4 ms·

The biggest ad company in the world gets to decide what is and isn't acceptable for an ad and actively censor it in the most popular browser in the world? It's

The biggest ad company in the world gets to decide what is and isn't acceptable for an ad and actively censor it in the most popular browser in the world? It's funny how some things turn out in the long run. I don't see the situation getting better anytime soon. At this point, Chrome is the new IE6: whatever they choose becomes standard because of their huge market share. Ho well, at least it doesn't break all of my sites.

koolba 9y ago
At least there's new versions of Chrome and it has automatic updates. The real bear with IE6 wasn't the state of the tech when it was released, it was that enterprises were stuck with it for ages.
aanm1988 9y ago
and they got there by cramming it in everyones faces with their search monopoly. Totally different than bundling it with the OS. Except wait, they do that too.
hyperbovine 9y ago
Not IE: not bundled, not integrated, easily uninstalled. If people don't like this move, there are a myriad of other browsers available for them to choose from.
- mstade 9y ago
  A myriad? Really?
  - SturgeonsLaw 9y ago
    Yeah, all the Webkit reskins you could ever want!
- sbierwagen 9y ago
  What is Android or Chrome OS?
  - dmitrygr 9y ago
    Android allows different browsers as first-class citizens. ChromeOS runs android apps, including those third-party browsers.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Chrome cannot be fully uninstalled without root from the operating system with the largest global market share (Android).
  - dmitrygr 9y ago
    setting->apps->chrome->disable removes it form ever running, taking a byte of ram, or even in any way appearing to exist. it is not in /data, so it takes up no extra space
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- majormajor 9y ago
  IE was extremely replaceable. Microsoft tried to tie it in as much as they could to leverage it being the default and justify it being bundled, but the other vendors share at least an equal share of the blame for completely dropping the ball. How long did Netscape Navigator/Communicator 4 linger? How many wasted resources were poured into things like the integrated page builder in Communicator instead of features? Do you remember trying to use Netscape 6 Beta or whatever it was called before it became Mozilla? IE 5 and 6 were initially just that much better. Heck, IE was even the best browser on Mac for a while circa 2000-2002ish. MS deserves a ton of extra blame for letting IE6 stagnate for five freaking years until Phoenix->Firebird->Firefox got them off their asses again, but don't blame them for having the better product when that initial war was won. But, another key difference here is that Google has much more incentive to keep improving Chrome and web standards even if they get more and more market share, since their user-facing products are web properties, and Microsoft's were not at the time.
  - jdietrich 9y ago
    I'm not sure that's entirely fair to Netscape and Mozilla. Early versions of IE had absolutely horrible standards compliance, so there was a substantial lock-in effect. Other browser developers had to expend considerable resources to emulate IE's rendering, bug for bug. Even Microsoft had to bend over backwards to maintain compatibility, via the once notorious quirks mode.
m-p-3 9y ago
"Who will watch the Watchmen?"
kbenson 9y ago
> The biggest ad company in the world gets to decide what is and isn't acceptable for an ad Did we read the same article, because that's not an accurate representation of what I read. Google is implementing an industry group standard. Sure, Google is part of that industry group, but so are Facebook and The Washington Post. I doubt Google can run away with the standard without other making a big stink out of it. As long as Chrome actually follows the standard, characterizing this as "Google dictating what is and isn't acceptable for an ad" is not accurate.
- ransom1538 9y ago
  "Google is implementing an industry group standard." There are two ways to buy ads on the internet: Google or Facebook. I don't think facebook sells ads on publisher sites. So if you are a publisher, you better do what google wants - they are only guys with inventory.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    > There are two ways to buy ads on the internet: Google or Facebook. I decided to check this. A simple google query and the first result[1] show you to be very wrong. Google does have a majority (with the top three spots being google properties totaling just under 72% of the market), but 7 out of 10 is by no means all. 1: https://www.datanyze.com/market-share/advertising-networks/ https://www.datanyze.com/market-share/advertising-networks/
    - ransom1538 9y ago
      Yeah! %28 of the ad market isn't google! (WE googled it). Have no fear publishers! Hilarious.
      - kbenson 9y ago
        I'm not making a case Google isn't dominant, but it's plain that it's easy to use a different ad company if you want. 28% is not some minuscule number, it's over one in four. And that's not including Facebook, because they only sell on their own platform, but that means the total impressions Google serves are far below the numbers given. You stated as a publisher you better do what Google wants because they are the only guys with inventory. That's obviously false and undercuts whatever point it was supporting. That it isn't changed by a pithy response.

