Wow, you're just being contrary to be contrary aren't you? While no one is obligated to follow standards, they certainly help adoption. Without standards we wouldn't be able to just buy a consumer electronics device and plug it in to our standardized plug with standardized voltage would we? Standards are part of our daily lives and without them we would not have progressed nearly as far as we have.

Further more, the reason standards are nice here is because a 3rd party is the one who blessed the technology, not the biased producer of the technology. And changes to that standard need to go through the standards body and the producer is not the single owner.

Your point is true, but so is parent post.

Standards doesn't mean "no innovation". While the electric outlet may be a "standard" devices that use the electricity shouldn't necessarily be "standard".

ie if I want an innovative lamp to plug into my standard electric socket, that is okay.

Standards have a place and so do innovations. If Google is releasing all of their innovations which have broad applicability as open source projects, I see no reason they should slow down so that slow-moving, non-innovating standards bodies can catchup.

> Wow, you're just being contrary to be contrary aren't you?

Not at all. I'm pointing out that they don't have the properties that you're asking for in this case.

> Further more, the reason standards are nice here is because a 3rd party is the one who blessed the technology, not the biased producer of the technology. And changes to that standard need to go through the standards body and the producer is not the single owner.

Suppose that Google submitted all of those projects to a standards body, got them approved, and then made an incompatible change to their implementations. How does their status as a standard matter?