Metaphor ping pong aside :) ... as a complete stranger to the TAG "scene" can someone explain why MSFT wouldn't be happy to simply counter Google's move and add another sponsored person of their own to the TAG? Why couldn't Mozilla do that, too? There is no universal +1 problem. Every vendor can afford to have another employee dedicated to TAG. It's well within their means. I'm just trying to understand why would anyone assume that Google or some other vendor could have an unfair advantage? I say let Google have 10 or 15 people there. MSFT will do the same. And Mozilla, too. I bet that they too could afford it if they had to. And that would be good news for the TAG and the web. But the sad news is that there aren't 15 people who are both talented enough and can get along with each other. If anything this discussion demonstrates just that. So I think realistically if you allow 2 per each vendor then each vendor will be happy to contribute 2 and the web will be far happier for it. The important thing is to keep thinking about the deeper issue: how the browser mark is not designed to scale (2-3 big vendors and no one else with a major share) It's a classical monopoly market. Don't worry about Google dominating MSFT via the TAG. They've spent billions doing that and are doing that with the full force of their resources. One more guy on the TAG is not a means to tip the balance. It'd be like trying to lift an elephant with a tooth pick as lever. Marc On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > On 07/16/2014 07:40 PM, Alex Russell wrote: > >> I wish to sell you elephant repellant. I know it works because there are >> no elephants in the trees near my house, nor within 1000 miles! And >> don't say you don't need any, because we cannot ignore harms caused by >> branches breaking and dropping on people's heads. I submit that they >> have been intentionally prevented in the San Francisco area thanks to my >> liberal application of elephant repellant. >> > > Does it work on 900 pound gorillas too? ;) > > David > >
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 02:51:59 UTC