4 ms·

as a software dev, not having to deal with other browsers is a blessing. countless hours wasted on debugging various browsers gets massively reduced. second poi

by kmlx 7y ago

as a software dev, not having to deal with other browsers is a blessing. countless hours wasted on debugging various browsers gets massively reduced. second point, moving the conversation from "<browser x> hasn't caught up" to "everyone's caught up" helps the web focus on technologies more so than before. discussions should now concentrate almost exclusively around the next web technologies, no more competition regarding web engines, more competition regarding web technologies. clear win imo. as a biz dev, it's a bit saddening to see a lot of browser competitors go down the drain. but this also means that the possibility of disruption will be much higher in the future. so this is a win for biz dev as well?

Causality1 7y ago
>not having to deal with other browsers is a blessing. So you just ignore the 30 percent of the market that isn't Chrome? Internet Explorer had 70+ percent of the market share until 2010. Was it good for consumers and the internet as a whole for devs to ignore non-IE browsers in 2009?
- kmlx 7y ago
  it’s much easier to deal with the current 30% than it has been at any point in history with IE.
bad_user 7y ago
As a software dev you probably don't remember, or haven't lived the days of Internet Explorer. Diversity and browser standards is what made the web a good platform to develop for. Just to give a recent example, if Google would dictate what gets implemented, instead of WebAssembly, the standard, you would have gotten PNaCl. > this also means that the possibility of disruption will be much higher in the future. so this is a win for biz dev as well? I fail to see how the creation of a monopoly can be a win for business. For Google's business, for sure.
- kmlx 7y ago
  IE was by far the worst browser. i was working as a front end dev durinh those days and got excited when google finally launched chrome, more-so than firefox. the hours and the energy spent on debugging IE is something we will never get back. on your second point, monopolies create the setting for massive disruption.
  - bad_user 7y ago
    You're not remembering correctly. IExplorer 5 was the best browser available, the Chrome of its time. >> monopolies create the setting for massive disruption I know that HN has a fetish with disruption, but no, it's not monopolies that create the opportunity for disruption, but the exact opposite of a monopoly, which is competition, often made possible by advances in technology. There's no inherent property of a monopoly that facilitates disruption, other than the monopoly just being on the scene nearby.
    - kmlx 7y ago
      > IExplorer 5 was the best browser available That's web 1.0 > but no, it's not monopolies that create the opportunity for disruption, but the exact opposite of a monopoly, which is competition, often made possible by advances in technology. monopolies innovate less, thus making them prone for disruption. "We develop a new theory of why a monopolistic industry innovates less than a competitive industry" http://www.dklevine.com/papers/monopoly_innovation.pdf http://www.dklevine.com/papers/monopoly_innovation.pdf
kuu 7y ago
The problem is if Chrome finally wins it all (we're almost there) and at some point they decide to remove a functionality that we all love, or they stop improving as there is no competition, or they decide to make you pay a little fee for developing a website with an extra functionality, or they decide that Chrome does not run on Mac anymore.... The problem with monopolies is that they control all the power, for the good or the bad decisions, and without competition they are not forced to look for the costumers benefit...
- tikkabhuna 7y ago
  As Chromium is open source, wouldn't someone then fork it and re-add those features or maintain Mac support? It seems like there is little motivation to maintain a separate browser at the moment, but one day Google may do something that motivates people to fork/create a new one. That could be a big bang moment or just a slow crawl that opens up a niche that a new browser could fill.
  - zaarn 7y ago
    Maintaining a browser fork is a lot of work. And Google can simply decide to close-source their browser engine once their takeover is complete. What could anyone do about it? Google just keeps adding features until all Chromium forks die off.
    - chii 7y ago
      The problem is not the source but the way Google can affect the standard. The biggest is DRM. If stuff like that gets into the standard where only large players can make a compliant implementation, then it becomes a huge problem for the web.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- sfink 7y ago
  Initially, I'm more worried about plain bugs that creep in, get depended on, and can no longer be fixed because of web compatibility. Next after that would be web API additions or extensions that make sense to Google but interfere with or prevent other things from being pursued (eg more pro privacy directions). They may try hard to play nice with standards bodies, but a quarterly goal can be a strong influence... https://blog.mozilla.org/sfink/2013/02/14/browser-wars-the-game/ https://blog.mozilla.org/sfink/2013/02/14/browser-wars-the-g...
azangru 7y ago
Agreed. As a web developer, I want browsers to adhere to the same specs and I want them evergreen. I do not want to deal with browser inconsistencies. Catering to different browsers quirks takes a lot of joy out of the work.
- sfink 7y ago
  Specs cease to matter once a player gets too dominant. It becomes added work and not following the spec costs nothing. If we're really headed to a single-browser future, enjoy those specs while they last. https://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/08/choose-firefox-now-or-later-you-wont.html?m=1 https://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/08/choose-firefox-now-or-l...

