4 ms·
Also: It was bad for Microsoft if browsers became too good as the Windows OS then could too easily be replaced by cheaper platforms. So Microsoft wanted to kee
by silvestrov 4y ago
Also: It was bad for Microsoft if browsers became too good as the Windows OS then could too easily be replaced by cheaper platforms. So Microsoft wanted to keep browsers back as much as possible.
It's good for Google when Chrome is good. So Google has a great incitament to improve Chrome. The only drawbacks would be proprietary functionality others can't use.
- AlexandrB 4y agoThe other drawback is that Google is an advertising company that has an incentive to track users across the web. In a Chrome monopoly how easy would it be to avoid being tracked? Especially by Google. Recently, Chrome was the only major browser to adopt Google's FLoC[1]. If Chrome was even more dominant would it have mattered if Edge/Safari/Firefox didn't adopt this tracking technology? [1] https://www.howtogeek.com/724441/what-is-googles-floc-and-how-will-it-track-you-online/ https://www.howtogeek.com/724441/what-is-googles-floc-and-ho...
- IX-103 4y agoGoogle is an advertising company, but that's not the main reason for their privacy sandbox and it's ad-friendly features. Google needs the open web to survive as a search provider. If everything turns into a paywall or cookie/privacy wall then Google can't index that content. They already can't see the content on Facebook and Twitter. Google makes most of their money from search ads -- I've heard upwards of 80% -- and search ads supposedly don't even use targeting information.
- Mikeb85 4y ago> The only drawbacks would be proprietary functionality others can't use. And what proprietary functionality is that? Chromium exists and does all the same things.