4 ms·

Sure, if you want to make a simple personal web page, it will probably work in other browsers. Meanwhile we have government and banking websites that say "This

Sure, if you want to make a simple personal web page, it will probably work in other browsers. Meanwhile we have government and banking websites that say "This browser is unsupported" when viewed with any browser other than Chrome. These are essential services forcing us to consolidate under Google. Many websites break as Firefox and Safari add new privacy protections. The websites don't care: if they can't track you then they often don't want you viewing their content anyway. In some cases they'd rather things break so that Mozilla and Apple reconsider their efforts toward privacy. The other comment mentions that we survived MSFT, so everything will be fine. This is naive. When IE6 had a monopoly Microsoft let it stagnate. The web basically didn't change for ten years; sure there were new standards but nobody could use them because they wouldn't work in IE6. It also wasn't nearly as complicated as it is today, so it was possible for other browsers to catch up. Google today is doing the opposite. They are steering the web in all sorts of new directions massively increasing its complexity, and they are forcing automatic updates everywhere to make sure IE6 doesn't happen. All of this means it's next to impossible for other browser vendors to keep up. Microsoft has already given up and adopted Blink. How long do you think Apple will hold out? How long do you think Google will keep bankrolling Mozilla?

greggman3 6y ago
>All of this means it's next to impossible for other browser vendors to keep up So your solution seems to be hobble the successful company so the weaker companies can compete? Maybe we should also prevent strong athletes from using their strengths and skills because other people don't have the same strengths and skills? Should we prevent smart people from using the brains because some people's brains don't function as well? Maybe there's a different argument against Chrome but Google adding features to the Chrome is certainly not an argument against Chrome.
- ludocode 6y ago
  I am not the OP of this thread; I suggested no solution. However, if you'll permit me to suggest one, I don't think getting the government involved is a bad idea at all. Google is financially successful not because of their browser but because of tracking-based advertising, a largely unrelated market. They use that funnel of cash to expand into a separate market, that of the browser, in order to cement their position of power in web advertising. This sort of anti-competitive behaviour is exactly why antitrust regulations exist. Your "Harrison Bergeron" allusion is almost a total non-sequitor. Nobody suggested hobbling Google because of their success. It's because of the damage they are doing to the web. The OP gave many examples of this that you seem to have ignored.
  - greggman3 6y ago
    Who is Harrison Bergeron? Never heard of him so are to be an allusion to someone I've never heard of. I saw no examples of Google's evil from the OP > Approved bundles, what is this? > no URLs, This is from Apple, not Google. Chrome is just following what Safari has been doing for years. > everything hosted on AMP Arguable either way > and deeply embedded ads. not sure what this or how it's evil Happy to be enlightened
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      https://web.dev/web-bundles/ https://web.dev/web-bundles/
nicoburns 6y ago
Chrome being open source is a massive difference compared to IE. Especially with both Microsoft and Apple maintaining their own Blink/Webkit based browsers in addition to Google. I do hope Firefox survives. I think it's really important for the web to have multiple implementations. But lets not pretend this is as bad as the IE situation.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  How does Android and ChromeOS being open source contribute to anyone wanting to create their competing platforms, and how much uptake have they gotten from mainstream users so far?
  - mixedCase 6y ago
    A lot. LineageOS, Amazon's Fire OS, OnePlus' OxygenOS, Android emulation layers and so on are only possible because Android is open source. It sets a low ceiling for any anticompetitive practices Google may want to pull off. Nobody seems to really care too much about ChromeOS niche. Mainstream users don't care about any of this and just want things to work. Open source allows other people to take something in a better direction when the original project stops "just working".

greggman3 6y ago

>All of this means it's next to impossible for other browser vendors to keep up So your solution seems to be hobble the successful company so the weaker companies can compete? Maybe we should also prevent strong athletes from using their strengths and skills because other people don't have the same strengths and skills? Should we prevent smart people from using the brains because some people's brains don't function as well? Maybe there's a different argument against Chrome but Google adding features to the Chrome is certainly not an argument against Chrome.

ludocode 6y ago
I am not the OP of this thread; I suggested no solution. However, if you'll permit me to suggest one, I don't think getting the government involved is a bad idea at all. Google is financially successful not because of their browser but because of tracking-based advertising, a largely unrelated market. They use that funnel of cash to expand into a separate market, that of the browser, in order to cement their position of power in web advertising. This sort of anti-competitive behaviour is exactly why antitrust regulations exist. Your "Harrison Bergeron" allusion is almost a total non-sequitor. Nobody suggested hobbling Google because of their success. It's because of the damage they are doing to the web. The OP gave many examples of this that you seem to have ignored.
- greggman3 6y ago
  Who is Harrison Bergeron? Never heard of him so are to be an allusion to someone I've never heard of. I saw no examples of Google's evil from the OP > Approved bundles, what is this? > no URLs, This is from Apple, not Google. Chrome is just following what Safari has been doing for years. > everything hosted on AMP Arguable either way > and deeply embedded ads. not sure what this or how it's evil Happy to be enlightened
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    https://web.dev/web-bundles/ https://web.dev/web-bundles/

nicoburns 6y ago

Chrome being open source is a massive difference compared to IE. Especially with both Microsoft and Apple maintaining their own Blink/Webkit based browsers in addition to Google. I do hope Firefox survives. I think it's really important for the web to have multiple implementations. But lets not pretend this is as bad as the IE situation.

pjmlp 6y ago
How does Android and ChromeOS being open source contribute to anyone wanting to create their competing platforms, and how much uptake have they gotten from mainstream users so far?
- mixedCase 6y ago
  A lot. LineageOS, Amazon's Fire OS, OnePlus' OxygenOS, Android emulation layers and so on are only possible because Android is open source. It sets a low ceiling for any anticompetitive practices Google may want to pull off. Nobody seems to really care too much about ChromeOS niche. Mainstream users don't care about any of this and just want things to work. Open source allows other people to take something in a better direction when the original project stops "just working".