3 ms·
>Because neither Safari nor Chrome are open source and what else has any market share whatsoever? The important parts of them - the rendering engines - are ind
by Klonoar 4y ago
>Because neither Safari nor Chrome are open source and what else has any market share whatsoever?
The important parts of them - the rendering engines - are indeed open source, so this isn't as bad as it seems. One can still build their own browsers on top of those engines (e.g, Ungoogled Chromium).
The "war" that's lost here isn't source availability, but two mega-entities (Apple & Google, primarily) getting to steer so much of the web.
- Ygg2 4y ago> so this isn't as bad as it seems. I'm not so sure, it's not bad. If Google decided to remove, for sake of example, add-ons. Would un-Googled Chromium be able to keep it?
- nicoburns 4y agoIf Google decides to remove addons then it would start losing users fast, and I think we’d find a fork that kept them more than viable. In this sense chrome is very different to for example Internet Explorer where no such fork was possible.
- _emacsomancer_ 4y agoChrome on mobile doesn't support extensions, where presumably it has the largest marketshare anyway.
- Ygg2 4y agoImplying people on mobile know there is an alternate browser. I've seen people not know how to open Google drive, let alone go to the Play store, download FFox and add ad blocker.
- strombofulous 4y agoWe'll find the answer to this question at the end of the year when manifest v2 extensions are removed
- kevingadd 4y agoYou can't realistically write your own browser, if you run something that isn't Chrome or Safari (or MAYBE Firefox), even if it's got Chromium in the core a lot of services will treat you as a bot and block you because your browser is Weird(tm).
- Klonoar 4y agoYou are correct, but this is more an indictment of Cloudflare & co than anything else.