How does dropping XMPP support give them more over XMPP? Etc.
Usually the concern is over things they continue to own in some way. Like your Chrome example.
But the Chrome example doesn’t really apply nearly as much as the XMPP would. And I’m not getting the point being made about how this allows them undue control.
Basically, once Google had most of the regular users, and had convinced many of the XMPP users to switch to them, they just cut off support for xmpp, effectively neutering any growth it may have had without their influence.
To compare that to webp, it would be pretty easy for them to fork their webp into a closed source “2.0” and most everyone would be switched over to that version without even having a say in it. Sure, original WebP would still exist, but since nobody uses/supports it, it’s basically dead in the water anyways. This sounds awful and unlikely, but it’s literally in their playbook, and it is a thing they have done several times. Android, chrome, XMPP, etc…
It’s just as likely that Google keeps WebP as open standard for all time as it is that Google remakes it into a closed source tool that only their closed systems can use. The fact that they have a history of being awful is why we need to keep competing standards around, even if they’re just not as good or as widely spread around.
Yeah but it doesn’t matter if Google developed webP. They can make their own 2.0 version of any open standard. That’s why the comment you replied to was replying to is nonsense
Also, they regularly try to sidestep the W3C web standards commission or use their market position to influence W3C standards to push for their own standards over competing standards. I feel this point cannot be understated that their attempts to dictate web standards to their benefit directly undermines user choice and truly free standards that aren’t open to undue influence from one company with market dominance.
How does dropping XMPP support give them more over XMPP? Etc.
Usually the concern is over things they continue to own in some way. Like your Chrome example.
But the Chrome example doesn’t really apply nearly as much as the XMPP would. And I’m not getting the point being made about how this allows them undue control.
I wasn’t there for it, but this opinion piece has a pretty good story about the whole thing. https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
Basically, once Google had most of the regular users, and had convinced many of the XMPP users to switch to them, they just cut off support for xmpp, effectively neutering any growth it may have had without their influence.
To compare that to webp, it would be pretty easy for them to fork their webp into a closed source “2.0” and most everyone would be switched over to that version without even having a say in it. Sure, original WebP would still exist, but since nobody uses/supports it, it’s basically dead in the water anyways. This sounds awful and unlikely, but it’s literally in their playbook, and it is a thing they have done several times. Android, chrome, XMPP, etc…
It’s just as likely that Google keeps WebP as open standard for all time as it is that Google remakes it into a closed source tool that only their closed systems can use. The fact that they have a history of being awful is why we need to keep competing standards around, even if they’re just not as good or as widely spread around.
Is there a single instance of Google closed sourcing any project that they themselves open sourced?
Yeah but it doesn’t matter if Google developed webP. They can make their own 2.0 version of any open standard. That’s why the comment you replied to was replying to is nonsense
Also, they regularly try to sidestep the W3C web standards commission or use their market position to influence W3C standards to push for their own standards over competing standards. I feel this point cannot be understated that their attempts to dictate web standards to their benefit directly undermines user choice and truly free standards that aren’t open to undue influence from one company with market dominance.