Remix.run Logo
nottorp 4 days ago

> pushing HTTPS throughout the stack

Barriers to entry for self hosted sites. Easier to host with Google now.

> Large speed improvements, including V8, HTTP/2, HTTP/3, Brotli.

HTTP/whatever was done only for Google's benefit.

> Web standards, including work on HTML5, JS standardization, web assembly, CSS flexbox and grid, webrtc.

If they're so standard why do people develop for Chrome and ignore other browsers?

jefftk 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Barriers to entry for self hosted sites. Easier to host with Google now.

Let's Encrypt (which Google helped fund) is the opposite of a barrier to entry. Free domain-validated fully automated HTTPS cert distribution wasn't a thing, and now it is. It makes it way easier to self host in a post-PRISM world.

Also, Google does a tiny fraction of overall web hosting.

> HTTP/whatever was done only for Google's benefit.

Your claim is that everything Google has done has been worse for the web, so you don't get to pick individual tech that's clearly good (ex: V8) and ignore it. And whether things were done for Google's benefit is also irrelevant: the claim is about outcomes.

On the specific question of HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, these have made large improvements in end-to-end loading times across the web, including when Google is at neither end of the connection, and especially for high latency connections like mobile.

> If they're so standard why do people develop for Chrome and ignore other browsers?

All of the things I listed are widely supported and fully standardized.

There are other parts of the web platform that aren't, and that does push people to Chrome, but that's not what we're talking about.

Again, if you'd like to claim Google's impact has been bad on net that's much more arguable, but your claim is way stronger than that.

nottorp 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Free domain-validated fully automated HTTPS cert distribution wasn't a thing, and now it is.

Free compulsory ...

warkdarrior 4 days ago | parent [-]

It is not compulsory. The browser may warn about lack of HTTPS, but that's about it.

And I won't visit such HTTP-only site since it indicates the site owner does not care to protect my (meta)data, but they probably don't want my clicks.

nottorp 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

And would you think this way if they didn't spam the "accept the risk and continue" scareware?

Why is it phrased as the risk is coming from the web site, when the risk actually comes from the backbone and whoever is able to intercept your communications?

cookie_monsta 4 days ago | parent [-]

(paraphrasing from memory because it's a while since I've seen it)

> Your connection is insecure. Information you send could be intercepted by attackers. Accept the risk and continue?

Explains the problem in simple terms. Calls out the website for being lazy and careless. Gives you the option to proceed if you don't care.

Why is this scareware and how would you word it?

4 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
charcircuit 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>If they're so standard why do people develop for Chrome and ignore other browsers?

Because in practice each browser is a separate app platform with support of different features and with different performance profiles. From a business perspective for a business to expand to a new app platform there must be some sort of justification to do so. As an extreme example think of why don't websites also remake their site on Roblox for example? Supporting a product on an app platform well is expensive and not all platforms can justify that expense.

nottorp 4 days ago | parent [-]

But ... i thought Google was standardizing the web.

Would they be introducing features to their browser at a speed no one else can match just to create a lock in effect instead?

And are those features benefiting every site or are they targeted towards Google properties?

charcircuit 4 days ago | parent [-]

They are standardizing the web.

>just to create a lock in effect instead?

No, developers requesting features and expressing pain points are a major motivator of changes.

>And are those features benefiting every site or are they targeted towards Google properties?

They are targeted towards web developers to enable them to create good experiences for end users.