171–180 of 319 posts
I find that if you can't speak frankly and avoid trouble, then you need to give a long hard thought to what you're doing. A terd is still a terd by any other name.
-- Eric Schmidt, FormerGoogle CEO, 2009
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmid...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why we originally had an IETF and RFC's were publicly commented on and why standards are supposed to be company agnostic. The whole proprietary-APIs-over-HTTP was a giant step back. Before we did that interop between internet based applications was far more common and supported. Now every company treats 'their users' as their own private little walled garden when before 'your users' were not so much cows to mi…
I'm not convinced, though there are, obviously, advantages to RFCs and IETF. The primary disadvantage is speed. A private corporation innovating on its full stack can come up with a faster and more secure HTTP alternative for their use case in the time it takes the RFC process to get up in the morning and find its shoes. Google has a streamed cloud gaming service running in its web browser right now; how long would i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And people wonder why kubernetes/Anthos is a thing...
umm, what's anthos? I thought I'm well versed in k8s-onomy, but it seems I've missed this :o And worse, none of the search results are helpful!
Google (okay, Alphabet) is the only big tech company that I can imagine would ultimately _benefit_ from an antitrust breakup. Google keeps killing low-to-medium profitable smaller product lines and tools because it can't spin them off successfully. Google can't spin off tools successfully because their internal codebases are deeply reliant on assumptions about Google's infrastructure and Google internal libraries, et…
It's not even so much about protecting the secret sauce as protecting user data. Every tool interfacing to the Google backend is a potential attack vector. When the time comes that nobody's willing to bear the cost to keep it updated as the core infrastructure changes, the product dies. In a world where Google is split up, that'll still be true; it'll look more like "Google CoreCloud has just changed API foo to prote…
who says that 'search' has to be a consolidated system that needs to be paid for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if years later you do succeed?
Regulators are looking for language that abuses an existing monopoly. Intent to create a monopoly is not evidence for the existence of one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not even so much about protecting the secret sauce as protecting user data. Every tool interfacing to the Google backend is a potential attack vector. When the time comes that nobody's willing to bear the cost to keep it updated as the core infrastructure changes, the product dies. In a world where Google is split up, that'll still be true; it'll look more like "Google CoreCloud has just changed API foo to prote…
> Who pays for search If search is of value to you, the user, wouldn't you, the user, be willing to pay for it?
Much of India will pay $1/mo
Most people will pay $.1/month
What will the price be?
Then wouldn't a court, whenever it sees "User Preference for Google Search" or any other similar euphemism, simply treat it as meaning "market share"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why we originally had an IETF and RFC's were publicly commented on and why standards are supposed to be company agnostic. The whole proprietary-APIs-over-HTTP was a giant step back. Before we did that interop between internet based applications was far more common and supported. Now every company treats 'their users' as their own private little walled garden when before 'your users' were not so much cows to mi…
I'm not convinced, though there are, obviously, advantages to RFCs and IETF. The primary disadvantage is speed. A private corporation innovating on its full stack can come up with a faster and more secure HTTP alternative for their use case in the time it takes the RFC process to get up in the morning and find its shoes. Google has a streamed cloud gaming service running in its web browser right now; how long would i…
But...that's part of standards process. It's quite common for the actors like Google to propose a new/revised standard after implementing it independently SPDY (became HTTP/2), HTTP over QUIC (became HTTP/3), Web SQL DB (became dead, but still started the standardization process), etc., all went this route.
So being a monopolist comes with quite the potential costs. Employees now have to memorize meaningless, if not just plain wrong, synonyms. Not to talk about the miscommunication this might cause. Did any of you working for big-corp ever experience problems caused by this language use?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who pays for search If search is of value to you, the user, wouldn't you, the user, be willing to pay for it?
I'm willing to pay $5/mo Much of India will pay $1/mo Most people will pay $.1/month What will the price be?