4 ms·

Honestly I think this is bad. We'll end up with Blink everywhere.

by tormeh 4y ago

mirthflat83 4y ago
Yep. We will end up with a singular “standard” set up by Google.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  From the perspective of users or developers, what's bad about this? I mean, we generally take it as axiomatic that it must be bad, but the dream of anybody being able to come along and make a Web browser is long dead.
  - petesergeant 4y ago
    That the network effects of everything only being tested on Chrome will mean that for some sites you have to use (eg Government, e-commerce you can’t do without), you’ll no longer have a choice of browser, and that that dominant position will be maintained even if Chrome starts to really suck, or Google decide to lean in to “you need a trackable Google account to use this”. Google releases Chrome in order to show you ads.
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      I am not 100% convinced that the existence of Safari exclusively on Apple platforms is all that effective at preventing this -- for instance, if you don't particularly care about mobile users you're pretty much already living in this world today.
      - petesergeant 4y ago
        > if you don't particularly care about mobile users I think this is a small share
        emodendroket 4y ago
        Maybe, though maybe less so for business Web apps or other boring uses. Either way, monopoly or oligopoly can also have salutary effects. Flash was a complete blight on the Web and all it took was Apple saying “no, we aren’t going to support that” and it disappeared practically overnight. Chrome’s been similarly effective in pushing forward some basic security measures. Hard to imagine this happening in a world of 50 different browsers with roughly equal market share.
  - TheJoeMan 4y ago
    I don't think anyone's talking about another elephant in the room: Facebook could very easily make their own framework for embedded web browsing and get all of their tracking ability back.
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      They’d still be behind Apple with OS-level insights that they claim the right to use in their own ads.
CharlesW 4y ago
> Honestly I think this is bad. We'll end up with Blink everywhere. That could happen, but alternatively we could get Browser War III¹, in which Apple reintroduces an extremely competitive Safari for Windows in order to counteract the Blink (Chrome, Edge) hegemony. That would not be great news for Firefox, though. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars
- smoldesu 4y ago
  It would need a good client. WebKit browsers exist on Linux, but almost nobody uses them due to their shoddy support for extensions and general lack of care put into cross-platform support. If you've got WSLG or a Linux machine laying around, go try the Epiphany browser - basically what would happen if you ported WebKit to an OS-native GUI with minimal modifications. It's pretty unusable compared to Firefox or Chrome, on every hardware/software combo I try. I'd love to see "Cross-platform Software Dev"-era Apple throw their hat back into the ring, but putting Safari on other platforms is a big commitment if you want to take it seriously.
  - kitsunesoba 4y ago
    GNOME Web seems decent enough for me. Last time I tried using it the main issue was the lack of Widevine and similar DRM… if it weren't for that there's a good chance I'd be using it on my Linux machines because a GTK browser feels a good deal nicer on a GTK desktop than XUL and whatever the UI layer for Chromium is called.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      I like the UI and overall design philosophy, but WebKit seems to be too neglected on Linux to be a reliable experience. The difference in text presentation between GTK/Cairo and WebKit itself was really jarring, and something I'd bet you'd notice on Windows too. That could be fixed with a well-made client, but it's a lot of work that I doubt Apple wants to go through.
      - 4y ago
postalrat 4y ago
Only because webkit sucks.
- fabrice_d 4y ago
  Mostly because Google will plaster its web properties and iOS apps with calls to install Chrome, like they did on desktop.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    That wouldn't be that effective if people tried Chrome and thought it sucked.
    - forgetfulness 4y ago
      It doesn't matter that they can, and want, to invest as much as they do today in the browser space. Microsoft's IE was also the most competitive until it killed off the competition, then they decreased quality. Back then the decrease in quality was by way of not developing new features, or developing them in a quirky way, that was all well form them because they didn't want web applications to displace native Windows applications. The decrease in quality you may see from Google may come in privacy, they'll be able to tighten the surveillance as much as they want once no website you care about works outside of Chrome and you can't switch.
      - emodendroket 4y ago
        If they turn the screws then perhaps people will begin to care about alternative browsers again like they did when IE was a going concern.
        forgetfulness 4y ago
        Yes and it was incredibly difficult to displace the monopoly of a vendor that had incentives to make their product, ultimately, unattractive in every regard. Imagine now the network effects and a browser that actually keeps up to date, they'll just have won, period.
cute_boi 4y ago
Browsing web with firefox + ublock origin feels like liberation

