> The fact that Chromium is open source is completely irrelevant. Of course it is relevant. The fact that I can run Chrome in Linux/macOS/Windows means I am no

> The fact that Chromium is open source is completely irrelevant. Of course it is relevant. The fact that I can run Chrome in Linux/macOS/Windows means I am not forced to run some OS just to get compatibility with sites that I use. This is completely different from IE6/7 era, where in some cases it was impossible to use Linux/macOS simply because you had a site compatible with only IE. BTW, I use Firefox, and I don't remember the last time that a site doesn't work in Firefox. > DRM for HTML to prevent ads from being blocked? Sure. Want to bet it will happen due to Google and Chrome? This is simply FUD. Does Google have the power to do it? Sure. Does it mean it will do it? Don't know, this is why it is FUD. > We've got the same situation with Android too. That AOSP is open source is completely irrelevant, it's still a Google controlled monopoly, nobody can fork it due to the massive resources required and Google can effectively coerce phone makers into doing whatever they want via the threat of blocking access to Google Play. Another FUD. Yeah, people can fork it and we even have a big example that is FireOS from Amazon. Sure, Amazon is even bigger than Google so they have the massive resources required, however it can happen.\ > People switching to Chromium-derived browsers to get away from Google. I can almost hear the evil laugh from Mountain View. This is completely irrelevant. People who use alternative browser are not simply using it "because it is not code from Google", but generally wants some features that Chrome does not offer (at least by default). The three major Chromium-forks (Brave, Opera and Vivaldi) are not focusing in "we're not Google", they're focusing in having new features.