koolba 9y ago

At least there's new versions of Chrome and it has automatic updates. The real bear with IE6 wasn't the state of the tech when it was released, it was that enterprises were stuck with it for ages.

aanm1988 9y ago

and they got there by cramming it in everyones faces with their search monopoly. Totally different than bundling it with the OS. Except wait, they do that too.

hyperbovine 9y ago

Not IE: not bundled, not integrated, easily uninstalled. If people don't like this move, there are a myriad of other browsers available for them to choose from.

mstade 9y ago
A myriad? Really?
- SturgeonsLaw 9y ago
  Yeah, all the Webkit reskins you could ever want!
sbierwagen 9y ago
What is Android or Chrome OS?
- dmitrygr 9y ago
  Android allows different browsers as first-class citizens. ChromeOS runs android apps, including those third-party browsers.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Chrome cannot be fully uninstalled without root from the operating system with the largest global market share (Android).
- dmitrygr 9y ago
  setting->apps->chrome->disable removes it form ever running, taking a byte of ram, or even in any way appearing to exist. it is not in /data, so it takes up no extra space
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
majormajor 9y ago
IE was extremely replaceable. Microsoft tried to tie it in as much as they could to leverage it being the default and justify it being bundled, but the other vendors share at least an equal share of the blame for completely dropping the ball. How long did Netscape Navigator/Communicator 4 linger? How many wasted resources were poured into things like the integrated page builder in Communicator instead of features? Do you remember trying to use Netscape 6 Beta or whatever it was called before it became Mozilla? IE 5 and 6 were initially just that much better. Heck, IE was even the best browser on Mac for a while circa 2000-2002ish. MS deserves a ton of extra blame for letting IE6 stagnate for five freaking years until Phoenix->Firebird->Firefox got them off their asses again, but don't blame them for having the better product when that initial war was won. But, another key difference here is that Google has much more incentive to keep improving Chrome and web standards even if they get more and more market share, since their user-facing products are web properties, and Microsoft's were not at the time.
- jdietrich 9y ago
  I'm not sure that's entirely fair to Netscape and Mozilla. Early versions of IE had absolutely horrible standards compliance, so there was a substantial lock-in effect. Other browser developers had to expend considerable resources to emulate IE's rendering, bug for bug. Even Microsoft had to bend over backwards to maintain compatibility, via the once notorious quirks mode.

m-p-3 9y ago

"Who will watch the Watchmen?"

kbenson 9y ago

> The biggest ad company in the world gets to decide what is and isn't acceptable for an ad Did we read the same article, because that's not an accurate representation of what I read. Google is implementing an industry group standard. Sure, Google is part of that industry group, but so are Facebook and The Washington Post. I doubt Google can run away with the standard without other making a big stink out of it. As long as Chrome actually follows the standard, characterizing this as "Google dictating what is and isn't acceptable for an ad" is not accurate.

ransom1538 9y ago
"Google is implementing an industry group standard." There are two ways to buy ads on the internet: Google or Facebook. I don't think facebook sells ads on publisher sites. So if you are a publisher, you better do what google wants - they are only guys with inventory.
- kbenson 9y ago
  > There are two ways to buy ads on the internet: Google or Facebook. I decided to check this. A simple google query and the first result[1] show you to be very wrong. Google does have a majority (with the top three spots being google properties totaling just under 72% of the market), but 7 out of 10 is by no means all. 1: https://www.datanyze.com/market-share/advertising-networks/ https://www.datanyze.com/market-share/advertising-networks/
  - ransom1538 9y ago
    Yeah! %28 of the ad market isn't google! (WE googled it). Have no fear publishers! Hilarious.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      I'm not making a case Google isn't dominant, but it's plain that it's easy to use a different ad company if you want. 28% is not some minuscule number, it's over one in four. And that's not including Facebook, because they only sell on their own platform, but that means the total impressions Google serves are far below the numbers given. You stated as a publisher you better do what Google wants because they are the only guys with inventory. That's obviously false and undercuts whatever point it was supporting. That it isn't changed by a pithy response.