It's slightly different because Google is in a relatively unique position of being able to unilaterally deploy new technology, as they both serve a large fraction of the traffic on the internet, and have a very popular browser.

Mozilla is understandably wary about new technologies from Google, because it would be very easy for them to make it so that the best youtube experience can only happen in chrome, which would be quite detrimental to Mozilla.

Just because they can do large deployments doesn't mean it will be successful. Look at what happened with Buzz and Wave for example.

Likewise, Mozilla is in a unique position in that they prefer the status quo - having Brendan Eich on board with them - and they can easily maintain the status quo by refusing to support other party's efforts.

>Mozilla is understandably wary about new technologies from Google, because it would be very easy for them to make it so that the best youtube experience can only happen in chrome, which would be quite detrimental to Mozilla.

Surely Mozilla adoption of Dart or NaCl would make this less likely, not more.

If they can keep up. Google has the deep pockets to add a new, complex feature to the browser every other week - they don't have to be better than current tools (though they very well may be) just completely different. If Mozilla just tried to chase and implement every one, not only would they set a pattern of being willing to follow, which would lead to them being expected to follow, but they also have less money and manpower, so they would implement those new GoogleThings(TM) badly. They wouldn't have time for their own stuff, so their only option left would be to follow badly and be nothing but the company that implements Google stuff with a slightly more liberal license. They would lose all market share to Chrome for being a shitty imitation of Chrome, and eventually cease to exist.

So there's an incentive to intensely scrutinize everything that Google is trying to do, and only to implement the best stuff. And let Mozilla's projects be specs, or in javascript, or be protocols, and sell the other browsers on them, hopefully getting other vendors like MS, Apple, Google, and Opera to think they're neat enough to buy in.

Though friendly, here's an inherent asymmetry in the relationship between Mozilla and Google. Mozilla should throw around its little market power as hard as it can.

Thanks for replying to a strawman version of what I said.

Hardly. Your argument is a caricature of itself. Success and the mere capability to engage in purely hypothetical anti-competitive behaviors suddenly means ordinary innovation practices are evil.

Presumably at this point Mozilla would like to join Microsoft in one of its various anti-trust complaints against Google for having dared to offer users better products.

So long as google is storing the password to my network in plain text on its servers just because I let one of my friends access my network, they do not get to boast about innovation. I cannot clearly express the loss of respect that action has engendered.

Not to defend Google, but... set up a guest network.

heh. yes, I could setup a guest network to workaround the fact that google stores my network access passwords in plain text on their servers whenever I allow someone using their software on my network.

or they could stop betraying the trust of their users. I mean, seriously. It would be one thing if they were 'only' totally compromising the network security of people who chose to use their software. But they are compromising the security of anyone with a network who lets their friends and family on board.

My network isn't a problem one way or another, I am actually fairly comfortable with the protections it has. OTOH the networks of non-techy people and family across the entire world that have been compromised by google's astounding arrogance(?) and stupidity(?) kind of bother me.

Honestly, I do not understand how an entirely tech oriented organisation like Google could do something like this. I am Jacks bewildered confusion.

Like I said, I am not arguing that Google did right. I'm just saying, if you're handing out a single key to people with arbitrary configurations you should probably assume it's compromised. Your friends could just as well have had some other malware.

yes, that is a generally correct statement.

That isn't the same at all: Mozilla and Google are producing actual products that embody competing standards, and both Google and Mozilla have a lot of power/control over "what comes next". Given both Google and Mozilla's track records, I'd say that Mozilla's concern is warranted.

Your analogy might work better if Mozilla was a non-practicing committee that brought a competing standard with no implementation out much later.