by kmlx 7y ago

Causality1 7y ago

>not having to deal with other browsers is a blessing. So you just ignore the 30 percent of the market that isn't Chrome? Internet Explorer had 70+ percent of the market share until 2010. Was it good for consumers and the internet as a whole for devs to ignore non-IE browsers in 2009?

kmlx 7y ago
it’s much easier to deal with the current 30% than it has been at any point in history with IE.

bad_user 7y ago

As a software dev you probably don't remember, or haven't lived the days of Internet Explorer. Diversity and browser standards is what made the web a good platform to develop for. Just to give a recent example, if Google would dictate what gets implemented, instead of WebAssembly, the standard, you would have gotten PNaCl. > this also means that the possibility of disruption will be much higher in the future. so this is a win for biz dev as well? I fail to see how the creation of a monopoly can be a win for business. For Google's business, for sure.

kmlx 7y ago
IE was by far the worst browser. i was working as a front end dev durinh those days and got excited when google finally launched chrome, more-so than firefox. the hours and the energy spent on debugging IE is something we will never get back. on your second point, monopolies create the setting for massive disruption.
- bad_user 7y ago
  You're not remembering correctly. IExplorer 5 was the best browser available, the Chrome of its time. >> monopolies create the setting for massive disruption I know that HN has a fetish with disruption, but no, it's not monopolies that create the opportunity for disruption, but the exact opposite of a monopoly, which is competition, often made possible by advances in technology. There's no inherent property of a monopoly that facilitates disruption, other than the monopoly just being on the scene nearby.
  - kmlx 7y ago
    > IExplorer 5 was the best browser available That's web 1.0 > but no, it's not monopolies that create the opportunity for disruption, but the exact opposite of a monopoly, which is competition, often made possible by advances in technology. monopolies innovate less, thus making them prone for disruption. "We develop a new theory of why a monopolistic industry innovates less than a competitive industry" http://www.dklevine.com/papers/monopoly_innovation.pdf http://www.dklevine.com/papers/monopoly_innovation.pdf

kuu 7y ago

The problem is if Chrome finally wins it all (we're almost there) and at some point they decide to remove a functionality that we all love, or they stop improving as there is no competition, or they decide to make you pay a little fee for developing a website with an extra functionality, or they decide that Chrome does not run on Mac anymore.... The problem with monopolies is that they control all the power, for the good or the bad decisions, and without competition they are not forced to look for the costumers benefit...

tikkabhuna 7y ago
As Chromium is open source, wouldn't someone then fork it and re-add those features or maintain Mac support? It seems like there is little motivation to maintain a separate browser at the moment, but one day Google may do something that motivates people to fork/create a new one. That could be a big bang moment or just a slow crawl that opens up a niche that a new browser could fill.
- zaarn 7y ago
  Maintaining a browser fork is a lot of work. And Google can simply decide to close-source their browser engine once their takeover is complete. What could anyone do about it? Google just keeps adding features until all Chromium forks die off.
  - chii 7y ago
    The problem is not the source but the way Google can affect the standard. The biggest is DRM. If stuff like that gets into the standard where only large players can make a compliant implementation, then it becomes a huge problem for the web.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
sfink 7y ago
Initially, I'm more worried about plain bugs that creep in, get depended on, and can no longer be fixed because of web compatibility. Next after that would be web API additions or extensions that make sense to Google but interfere with or prevent other things from being pursued (eg more pro privacy directions). They may try hard to play nice with standards bodies, but a quarterly goal can be a strong influence... https://blog.mozilla.org/sfink/2013/02/14/browser-wars-the-game/ https://blog.mozilla.org/sfink/2013/02/14/browser-wars-the-g...

azangru 7y ago

Agreed. As a web developer, I want browsers to adhere to the same specs and I want them evergreen. I do not want to deal with browser inconsistencies. Catering to different browsers quirks takes a lot of joy out of the work.

sfink 7y ago
Specs cease to matter once a player gets too dominant. It becomes added work and not following the spec costs nothing. If we're really headed to a single-browser future, enjoy those specs while they last. https://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/08/choose-firefox-now-or-later-you-wont.html?m=1 https://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/08/choose-firefox-now-or-l...