5 ms·

I think it's pretty clear what would happen if Google could controlled the web through a browser monoculture. They would rapidly transform it into something mor

I think it's pretty clear what would happen if Google could controlled the web through a browser monoculture. They would rapidly transform it into something more akin to a closed app ecosystem, with more DRM and proprietary features. They might also give less of a crap about being backward-compatible and not breaking your website. The relative "slowness" of the evolution of the web is a good thing. It's already too fast IMO.

etaioinshrdlu 6y ago
Chrome Origin Trials (https://developers.chrome.com/origintrials/#/trials/active https://developers.chrome.com/origintrials/#/trials/active) has some of the scent of a closed ecosystem -- Google gets to decide who can use certain browser features (if only for limited numbers of users, right now) If the idea were extended to production features, that's basically a walled-garden model for the web.
- jefftk 6y ago
  If there's an experimental feature you want to test out on your site, you should be able to register for the origin trial. I don't think it's something where Google decides who can register? Origin trials are a reaction to the failure of shipping new features under prefixes, where those experimental features fossilized. By restricting origin trials only to sites that explicitly opt in and making those registrations time limited it's possible to get feedback on whether an experimental feature works without sites becoming dependent on it. (Disclosure: I work for Google on unrelated things; speaking only for myself)
  - etaioinshrdlu 6y ago
    Well, it does require a Google account to register for origin trials. Google could conceivably block access for a domain to use origin trials, if they wanted. It may be fully open right now, but perhaps not in the future. These are hypothetical scenarios but very possible.
- untog 6y ago
  That’s a pretty big “if”. I could apply the same logic to anyone that releases a closed beta of their software. “If they were to release the production version to a closed audience...”
pjmlp 6y ago
ChromeOS has won already, it is not only the browsers, it is all that crap shipped as Electron app.
nonbirithm 6y ago
Or forcing you to login in both the browser and the websites they own. I can't find any concrete mention of this online, but at some point the "identity consistency between browser and cookie jar" flag to disable this was removed from Chrome. People on HN were making a big deal at the time over Chrome forcing you to attach your Google account to Chrome if you signed in through YouTube or another Google service. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17942252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17942252
Animats 6y ago
... browser monoculture. They would rapidly transform it into something more akin to a closed app ecosystem... That's the big problem. Unrestrained, Google will turn the browser into Google Web Client. We'll know that's happening when something comparable to Google Play Services appears in Chrome - a set of almost essential facilities applications need. By then it will be too late. If you want to see what that looks like, see WeChat. There's WeChat for PCs.[1] It's not just for phones. It's an application which plugs you into the closed WeChat ecosystem. You can then access TenCent's replacement for the Web. Run approved WeChat apps. They have a level of control Facebook only dreams about. [1] https://pc.weixin.qq.com/?t=win_weixin&lang=en https://pc.weixin.qq.com/?t=win_weixin&lang=en
- rodgerd 6y ago
  I find your use of the future tense puzzling.
- cpeterso 6y ago
  Yes. As Chrome has to compete with more Chromium-based browsers (especially the new Chromium Edge), I expect Google will move more feature development from the open source Chromium core into closed source Chrome code. Android : Google Play Services :: Chromium : Google Chrome
  - jrockway 6y ago
    Google Play Services really only existed because OEMs would never update the software. So Google needed something they can update. Chromium-based browsers don't seem to have that problem, so it's probably not a fair comparison.
    - cpeterso 6y ago
      If Google Play Services is only about solving the update problem, why is it closed source and why does distributing it require a license from Google?
    - pjmlp 6y ago
userbinator 6y ago
The relative "slowness" of the evolution of the web is a good thing. It's already too fast IMO. Absolutely agree. I remember when IE6 was the most common browser, it was hard to find a site that wasn't viewable in any other browser, even the text-based ones, and JS-only "app-sites" (for lack of a better term) pretty much nonexistent. Of course a vocal subset of developers kept complaining about the web "being held back" and wanting to "push the web forward", and once Google took over, the rest is history... Related article from 2015: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961613
- II2II 6y ago
  Let's also remember that Firefox broke Internet Explorer's dominance. Without that initial step, who knows what Chrome would have looked like, how much reach it would have had, or whether Google would have seen it as a worth while endeavor.
- untog 6y ago
  > I remember when IE6 was the most common browser, it was hard to find a site that wasn't viewable in any other browser Man, we have different memories. Mine are of a sea of “best experienced with IE6 and 800x600” messages on sites that had all kinds of CSS flaws in every other browser, including Microsoft’s own IE for Mac. Compared to today it was an absolute mess. Today’s JS-only app sites are pretty good for cross platform compatibility, despite plenty of other flaws.
m463 6y ago
Every company dreams of turning their device into basically a cash register. And some have pretty much done it.

