5 ms·

4 companies, yet only two browsers* between them, with one holding 85%+ of the market. * yes, I know they only share the engine

zwily 5y ago
WebKit and Chromium split so long ago, i don’t really think you can call them the same engine anymore.
edlebert 5y ago
Also, the engine has little-to-nothing to do with the plugin system.
SuchAnonMuchWow 5y ago
to be fair, the way plugins/addons are handled in a browser is a part where browser differs completely despite having the same engine
- efdee 5y ago
  At least two of them (Edge/Chrome) have extensions that are interchangable.
lbotos 5y ago
Wait, Safari == webkit FF == Gecko Google == Chromium Microsoft == Chromium Right? So 3 Engines?
- IceWreck 5y ago
  Chromium is forked from Webkit so the two share a lot of code
  - stingraycharles 5y ago
    But they have diverged so long ago, they are for all practical purposes different rendering engines. It’s not the same deal as, say, Chrome and Edge.
    - filmgirlcw 5y ago
      Right, Blink and WebKit are no longer reliably similar, which is why when devs don’t test on WebKit (to say nothing of Gecko), rendering stuff can reliably break. They share a ton of history but the split happened eight years ago and A LOT of code has changed. In fairness, WebKit (and thus, Safari) has later adopted some of the same changes, but they really aren’t synonymous anymore.
  - no_way 5y ago
    Blink and Webkit have become separate enough that you can't call them the same in good faith: layout engine is completely different, style engine is different and many other parts have been rewritten in both Blink and Webkit independently of each other.
ozim 5y ago
Look at the bright side, Google at least discusses some stuff with other companies rather than doing ActiveX or other crap like Microsoft when they had 80%+ of the market.
- somehnacct3757 5y ago
  It's pageantry. Google forced Manifest V3 on the world without consulting the other browsers or the existing WebExtension stakeholders. They did it under a false flag of security and performance, objectives that could have been achieved with MV2 if they wanted. But that wouldn't allow them to neuter ad-blockers. Their member in this group, Simeon Vincent, won't acknowledge this because his paycheck requires him to not understand it. You could read the last year of the chrome extension google group for countless examples of developers raising issues with MV3 architecture only to be corporate-spoken away by the 800-lb browser gorilla. They aren't listening, but they want you to think they are. Google does whatever it wants, whenever it wants, as poorly documented as it wants. MV3 still does not have buy-in from extension developers but Google has started the clock on MV2 deprecation. This new group is nothing more than an attempt to get Google to document loudly what they're already doing.
  - SquareWheel 5y ago
    > Google forced Manifest V3 on the world without consulting the other browsers or the existing WebExtension stakeholders. WebExtensions is still Google's browser API. Mozilla implemented it so they could support Chrome extensions, but they didn't inherit partial ownership as a result of that. I also think it's premature to say it was "forced on the world" when Manifest V3 isn't even released yet.
    - jannes 5y ago
      The WebExtensions API (promise-based) was created by Mozilla. Whereas “Chrome Extensions” (callback-based) was created by Google. These are not compatible with each other despite being very similar. The former uses the browser.* namespace and the latter uses the chrome.* namespace
cm2187 5y ago
And of which, one which 100%-ish of its revenues are coming from the other.

zwily 5y ago

WebKit and Chromium split so long ago, i don’t really think you can call them the same engine anymore.

edlebert 5y ago

Also, the engine has little-to-nothing to do with the plugin system.

SuchAnonMuchWow 5y ago

to be fair, the way plugins/addons are handled in a browser is a part where browser differs completely despite having the same engine

efdee 5y ago
At least two of them (Edge/Chrome) have extensions that are interchangable.

lbotos 5y ago

Wait, Safari == webkit FF == Gecko Google == Chromium Microsoft == Chromium Right? So 3 Engines?

IceWreck 5y ago
Chromium is forked from Webkit so the two share a lot of code
- stingraycharles 5y ago
  But they have diverged so long ago, they are for all practical purposes different rendering engines. It’s not the same deal as, say, Chrome and Edge.
  - filmgirlcw 5y ago
    Right, Blink and WebKit are no longer reliably similar, which is why when devs don’t test on WebKit (to say nothing of Gecko), rendering stuff can reliably break. They share a ton of history but the split happened eight years ago and A LOT of code has changed. In fairness, WebKit (and thus, Safari) has later adopted some of the same changes, but they really aren’t synonymous anymore.
- no_way 5y ago
  Blink and Webkit have become separate enough that you can't call them the same in good faith: layout engine is completely different, style engine is different and many other parts have been rewritten in both Blink and Webkit independently of each other.

ozim 5y ago

Look at the bright side, Google at least discusses some stuff with other companies rather than doing ActiveX or other crap like Microsoft when they had 80%+ of the market.

somehnacct3757 5y ago
It's pageantry. Google forced Manifest V3 on the world without consulting the other browsers or the existing WebExtension stakeholders. They did it under a false flag of security and performance, objectives that could have been achieved with MV2 if they wanted. But that wouldn't allow them to neuter ad-blockers. Their member in this group, Simeon Vincent, won't acknowledge this because his paycheck requires him to not understand it. You could read the last year of the chrome extension google group for countless examples of developers raising issues with MV3 architecture only to be corporate-spoken away by the 800-lb browser gorilla. They aren't listening, but they want you to think they are. Google does whatever it wants, whenever it wants, as poorly documented as it wants. MV3 still does not have buy-in from extension developers but Google has started the clock on MV2 deprecation. This new group is nothing more than an attempt to get Google to document loudly what they're already doing.
- SquareWheel 5y ago
  > Google forced Manifest V3 on the world without consulting the other browsers or the existing WebExtension stakeholders. WebExtensions is still Google's browser API. Mozilla implemented it so they could support Chrome extensions, but they didn't inherit partial ownership as a result of that. I also think it's premature to say it was "forced on the world" when Manifest V3 isn't even released yet.
  - jannes 5y ago
    The WebExtensions API (promise-based) was created by Mozilla. Whereas “Chrome Extensions” (callback-based) was created by Google. These are not compatible with each other despite being very similar. The former uses the browser.* namespace and the latter uses the chrome.* namespace

cm2187 5y ago

And of which, one which 100%-ish of its revenues are coming from the other.