• kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    Kinda missing the point here.

    One company shouldn’t be able to pick winners and losers for file formats or protocols.

    Google has done it over and over again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC

    Pretty sweet gig, being able to give yourself an 8-year head-start.

    • kopasz7@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 days ago

      They released the gQUIC reference implementation under the BSD-3 licence. What would have been your preferred way?

      Google is a monopoly, consequently most of their in-house tech will make waves if they decide to use it.

      Or are you suggesting a nefarious purpose, like MS’s EEE?

      • kibiz0r@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        There’s not really a better way when you’re a monopoly. That’s the problem.

        With QUIC and with webp, there was no period of time where the new protocol/format had to compete against other experimental options to see which would win out.

        Because Google put it out, and they control an overwhelming share of clients and servers, they were both a foregone conclusion. Google released it, so now it’s a standard. Other companies can either adopt it or fall behind.

        This allows them to stack the deck in favor of their portfolio, even if other options were technically superior.

        • socsa@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 days ago

          I mean the alternative is what Microsoft does with xml documents where they participate in the standards committee, release a reference implementation, and then intentionally break it in Office so idiots whine about open tools “not rendering correctly”