Re:“Please let me know if I should stop developing apps for ...
by foxylad on Monday August 05, 2013 @10:08PM
(#6164451)
To be fair, I think there was a mix of altruism and self-interest with both technologies. Without WebM being a credible alternative, I think we'd have seen H264 licensing tighten up considerably.
And the fact that SPDY was developed unilaterally doesn't take away from Google's generosity in making it available to the world. It's generally well-regarded, and Google haven't attempted to limit it's use by other browsers in any way - much the opposite. Can you imagine Microsoft doing the same when they were the dominant browser?
Again, I'm not saying they introduced either of these technologies from pure altruism. But I am saying I'm glad they exist, and Google's approach to IP is a welcome breath of fresh air (so far).
Re:“Please let me know if I should stop developing apps for ...
by acdha on Monday August 05, 2013 @09:49PM
(#6164401)
It's wrong to place SPDY in the same class as WebM: it actually provides a significant, meaningful benefit versus the status quo. The performance benefits alone are worth deploying it for most sites and it's having a big, positive influence on the standards process as people learn from real-world deployment experience and start discussing how it makes web development better.
WebM is just an pointless nuisance. The world already has a open, video standard that is widely supported, technically superior and stewarded by a wide array of competing companies. And it's only royalty free because nobody can be bothered to sue them yet. It definitely is patent encumbered (see MPEG-LA's recent 'gift' of patents to VP8).
SPDY was another technology that was developed by Google unilaterally instead of working through the existing IETF process. If Google didn't own Chrome it simply would have never taken of.