3 ms·

I think it's the opposite. A lot of the HN demographic has in fact mulled this over time and time again, and has no patience for those who don't account for the

I think it's the opposite. A lot of the HN demographic has in fact mulled this over time and time again, and has no patience for those who don't account for the possibility that one day, the monopolist will stop being a nice guy when there is every incentive to do that. I would rather educate than downvote, but downvoting has gotten to be more emotional than based on the site guidelines, so not everyone sticks to that.

carapace 5y ago
(FWIW, I don't give a crap about up/downvotes, I want to engage in a deep discussion.) Back in the day when it was FF vs. Microsoft Internet Explorer the need for a competing FOSS browser seemed very compelling, but I don't think FF won marketshare on that, rather it won on merits: FF was better than IE. Today the situation seems different. To me it seems to make sense to let the engine become a standardized component (developed FOSS-style) incorporating work by Google for speed, security, and reliability, and let the diversity and competition happen on a higher, more user-facing level, in terms of policy and politics and UI/UX and so on.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  If people wanted features, why was Opera always so niche? It used to be so far ahead in features. I guess Brave today has quite a few features. Maybe Vivaldi.. I haven't looked really. I think the real issue is that the vast majority of users don't really care about browser features beyond a certain point, a point which all modern browsers have easily covered. You could sit a person in front of Chrome, Firefox, Edge, or Safari and they'd barely notice. If there's attachment to a certain brand, it's mostly emotional. Arguing that people should use X over Y is like arguing that they should drink Pepsi over Coca Cola.. It's hard to differentiate a browser in such a market. It's just a window to the web, with tabs and bookmarks and a handful of features. And an adblocker extension, for some 30% of users. Beyond that, it just needs to work and be fast.
  - carapace 5y ago
    FWIW, I think you're right. The only way that Chrome is going to lose market share is if they do something really stupid to piss off users.

carapace 5y ago

(FWIW, I don't give a crap about up/downvotes, I want to engage in a deep discussion.) Back in the day when it was FF vs. Microsoft Internet Explorer the need for a competing FOSS browser seemed very compelling, but I don't think FF won marketshare on that, rather it won on merits: FF was better than IE. Today the situation seems different. To me it seems to make sense to let the engine become a standardized component (developed FOSS-style) incorporating work by Google for speed, security, and reliability, and let the diversity and competition happen on a higher, more user-facing level, in terms of policy and politics and UI/UX and so on.

foxfluff 5y ago
If people wanted features, why was Opera always so niche? It used to be so far ahead in features. I guess Brave today has quite a few features. Maybe Vivaldi.. I haven't looked really. I think the real issue is that the vast majority of users don't really care about browser features beyond a certain point, a point which all modern browsers have easily covered. You could sit a person in front of Chrome, Firefox, Edge, or Safari and they'd barely notice. If there's attachment to a certain brand, it's mostly emotional. Arguing that people should use X over Y is like arguing that they should drink Pepsi over Coca Cola.. It's hard to differentiate a browser in such a market. It's just a window to the web, with tabs and bookmarks and a handful of features. And an adblocker extension, for some 30% of users. Beyond that, it just needs to work and be fast.
- carapace 5y ago
  FWIW, I think you're right. The only way that Chrome is going to lose market share is if they do something really stupid to piss off users.