

Google Shouldn’t Have Open-Sourced SPDY - oscar-the-horse
http://www.horsesaysinternet.com/business/google-shouldnt-have-open-sourced-spdy/

======
rbanffy
What if Apple and Amazon start supporting SPDY? Google will have less load on
their servers and most probably more ad revenue.

Why would that be a good thing? Why keeping it proprietary, something only
Google Chrome users had access to, and only when accessing Google servers,
would be a competitive advantage?

In order to be a competitive advantage, Google should be making money with
Chrome and Android. Instead, it makes money when people accesses sites with
AdSense banners on them (that includes Gmail) and when people do search
through Google.

~~~
oscar-the-horse
It doesn't really effect load. SPDY works by wrapping multiple HTTP
transactions into one. So it helps with latency.

Google could use it for their own mobile applications. Making services (such
as gmail) better on Android devices. This then encourages users of their
services to buy Android phones.

If Google controls the mobile platform then it can influence how search is
done. It's vertical integration.

~~~
rbanffy
> If Google controls the mobile platform then it can influence how search is
> done. It's vertical integration.

You know some Android sets don't even use Google for search.

------
mooism2
The question is, which web sites (not owned by Google) use SPDY? None afaik,
which means it's a server-side competitive advantage for Google, and that they
want it as widespread as possible client-side.

~~~
oscar-the-horse
however, once it's on all new browsers there's no advantage; there's incentive
for others to use it, which they will if it's advantageous.

------
frewsxcv
So after reading the article, the author has yet to give a reason why it
should be propietary

~~~
oscar-the-horse
Thanks for that frewsxcv, I've updated the article.