Honestly I think this is bad. We'll end up with Blink everywhere.

by tormeh 4y ago

Honestly I think this is bad. We'll end up with Blink everywhere.

mirthflat83 4y ago

Yep. We will end up with a singular “standard” set up by Google.

emodendroket 4y ago
From the perspective of users or developers, what's bad about this? I mean, we generally take it as axiomatic that it must be bad, but the dream of anybody being able to come along and make a Web browser is long dead.
- petesergeant 4y ago
  That the network effects of everything only being tested on Chrome will mean that for some sites you have to use (eg Government, e-commerce you can’t do without), you’ll no longer have a choice of browser, and that that dominant position will be maintained even if Chrome starts to really suck, or Google decide to lean in to “you need a trackable Google account to use this”. Google releases Chrome in order to show you ads.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    I am not 100% convinced that the existence of Safari exclusively on Apple platforms is all that effective at preventing this -- for instance, if you don't particularly care about mobile users you're pretty much already living in this world today.
    - petesergeant 4y ago
      > if you don't particularly care about mobile users I think this is a small share
      - emodendroket 4y ago
        Maybe, though maybe less so for business Web apps or other boring uses. Either way, monopoly or oligopoly can also have salutary effects. Flash was a complete blight on the Web and all it took was Apple saying “no, we aren’t going to support that” and it disappeared practically overnight. Chrome’s been similarly effective in pushing forward some basic security measures. Hard to imagine this happening in a world of 50 different browsers with roughly equal market share.
- TheJoeMan 4y ago
  I don't think anyone's talking about another elephant in the room: Facebook could very easily make their own framework for embedded web browsing and get all of their tracking ability back.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    They’d still be behind Apple with OS-level insights that they claim the right to use in their own ads.

CharlesW 4y ago

> Honestly I think this is bad. We'll end up with Blink everywhere. That could happen, but alternatively we could get Browser War III¹, in which Apple reintroduces an extremely competitive Safari for Windows in order to counteract the Blink (Chrome, Edge) hegemony. That would not be great news for Firefox, though. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars

smoldesu 4y ago
It would need a good client. WebKit browsers exist on Linux, but almost nobody uses them due to their shoddy support for extensions and general lack of care put into cross-platform support. If you've got WSLG or a Linux machine laying around, go try the Epiphany browser - basically what would happen if you ported WebKit to an OS-native GUI with minimal modifications. It's pretty unusable compared to Firefox or Chrome, on every hardware/software combo I try. I'd love to see "Cross-platform Software Dev"-era Apple throw their hat back into the ring, but putting Safari on other platforms is a big commitment if you want to take it seriously.
- kitsunesoba 4y ago
  GNOME Web seems decent enough for me. Last time I tried using it the main issue was the lack of Widevine and similar DRM… if it weren't for that there's a good chance I'd be using it on my Linux machines because a GTK browser feels a good deal nicer on a GTK desktop than XUL and whatever the UI layer for Chromium is called.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    I like the UI and overall design philosophy, but WebKit seems to be too neglected on Linux to be a reliable experience. The difference in text presentation between GTK/Cairo and WebKit itself was really jarring, and something I'd bet you'd notice on Windows too. That could be fixed with a well-made client, but it's a lot of work that I doubt Apple wants to go through.
    - 4y ago

postalrat 4y ago

Only because webkit sucks.

fabrice_d 4y ago
Mostly because Google will plaster its web properties and iOS apps with calls to install Chrome, like they did on desktop.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  That wouldn't be that effective if people tried Chrome and thought it sucked.
  - forgetfulness 4y ago
    It doesn't matter that they can, and want, to invest as much as they do today in the browser space. Microsoft's IE was also the most competitive until it killed off the competition, then they decreased quality. Back then the decrease in quality was by way of not developing new features, or developing them in a quirky way, that was all well form them because they didn't want web applications to displace native Windows applications. The decrease in quality you may see from Google may come in privacy, they'll be able to tighten the surveillance as much as they want once no website you care about works outside of Chrome and you can't switch.
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      If they turn the screws then perhaps people will begin to care about alternative browsers again like they did when IE was a going concern.
      - forgetfulness 4y ago
        Yes and it was incredibly difficult to displace the monopoly of a vendor that had incentives to make their product, ultimately, unattractive in every regard. Imagine now the network effects and a browser that actually keeps up to date, they'll just have won, period.

cute_boi 4y ago

Browsing web with firefox + ublock origin feels like liberation