4 ms·

While I admire your stance on the internet being open I disagree. Yes, opening browser engines would be good for the competition. But you missed one point: You

While I admire your stance on the internet being open I disagree. Yes, opening browser engines would be good for the competition. But you missed one point: You assume all players will play fair in the competition. If all browser engines would be allowed over night, what would happen: Google will probably play really unfair. E.g. sadly the layout of Google will be messed up in Safari, youtube videos stutter/have lower resolution, everything is a lot slower, the performance will be sabotaged, but on Chrome everything will be working fine. There was even a precedent for something similar: [1] This will probably come alongside with "Try it in Google Chrome", a lot of users would probably switch, thus the monopoly of Chromium would be unstoppable by pure market forces. Yes, having only one browser engine is bad for the choice of the user, but it does have significant downsides. Damned, if you do, damned if you don't [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/4/18529381/google-youtube-internet-explorer-6-kill-plot-engineer https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/4/18529381/google-youtube-in...

joshuamorton 4y ago
> There was even a precedent for something similar: [1] No there wasn't, unless you mean killing a 10 year old version of Internet explorer with a banner to a newer version of Internet explorer is somehow playing unfair.
- JCWasmx86 4y ago
  Maybe precedent was an unfair word - I apologize - but it shows, how Google can/could use the power of having one of the most used websites in order to influence the choice of the browser.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  Yes, there was. See this thread from Mozilla's former Vice President: https://archive.ph/2019.04.15-165942/https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871238922776576 https://archive.ph/2019.04.15-165942/https://twitter.com/joh... (or directly on Twitter: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686)
mtomweb 4y ago
Anti-Competitive Behaviour from google should also be addressed by regulators. Our suggestions were covered in sections: 3.1.7 No Chrome Prefrencing 3.1.8 Website Transparency Obligations https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)%20-%20Competition%20in%20the%20Mobile%20App%20Ecosystem%20-%20v1.1.pdf https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)...
- nneonneo 4y ago
  As parent stated, Google can simply neglect to make their apps work well in Safari. They’ve done so in the past; GMail on Firefox was nigh-unusable due to a raft of dumb bugs for a long time, and it still uses substantially more CPU and memory than literally any other tab I have open on my browser. Right now they have to make an effort to support WebKit (Safari); as soon as they can push Blink (Chrome) to users, that motivation will go away.
  - IX-103 4y ago
    To be fair, it's not like Safari is free. Should site owners have to pay Apple to make sure that their website shows up well in Safari? That seems like it creates perverse incentives for Apple to keep Safari "broken".
    - simondotau 4y ago
      In a discussion about encouraging browser diversity, are you seriously arguing that it’s an unreasonable burden on web developers to ensure their websites work on more than one browser engine?

joshuamorton 4y ago

> There was even a precedent for something similar: [1] No there wasn't, unless you mean killing a 10 year old version of Internet explorer with a banner to a newer version of Internet explorer is somehow playing unfair.

JCWasmx86 4y ago
Maybe precedent was an unfair word - I apologize - but it shows, how Google can/could use the power of having one of the most used websites in order to influence the choice of the browser.
dmitriid 4y ago
Yes, there was. See this thread from Mozilla's former Vice President: https://archive.ph/2019.04.15-165942/https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871238922776576 https://archive.ph/2019.04.15-165942/https://twitter.com/joh... (or directly on Twitter: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686)

mtomweb 4y ago

Anti-Competitive Behaviour from google should also be addressed by regulators. Our suggestions were covered in sections: 3.1.7 No Chrome Prefrencing 3.1.8 Website Transparency Obligations https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)%20-%20Competition%20in%20the%20Mobile%20App%20Ecosystem%20-%20v1.1.pdf https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)...

nneonneo 4y ago
As parent stated, Google can simply neglect to make their apps work well in Safari. They’ve done so in the past; GMail on Firefox was nigh-unusable due to a raft of dumb bugs for a long time, and it still uses substantially more CPU and memory than literally any other tab I have open on my browser. Right now they have to make an effort to support WebKit (Safari); as soon as they can push Blink (Chrome) to users, that motivation will go away.
- IX-103 4y ago
  To be fair, it's not like Safari is free. Should site owners have to pay Apple to make sure that their website shows up well in Safari? That seems like it creates perverse incentives for Apple to keep Safari "broken".
  - simondotau 4y ago
    In a discussion about encouraging browser diversity, are you seriously arguing that it’s an unreasonable burden on web developers to ensure their websites work on more than one browser engine?