In the same vain, Chrome does break web by introducing various custom features that can't be found in other browsers. See all those Google demos from past several years: "You need Chrome to view this" sounds very much like those "IE5+" warnings.
The "Chrome Experiments" was a way to show off the WebGL capability in chrome that no other browsers had at the time. (Now those demos will mostly work in all browsers)
Plus you are forgetting that those are experiments. They were never really meant to be actual "apps". Making an experiment/demo for one browser is fine IMO. Especially when only 1 or 2 browsers have implemented the standard currently.
It's like webRTC. I made a "demo" webRTC app about a year ago, and it only worked in chrome OR firefox (but they couldn't talk to each other). That's not chrome or firefox breaking the web, that's the other browsers not being at the cutting edge, but i don't blame them. WebRTC was (and still is) VERY new, it wasn't even finalized and i was using the app as a bit of a tech demo to see what may be possible in the near future.
The chrome experiments were the same way. WebGL wasn't fully finalized, it was one of the first implementations of it, and people wanted to try it out, so Chrome Experiments was born.
I'm thinking, its almost time to consider WebRTC 'failure to achieve traction'?
> still not widely adopted
Certainly everyone involved with WebRTC wishes that it had the support of IE and Safari, but Chrome + Firefox + Opera is nothing to sneeze at, particularly if you're targeting a savvy audience.
> Original two are not compatible
Maybe I'm confused, are you saying that Firefox and Chrome aren't compatible via WebRTC? I've used them together and had success, but just for basic video calling.
> not adopted in a single further browser in that time
This is fair, but if Microsoft's latest moves come to fruition that will be a big change. There are hints that Edge will likely support WebRTC[0], though I don't think there has been any official word. Maybe that's just for ORTC?
[0]:http://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/05/13/announcing-med...
Other products can do this. WebRTC suffers from being based on RTP/RTCP and SIP-style signaling. There's not enough juice there to get the job done.
AFAIK this is being fixed. Firefox should support the standard and Chrome is fixing their implementation to conform as well.
The ability to do peer-to-peer communication from the browser is an amazing tool. It allows the creation of client-side-only web apps which can easily send massive amounts of data to others. With WebRTC (or any other service like it) you can add video chat to a web app with very little work, and no real server side infrastructure that is more secure than the alternatives.
If it needs to be re-done in the name of getting it implemented widely that's fine with me and i welcome it, but if it's just NIH syndrome at microsoft holding it back, that's not okay.
I've been dealing with the code base for 5 years, and never liked it. Had to rewrite the APIs every time we got a new source version, to fit our model which isn't the 'conference call' model. I'd be glad to see something more app-agnostic that just dealt with negotiating P2P streams, without so many assumptions about what/why/when the streams are.
WebGL is a good comparison here - it was pretty dead before Apple implemented it. When they did (in iOS8) you started seeing a ton more WebGL things popping up.
Maybe some of the good ideas will end up in an improved WebRTC standard, but ORTC itself is not "the new version".
That said, there are some cases where things are Chrome-only simply because other vendors are far behind. (eg. speech recognition & synthesis)
I'm in sympathy with the spirit of this post, but I'm not sure that I agree with this specific example. I think that there's a big difference between an 'everyday' web page requiring a specific browser, and the creator of a browser showing off what they see as its exceptional capabilities.
However much designers (and users) like adherence to standards, I think that it's clear that a lot of the innovations we take for granted have come from browsers leading the way; and there's not much point in having those innovations in the browser if the user doesn't know about them.
(I should be clear that I'm not advocating a functionality free-for-all, though; probably much more harm than good has come from this behaviour.)
That said, I was just playing with Edge on Win10. Its like a pre-bundled Chrome. Fast, compliant, etc. It hilariously even breaks MS software, for example, I can't open the address book in Outlook Web Access because some deprecated html control that Chrome no longer supports. So if Chrome no longer supports, Edge doesn't either!
I guess we'll see if extensions ever take off for it. If they do I could see it hurting Chrome's marketshare. Personally, the Chrome/Google juggernaut needs to be knocked down a peg or two. I hope Edge gets popular just to keep Google's sometimes anti-consumer ambitions in check. For example, using FF in Android means Play Store links don't work right and a million other things. Google isn't incentivized to make alternative browsers work well in Android. They want use to use Chrome and all of its spying/tracking/marketing stuff cooked in.
But it's still better than Safari's IndexedDB support, though, even though they've basically not touched it since IE10!