QUIC is not quick enough over fast internet

From September:

QUIC is not quick enough over fast internet (acm.org)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41484991 (327 comments)

My personal takeaway from that: Perhaps we shouldn't let Google design and more or less unilaterally dictate and enforce internet protocol usage via Chromium.

Brave/Vivaldi/Opera/etc: You should make a conscious choice.

Having read through that thread, most of the (top) comments are somewhat related to the lacking performance of the UDP/QUIC stack and thoughts on the meaningfulness of the speeds in the test. There is a single comment suggesting HTTP/2 was rushed (because server push was later deprecated).

QUIC is also acknowledged as being quite different from the Google version, and incorporating input from many different people.

Could you expand more on why this seems like evidence that Google unilaterally dictating bad standards? None of the changes in protocol seem objectively wrong (except possibly Server Push).

Disclaimer: Work at Google on networking, but unrelated to QUIC and other protocol level stuff.

> Could you expand more on why this seems like evidence that Google unilaterally dictating bad standards?

I guess I'm just generally disgusted in the way Google is poisoning the web in the worst way possible: By pushing ever more complex standards. Imagine the complexity of the web stack in 2050 if we continue to let Google run things. It's Microsoft's old embrace-extend-and-extinguish scheme taken to the next level.

In short: it's not you, it's your manager's manager's manager's manager's strategy that is messed up.

> It's Microsoft's old embrace-extend-and-extinguish scheme taken to the next level.

It literally is not.

Because?

Edit: I'm not the first person to make this comparison. Witness the Chrome section in this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

Well it may be possible to make the comparison in other things google does (they have done a lot of things) it makes no sense for quic/http3.

What are they extending in this analogy? Http3 is not an extension of http. What are they extinguishing? There is no plan to get rid of http1/2, since you still need it in lots of networks that dont allow udp.

Additionally, its an open standard, with an rfc, and multiple competing implementations (including firefox and i believe experimental in safari). The entire point of embrace, extend, extinguish is that the extension is not well specified making it dufficult for competitors to implement. That is simply not what is happening here.

What I meant with Microsoft's Embrace, extend, and extinguish (EEE) scheme taken to the next level is what Google has done to the web via Chromium:

They have several thousand C++ browser engineers (and as many web standards people as they could get their hands on, early on). Combined with a dominant browser market share, this has let them dominate browser standards, and even internet protocols. They have abused this dominant position to eliminate all competitors except Apple and (so far) Mozilla. It's quite clever.