Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Apr 2013 22:27 UTC
Google It's apparently browser engine day today. After Mozilla and Samsung announcing Servo, Google has just announced it's forking WebKit into Blink. Like WebKit, Blink will be open source, and it will also be used by other browser makers - most prominently, Opera has already announced it's not using WebKit, but Blink. Update: Courtesy of MacRumors, this graph illustrates how just how much Google contributed to WebKit. Much more than I thought. Also, Chrome developer Alex Russell: "To make a better platform faster, you must be able to iterate faster. Steps away from that are steps away from a better platform. Today's WebKit defeats that imperative in ways large and small. It's not anybody's fault, but it does need to change. And changing it will allow us to iterate faster, working through the annealing process that takes a good idea from drawing board to API to refined feature."
Thread beginning with comment 557653
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Is Blink Open Source?
by Tony Swash on Thu 4th Apr 2013 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Is Blink Open Source?"
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Nonsense. An effective platform is one that makes it easy to get things done. You just described an expensive platform. Or profitable, depending on which side of the table you're on. For you, it's merely more expensive.


I think you are confusing why one chooses a platform for oneself and why one platform is a more successful platform in the world at large.

Think of it this way. One of the successes of the Windows platform was that it had a much larger developer base and hence better and more varied software. That was because Windows users out numbered Mac users and both sets of users had very similar per capita software purchasing profiles and thus the extra Windows users translated into the Windows platform being a large, much more lucrative and hence attractive platform for developers.

Now imagine a situation where Mac users spent on average, say, ten times as much as Windows users on software. Under those circumstances Mac would have equalled Windows as a commercial target for developers and the result would have been equal developer investment in each platform and Windows would have not had any software advantage

I am only using software as an example, in fact almost all additional benefits of any given platform ultimately flows from third party investment in that platform which in turn hinges on the commercial attractiveness of that platform. Remember also that we are talking about a mobile related commercial ecosystem which is already bigger than the PC commercial ecosystem and will grow much larger. Hundreds of billions are at stake. The commercial per capita utilisation rate of iOS is no small thing.

Reply Parent Score: 0

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Yes, and you're still wrong. Windows got where it is because it's a powerful platform to Get Things Done (especially for developers), not because it's got an app store. With iOS, there's plenty of commercial activity because the platform is so poor. For just about everything, You Need an App for That. But wait, for so many things, there's no app at all, because Apple won't allow it. You can't even get a half-decent keyboard, for instance. So it's more expensive, and a less efficient platform (to get things done). It's certainly not where you find innovation today.

For how much longer do you think Apple can keep up momentum based on being more expensive alone? It's not how things work. It may be easier to sell things on iOS, but it's certainly getting more and more difficult to find an excuse to buy. iOS isn't a platform, it's just a cheap warehouse with an expensive entrance fee. Oh, and you have to buy stuff, just to get by.

I'm pretty sure that's not a viable way to run a warehouse, never mind a computing platform.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Yes, and you're still wrong. Windows got where it is because it's a powerful platform to Get Things Done (especially for developers), not because it's got an app store. With iOS, there's plenty of commercial activity because the platform is so poor. For just about everything, You Need an App for That. But wait, for so many things, there's no app at all, because Apple won't allow it. You can't even get a half-decent keyboard, for instance. So it's more expensive, and a less efficient platform (to get things done). It's certainly not where you find innovation today.

For how much longer do you think Apple can keep up momentum based on being more expensive alone? It's not how things work. It may be easier to sell things on iOS, but it's certainly getting more and more difficult to find an excuse to buy. iOS isn't a platform, it's just a cheap warehouse with an expensive entrance fee. Oh, and you have to buy stuff, just to get by.

I'm pretty sure that's not a viable way to run a warehouse, never mind a computing platform.


So much ignorance about tech history and about how platforms function in the real world and the real economy.

I guess I just don't think that having greater commercial activity associated with a platform is a sign of weakness and that having less value in an ecosystem is a sign of strength.

Reply Parent Score: 0