4 ms·
That's not a big deal. The main appeal of Firefox today is that it's not owned by Google and doesn't violate your privacy (as much, anyways). The browser itself
by bogwog 6y ago
That's not a big deal. The main appeal of Firefox today is that it's not owned by Google and doesn't violate your privacy (as much, anyways). The browser itself is great, I use it all the time, and I vastly prefer the UI over Chrome.
However, I don't think many would care if the world ends up on a single common browser as long as it doesn't consolidate power to a single entity. Microsoft has their own fork of Chromium, and if the possibility of building a browser business makes a comeback (thanks to any changes in Google), I'm sure many other companies will follow suit.
Of course, this all depends on what actually happens to Google as a result of this lawsuit. So we'll have to wait and see.
- ece 6y agoMultiple rendering engines are probably a good thing in the long term for the web, and arguably losing other technology that Mozilla has worked on like Rust would be a big loss if Mozilla couldn't be as competitive as it has been. I'm not so sure weaponizing privacy against Google by breaking a good amount of websites embedding Youtube videos is really the best way to get market share though, so by that metric, Google losing would hopefully mean Mozilla could work just as well as other browsers by default and actually gain market share.
- treis 6y ago>Multiple rendering engines are probably a good thing in the long term for the web, I think people forget how terrible browser compatability used to be. You had to use jQuery and worry about what you could and couldn't use. Pax Chromana in comparison is a dream. It's possible that chrome stagnates like IE did. But I don't think so. Google is primarily a web company and so it's in their interest to keep innovating on the browser to make their websites better.
- rurp 6y agoI agree that Google will keep the basic end user functionality working well once they have a full monopoly. But I expect them to accelerate their attacks on ad blocking and tracking protection. A browser that is great at rendering websites but makes it extremely difficult to block ads and trackers is probably Google's ideal goal.
- pyrale 6y agoBrowser compat issues arose precisely because a dominant browser maker gave zero shit about standards, and what you call "pax chromana" is a repetition of that, with many webapps targeting only chrome. I understand that having the main browser actually decent is an improvement from the IE days, but for those of us that don't use chrome, the increasing tendency to only target one browser feels like a step back.
- edgyquant 6y agoIt’s also that Chrome is derived from an open source core which allows companies like Microsoft to use their engine to compete with them. So it is better than the IE days in that way.
- nikitaga 6y agoMuch good that "open source" will do you if you can't get a Widevine license from Google. https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/google-widevine-blocked-my-browser/ https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/google-widevine-blocked... And this bullshit even before "Pax Chromana". Imagine the things to come. It's like we've learned nothing.
- srtjstjsj 6y agoWidevine is DRM so there's no reason for a freedom activist to want it.
- nikitaga 6y agoThis has nothing to do with "freedom activists". Besides, "freedom activists" don't need to watch news clips or youtube? Or are they so short-sighted they think DRM will remain limited to entertainment services like Netflix and Hulu? Do "freedom activists" want to live in a world where you need Google's permission to compete with their browser? Is that the kind of freedom they're activisming about? Freedom from the tyranny of non-Google choices?
- 6y ago