←back to thread

98 points thunderbong | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pavlov ◴[] No.42479172[source]
> “HTTP is also too inefficient for wireless use. By using a semantically equivalent, but binary and compressed format it is possible to reduce the protocol overhead to a few bytes per request, instead of up to hundreds of bytes.”

Around the turn of the millennium, there were numerous international committees and hundreds of millions of dollars spent by companies on this idea that we simply can’t use the existing internet on mobile phones, so there needs to be something else.

Of course for the companies it was mostly a plot to capture the web, which was uncomfortably open and uncontrolled. The mobile operators were used to charging 20 cents for sending a 140-character message and 1 euro for delivering a monophonic ringtone. They wanted to be the gatekeepers and content curators of the mobile web, taking a cut on every bit of content that flows to devices. (I remember vision PowerPoints where operators imagined that one day when video can be watched on mobile phones, they’d be making more money from each watch than the studios.)

“We must save 200 bytes on HTTP headers or the network will melt!” was just a convenient excuse to build a stack they could own end-to-end.

replies(7): >>42479197 #>>42479224 #>>42479250 #>>42479283 #>>42479399 #>>42479951 #>>42481549 #
cherryteastain ◴[] No.42479250[source]
We're better off than that scenario, but not much better. Apple and Google ended up owning the phone operating systems so only the things that they deem acceptable are what the vast majority of users are allowed to use.
replies(1): >>42479330 #
pavlov ◴[] No.42479330[source]
Do Apple and Google stop you from opening a web browser and navigating to any web site?

Because that was the trillion-dollar vision for mobile operator owned WAP portals around 1999. They would completely control access to online services on mobile devices. That was how they planned to get a cut on everything you view on a phone.

replies(2): >>42479744 #>>42480159 #
1. cherryteastain ◴[] No.42480159[source]
No, they are less direct but not less malicious [1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity