3 ms·

>Open source without the option for an alternate development organisation to drive or steer development direction means vey little. Open source is that option.

>Open source without the option for an alternate development organisation to drive or steer development direction means vey little. Open source is that option. The economics of starting from scratch vs starting from Chromium's latest commit are fundamentally different. I'm not saying that it's easy, only that it is not remotely comparable to the IE situation.

dredmorbius 4y ago
The problem is that Google controls both the overwhelmingly dominant browser and the standard. MSIE was bypassed not by a code fork of MSIE (itself originally based on the Spyglass browser, which was a fork of the NSCA's Mosaic codebase), but by independent implementations of an HTML-standard parser. Microsoft had some influence over Web development (noteably through ActiveX) but far less than Google has now. My point is that Open Source of itself is not sufficient, and moreover simply is not viable. Glibly asserting that it is ... is utterly unrealistic. Though the alternative of forking a Web-like markup and transport, as Gemini is attempting to do, is one option. For other technologies which have become sufficiently baroque, similar worse-is-better alternate paths have been pursued. Otherwise, this is an antitrust issue, and Google very badly need busting.
- fauigerzigerk 4y ago
  >My point is that Open Source of itself is not sufficient And I didn't claim that it was. My point was merely that Chromium being open source changes the equation pretty fundamentally compared to the IE situation. Whether it's enough to make a Chromium monopoly consistent with an open web, I really don't know. There are very good reasons to be sceptical.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    Your comments appear to be saying that Chromium being open source makes the equation better. Like the comments defending this point about Brave and other wrapper browsers. So you’re not claiming open source is sufficient but you are seemingly defending it is a better situation. While I and some other commenters are signaling we don’t think the situation is better. To me the fundamental part of the equation is outsized power and influence. Being open source or not is part of the equation, but not as close to as fundamental as the core issues with this. This is made much much worse now than 20 years ago with the costs to get your own browser going so much higher. Which leads back to the outsized power being the fundamental issue. Open source can even be argued to be a benefit to Google retaining power. Having enough attention diverted to the possibilities of open source when Google has only monumentally gained from open source with paltry benefits that are usually brought up as defenses against its power. Like AOSP mattering because China doesn’t use Google’s Android and some other irrelevant projects. Any fundamental differences so far are giving Google and any other major central powers more power.
    - fauigerzigerk 4y ago
      >Your comments appear to be saying that Chromium being open source makes the equation better. Like the comments defending this point about Brave and other wrapper browsers. So you’re not claiming open source is sufficient but you are seemingly defending it is a better situation. Yes, that's exactly right. I think Chromium being open source changes the equation for the better compared to the IE situation. Whether it is sufficiently better to make it work, I'm not sure. I do see Google's outsized influence as a significant problem. I'm not denying that at all. The fact that browsers like Brave have made changes that go against Google's interests is cause for some optimism though.
    - jorvi 4y ago
      You are under the mistaken assumption that Google maintains absolute power over the Chromium codebase. It is very permissively licensed, and Microsoft’s Edge is so successful and Microsoft is contributing a ton upstream. In a few years time they will have de-facto equal say over where the codebase goes. If Google disagrees too much, we will in fact see a fork.
      - jacobolus 4y ago
        Edge and Firefox are each under 5% of web browsing (among desktop browsers, each under 10%), vs. Google with well over 50%. Furthermore, from what I can tell, Edge users are predominantly former IE users (rather than coming from other browsers), and combined IE + Edge use is still declining over time.