etaioinshrdlu 6y ago

Chrome Origin Trials (https://developers.chrome.com/origintrials/#/trials/active https://developers.chrome.com/origintrials/#/trials/active) has some of the scent of a closed ecosystem -- Google gets to decide who can use certain browser features (if only for limited numbers of users, right now) If the idea were extended to production features, that's basically a walled-garden model for the web.

jefftk 6y ago
If there's an experimental feature you want to test out on your site, you should be able to register for the origin trial. I don't think it's something where Google decides who can register? Origin trials are a reaction to the failure of shipping new features under prefixes, where those experimental features fossilized. By restricting origin trials only to sites that explicitly opt in and making those registrations time limited it's possible to get feedback on whether an experimental feature works without sites becoming dependent on it. (Disclosure: I work for Google on unrelated things; speaking only for myself)
- etaioinshrdlu 6y ago
  Well, it does require a Google account to register for origin trials. Google could conceivably block access for a domain to use origin trials, if they wanted. It may be fully open right now, but perhaps not in the future. These are hypothetical scenarios but very possible.
untog 6y ago
That’s a pretty big “if”. I could apply the same logic to anyone that releases a closed beta of their software. “If they were to release the production version to a closed audience...”

pjmlp 6y ago

ChromeOS has won already, it is not only the browsers, it is all that crap shipped as Electron app.

nonbirithm 6y ago

Or forcing you to login in both the browser and the websites they own. I can't find any concrete mention of this online, but at some point the "identity consistency between browser and cookie jar" flag to disable this was removed from Chrome. People on HN were making a big deal at the time over Chrome forcing you to attach your Google account to Chrome if you signed in through YouTube or another Google service. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17942252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17942252

Animats 6y ago

... browser monoculture. They would rapidly transform it into something more akin to a closed app ecosystem... That's the big problem. Unrestrained, Google will turn the browser into Google Web Client. We'll know that's happening when something comparable to Google Play Services appears in Chrome - a set of almost essential facilities applications need. By then it will be too late. If you want to see what that looks like, see WeChat. There's WeChat for PCs.[1] It's not just for phones. It's an application which plugs you into the closed WeChat ecosystem. You can then access TenCent's replacement for the Web. Run approved WeChat apps. They have a level of control Facebook only dreams about. [1] https://pc.weixin.qq.com/?t=win_weixin&lang=en https://pc.weixin.qq.com/?t=win_weixin&lang=en

rodgerd 6y ago
I find your use of the future tense puzzling.
cpeterso 6y ago
Yes. As Chrome has to compete with more Chromium-based browsers (especially the new Chromium Edge), I expect Google will move more feature development from the open source Chromium core into closed source Chrome code. Android : Google Play Services :: Chromium : Google Chrome
- jrockway 6y ago
  Google Play Services really only existed because OEMs would never update the software. So Google needed something they can update. Chromium-based browsers don't seem to have that problem, so it's probably not a fair comparison.
  - cpeterso 6y ago
    If Google Play Services is only about solving the update problem, why is it closed source and why does distributing it require a license from Google?
  - pjmlp 6y ago

userbinator 6y ago

The relative "slowness" of the evolution of the web is a good thing. It's already too fast IMO. Absolutely agree. I remember when IE6 was the most common browser, it was hard to find a site that wasn't viewable in any other browser, even the text-based ones, and JS-only "app-sites" (for lack of a better term) pretty much nonexistent. Of course a vocal subset of developers kept complaining about the web "being held back" and wanting to "push the web forward", and once Google took over, the rest is history... Related article from 2015: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961613

II2II 6y ago
Let's also remember that Firefox broke Internet Explorer's dominance. Without that initial step, who knows what Chrome would have looked like, how much reach it would have had, or whether Google would have seen it as a worth while endeavor.
untog 6y ago
> I remember when IE6 was the most common browser, it was hard to find a site that wasn't viewable in any other browser Man, we have different memories. Mine are of a sea of “best experienced with IE6 and 800x600” messages on sites that had all kinds of CSS flaws in every other browser, including Microsoft’s own IE for Mac. Compared to today it was an absolute mess. Today’s JS-only app sites are pretty good for cross platform compatibility, despite plenty of other flaws.

m463 6y ago

Every company dreams of turning their device into basically a cash register. And some have pretty much done it.