy of Internet Explorer or other web browsers when users want to get to Google.

Chrome on Windows Phone please.

>I never saw Chrome as the way for Google to ascertain that the general public can have unfettered access to Google properties, I saw - and see - Chrome as a way to extend the Google eco-system onto the end users device, and to gain access to URLs that otherwise would remain hidden from Google to reduce the 'dark web' as seen through Google as well as a way to track users on pages that don't have Google Analytics installed. When technically speaking it really shouldn't matter what browser the users uses, as long as it is standards compliant it should simply work.

Agreed, things like Chrome and Android appear to be moats against a new search engine not being able to compete on a level playing field. For example, on Android, in order to get access to the Play Store and other Google APIs, OEMs are forced to ship only Google as the default search provider.

From http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/new-android-oem-licen...

>The agreement is basically a laundry list of "dos and don'ts" for licensing Google apps. The terms at the time covered the "Set-up Wizard, Google Phone-top Search, Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Talk, YouTube, Google Maps for Mobile, Google Street View, Contact Sync, Android Market Client (not products downloaded from Android Market

>The most important clause states that "Devices may only be distributed if all Google Applications... are pre-installed on the Device." Google apps are an all-or-nothing affair. If you want Google Maps or the Play Store, you must also take things like Google+ and Google's network location provider

>Google's Network Location Provider must not only be included, but set as the default network location provider; this is no doubt the clause that triggered a lawsuit from rival location company Skyhook.

Deleted comment

60fps video works in Firefox Nightly, though it still has issues if the connection has troubles. The about:config property is media.mediasource.enabled.

Tracking bug is here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=mse