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    You write here "And I didn't claim that it was", but you'd claimed initially "That's a completely different situation". (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31834544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31834544) I'm not seeing your more recent statement as consistent with the first, given my own response: "Open source without the option for an alternate development organisation to drive or steer development direction means vey little." Again: Microsoft's locus of control was not based on source code or standards, but on its control over the PC desktop market. MSIE shipped by default with that desktop, and any other browser, including Chrome, had to find its way to that desktop. Microsoft has now ceded its own browser engine (Trident, I believe) for Google's (Blink), with Microsoft Edge. As this browser still ships by default with Windows, Chrome owns that platform by default. Google also controls its own operating systems, Android (mobile and tablets) and ChromeOS (Chromebooks). Given Android's overwhelming numerical advantage in overall devices,[1] Google effecitely have Microsoft's previous leverage mechanism to themselves. Google as the dominant search provider have an advertising advantage in advocating their browser, both within search and on Google properties with "works best with Chrome" or equivalent. And again, Google effecitvely dominate both development of Chrome and Chromium, including gatekeeping over what code makes it in to each project, and through its own browser development, dominance within WHATWG, and ranking preferences withing Google Web Search, as well as compatibility favouritism through popular Google properties such as YouTube, Web standards themselves. Microsoft's monopoly lock-in had a single peg, Google has four (OS, promotion, Chrome development, Web standards). I do have to admit though, yes: It is a completely different situation. Microsoft's advantage was far weaker than Google's now is. ________________________________ Notes: 1. "As of April 2022, Android, an operating system using the Linux kernel, is the world's most-used operating system when judged by web use. It has 43% of the global market, followed by Windows with 30%, Apple iOS with 17%, macOS with 6%, then (desktop) Linux at 0.98% also using the Linux kernel." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... My point was merely that Chromium being open source changes the equation pretty fundamentally compared to the IE situation
    - fauigerzigerk 4y ago
      >You write here "And I didn't claim that it was", but you'd claimed initially "That's a completely different situation". Yes, and I stand by that. Chromium being open source changes the situation completely. It makes no sense to compare the IE era to any Chromium monopoly without even mentioning that Chromium is open source. >I'm not seeing your more recent statement as consistent with the first, given my own response: "Open source without the option for an alternate development organisation to drive or steer development direction means vey little." I don't see any inconsistency. I simply disagree with you. It matters a great deal that Chromium is open source. It changes the politics in the industry. It changes the economics. It changes the regulatory situation. It changes the facts on the ground in terms of available browsers. I do get your point though, and it's not that I disagree with everything you're saying. I just disagree with the claim that open source Chromium "means very little".
dblohm7 4y ago
> The economics of starting from scratch vs starting from Chromium's latest commit are fundamentally different. I don’t think they are. That fork then immediately finds itself in the same position as other engines, where now the fork is going to need to keep up with whatever Google is adding to Chromium. You might then think, “Then the fork can just pull from upstream.” Okay, so then: a) Your fork probably isn’t differentiated enough to matter; and more importantly b) Google is still effectively calling all the shots!
- fauigerzigerk 4y ago
  The fact that both Brave and Vivaldi were able to disable Google's FlOC within a very short period of time is evidence against both (a) and (b) in my view. Even more so the fact that Brave was able to build an alternative ad network on top of Chromium.
  - dblohm7 4y ago
    Brave and Vivaldi fall into the “don’t matter” category. Call me when a Chromium fork displaces Chromium.
    - fauigerzigerk 4y ago
      If your argument is based purely on market share then it's basically a tautology.
      - dblohm7 4y ago
        How can market share not be part of the discussion concerning who controls the web? You wrote: > The fact that both Brave and Vivaldi were able to disable Google's FlOC within a very short period of time Okay, they disabled some stuff. That isn’t a fundamental divergence from the upstream project. The original argument was that Google wouldn’t control the web in a Chromium monoculture because anybody can just fork it. I disagree. My argument has two prongs: 1. A Chromium fork can only sever itself from Google’s control if it is not taking patches from upstream (ie, Google). I’m particularly thinking about the most consequential pieces: web APIs, not Google ad tech. That’s going to require an army of developers who now are immediately thrust onto the web API treadmill. 2. If a Chromium fork’s market share is tiny, how is it going to displace Google’s influence on the direction of the web? It isn’t. Everybody will still be coding against Google’s Chromium.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
You are ignoring the fact that Google can start making changes to make it incompatible on a scale that a small team of open source maintainers couldn't hope to keep up with.

