kbenson suggested that Google could be petitioned to allow more browsers than the handful they already have. I'm saying that if they allow even a single new we

kbenson suggested that Google could be petitioned to allow more browsers than the handful they already have. I'm saying that if they allow even a single new webview-based browser, that would implicitly also allow any program using said webview library. This is the opposite of what Google wants. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that Google will not allow any webview-based browsers. In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25156594 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25156594 kbenson clarified that they think Google should not allow any webview-based browsers regardless of whether this hypothetical petition process exists or not. I responded by pointing out how this distinction does not help in any way, because even a new browser written from scratch that gets allowed by Google can then turn around and implement a webview library based on itself anyway. My point is that this entire thing that Google is apparently trying is nonsensical. Maybe it works for phones, where "malware" (ie alternative browsers) can't easily change whatever Google is looking for in the HTTP requests (user-agent header, etc) to identify webview-based browsers vs the few they chose to allow. But it doesn't make sense for regular PCs. Anything an allowed browser can do, "malware" can mimic. Actually, there is one way that it'll work on PCs too - if every google.com website starts using DRM. I almost look forward to that just because of the carnage that will occur in response.