The original browser "war" between Microsoft and Netscape was over the definition of HTML. Microsoft wanted to control it, and was prepared to damage Netscape'

The original browser "war" between Microsoft and Netscape was over the definition of HTML. Microsoft wanted to control it, and was prepared to damage Netscape's business to quash the competition illegally to impose an arbitrary monopoly. HTML5 has long been an open standard, maintained by the W3C. Google's role as a W3C member was to end the original browser war by supporting W3C processes with implementations and evangelism that lead to Chrome becoming the most popular browser. The article's news, about Chromium losing access to app features such as syncing, is a different battle. It is not about arbitrary syntax being controlled by a corporation vs a standards body. It is about the cost of making useful software that serves the public and is given away for free to enable the commons. Everybody has the right and the technical opportunity to make a browser and ancillary services such as sync. However, a couple of people in a garage don't live long enough to make a browser. Only well funded and well organised groups have the resources to do so. Even Mozilla relies upon funding from Google to implement Firefox, so really, Google is funding the whole browser ecosystem. That's an entirely different problem to the one Microsoft got busted for in 1996. It's a problem alright, and one that needs air and sunlight. To really give this problem the prominence it deserves and requires, we shouldn't be calling it "the endless browser war". We should be calling it something else. Until we do, the status quo is just going to get stronger and more entrenched, because it isn't anything illegal, proprietary, or closed. The fact that most consumers like Google and don't see the problem makes it all the more urgent to give this problem a name.