dredmorbius 4y ago

The problem is that Google controls both the overwhelmingly dominant browser and the standard. MSIE was bypassed not by a code fork of MSIE (itself originally based on the Spyglass browser, which was a fork of the NSCA's Mosaic codebase), but by independent implementations of an HTML-standard parser. Microsoft had some influence over Web development (noteably through ActiveX) but far less than Google has now. My point is that Open Source of itself is not sufficient, and moreover simply is not viable. Glibly asserting that it is ... is utterly unrealistic. Though the alternative of forking a Web-like markup and transport, as Gemini is attempting to do, is one option. For other technologies which have become sufficiently baroque, similar worse-is-better alternate paths have been pursued. Otherwise, this is an antitrust issue, and Google very badly need busting.

fauigerzigerk 4y ago
>My point is that Open Source of itself is not sufficient And I didn't claim that it was. My point was merely that Chromium being open source changes the equation pretty fundamentally compared to the IE situation. Whether it's enough to make a Chromium monopoly consistent with an open web, I really don't know. There are very good reasons to be sceptical.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  Your comments appear to be saying that Chromium being open source makes the equation better. Like the comments defending this point about Brave and other wrapper browsers. So you’re not claiming open source is sufficient but you are seemingly defending it is a better situation. While I and some other commenters are signaling we don’t think the situation is better. To me the fundamental part of the equation is outsized power and influence. Being open source or not is part of the equation, but not as close to as fundamental as the core issues with this. This is made much much worse now than 20 years ago with the costs to get your own browser going so much higher. Which leads back to the outsized power being the fundamental issue. Open source can even be argued to be a benefit to Google retaining power. Having enough attention diverted to the possibilities of open source when Google has only monumentally gained from open source with paltry benefits that are usually brought up as defenses against its power. Like AOSP mattering because China doesn’t use Google’s Android and some other irrelevant projects. Any fundamental differences so far are giving Google and any other major central powers more power.
  - fauigerzigerk 4y ago
    >Your comments appear to be saying that Chromium being open source makes the equation better. Like the comments defending this point about Brave and other wrapper browsers. So you’re not claiming open source is sufficient but you are seemingly defending it is a better situation. Yes, that's exactly right. I think Chromium being open source changes the equation for the better compared to the IE situation. Whether it is sufficiently better to make it work, I'm not sure. I do see Google's outsized influence as a significant problem. I'm not denying that at all. The fact that browsers like Brave have made changes that go against Google's interests is cause for some optimism though.
  - jorvi 4y ago
    You are under the mistaken assumption that Google maintains absolute power over the Chromium codebase. It is very permissively licensed, and Microsoft’s Edge is so successful and Microsoft is contributing a ton upstream. In a few years time they will have de-facto equal say over where the codebase goes. If Google disagrees too much, we will in fact see a fork.
    - jacobolus 4y ago
      Edge and Firefox are each under 5% of web browsing (among desktop browsers, each under 10%), vs. Google with well over 50%. Furthermore, from what I can tell, Edge users are predominantly former IE users (rather than coming from other browsers), and combined IE + Edge use is still declining over time.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  You write here "And I didn't claim that it was", but you'd claimed initially "That's a completely different situation". (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31834544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31834544) I'm not seeing your more recent statement as consistent with the first, given my own response: "Open source without the option for an alternate development organisation to drive or steer development direction means vey little." Again: Microsoft's locus of control was not based on source code or standards, but on its control over the PC desktop market. MSIE shipped by default with that desktop, and any other browser, including Chrome, had to find its way to that desktop. Microsoft has now ceded its own browser engine (Trident, I believe) for Google's (Blink), with Microsoft Edge. As this browser still ships by default with Windows, Chrome owns that platform by default. Google also controls its own operating systems, Android (mobile and tablets) and ChromeOS (Chromebooks). Given Android's overwhelming numerical advantage in overall devices,[1] Google effecitely have Microsoft's previous leverage mechanism to themselves. Google as the dominant search provider have an advertising advantage in advocating their browser, both within search and on Google properties with "works best with Chrome" or equivalent. And again, Google effecitvely dominate both development of Chrome and Chromium, including gatekeeping over what code makes it in to each project, and through its own browser development, dominance within WHATWG, and ranking preferences withing Google Web Search, as well as compatibility favouritism through popular Google properties such as YouTube, Web standards themselves. Microsoft's monopoly lock-in had a single peg, Google has four (OS, promotion, Chrome development, Web standards). I do have to admit though, yes: It is a completely different situation. Microsoft's advantage was far weaker than Google's now is. ________________________________ Notes: 1. "As of April 2022, Android, an operating system using the Linux kernel, is the world's most-used operating system when judged by web use. It has 43% of the global market, followed by Windows with 30%, Apple iOS with 17%, macOS with 6%, then (desktop) Linux at 0.98% also using the Linux kernel." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... My point was merely that Chromium being open source changes the equation pretty fundamentally compared to the IE situation
  - fauigerzigerk 4y ago
    >You write here "And I didn't claim that it was", but you'd claimed initially "That's a completely different situation". Yes, and I stand by that. Chromium being open source changes the situation completely. It makes no sense to compare the IE era to any Chromium monopoly without even mentioning that Chromium is open source. >I'm not seeing your more recent statement as consistent with the first, given my own response: "Open source without the option for an alternate development organisation to drive or steer development direction means vey little." I don't see any inconsistency. I simply disagree with you. It matters a great deal that Chromium is open source. It changes the politics in the industry. It changes the economics. It changes the regulatory situation. It changes the facts on the ground in terms of available browsers. I do get your point though, and it's not that I disagree with everything you're saying. I just disagree with the claim that open source Chromium "means very little".

dblohm7 4y ago

> The economics of starting from scratch vs starting from Chromium's latest commit are fundamentally different. I don’t think they are. That fork then immediately finds itself in the same position as other engines, where now the fork is going to need to keep up with whatever Google is adding to Chromium. You might then think, “Then the fork can just pull from upstream.” Okay, so then: a) Your fork probably isn’t differentiated enough to matter; and more importantly b) Google is still effectively calling all the shots!

fauigerzigerk 4y ago
The fact that both Brave and Vivaldi were able to disable Google's FlOC within a very short period of time is evidence against both (a) and (b) in my view. Even more so the fact that Brave was able to build an alternative ad network on top of Chromium.
- dblohm7 4y ago
  Brave and Vivaldi fall into the “don’t matter” category. Call me when a Chromium fork displaces Chromium.
  - fauigerzigerk 4y ago
    If your argument is based purely on market share then it's basically a tautology.
    - dblohm7 4y ago
      How can market share not be part of the discussion concerning who controls the web? You wrote: > The fact that both Brave and Vivaldi were able to disable Google's FlOC within a very short period of time Okay, they disabled some stuff. That isn’t a fundamental divergence from the upstream project. The original argument was that Google wouldn’t control the web in a Chromium monoculture because anybody can just fork it. I disagree. My argument has two prongs: 1. A Chromium fork can only sever itself from Google’s control if it is not taking patches from upstream (ie, Google). I’m particularly thinking about the most consequential pieces: web APIs, not Google ad tech. That’s going to require an army of developers who now are immediately thrust onto the web API treadmill. 2. If a Chromium fork’s market share is tiny, how is it going to displace Google’s influence on the direction of the web? It isn’t. Everybody will still be coding against Google’s Chromium.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

You are ignoring the fact that Google can start making changes to make it incompatible on a scale that a small team of open source maintainers couldn't hope to keep up with.