4 ms·

Who would even buy Chrome? No one's building new browsers, and MS even walked away from the browser game. Mozilla and Firefox haven't been relevant for a decade

Who would even buy Chrome? No one's building new browsers, and MS even walked away from the browser game. Mozilla and Firefox haven't been relevant for a decade. The only buyer I can see is private equity, and that's sort of the big boy version of buying an abandoned browser plugin so it can track you and show more ads.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
delfinom 2y ago
[flagged]
mmphosis 2y ago
No one's building new browsers Ladybird, servo, and Flow are new browsers currently being built. These new browsers are not derived from any of the big three browser engines: Google Chromium, Apple WebKit, and Mozilla Gecko. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_browser_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_browser_engines
- john_the_writer 2y ago
  Sure, but their standards, and what they support aren't even something you can look up. As a JS dev these are the stuff of nightmares.
  - inetknght 2y ago
    Learn to write native applications instead.
    - privacyking 2y ago
      And native applications on web browsers are programmed in...?
      - inetknght 2y ago
        No. You don't write "native applications on web browsers".
        HaZeust 2y ago
        Electron would like a word.
        inetknght 2y ago
        If you think Electron is a native app then you're missing out on truly native performance and functionality.
        HaZeust 2y ago
        Heard the same thing from React Native - now some of the biggest (Slack, Zoom, Skype, Discord), most performant (Figma) apps are built on both. Only way I'd have a take like yours is if I was a native dev, and my job security relied on companies hiring 3 people to lead 3 teams for 3 codebases (Web, Android, iOS native) - rather than 1 team and 1 codebase for all 3. I'd dishonestly dismiss the notion of cross-platform programming only out of self-preservation, and not any semblance of pragmatism.
        inetknght 2y ago
        > some of the biggest (Slack, Zoom, Skype, Discord) If everyone is jumping off a cliff, would you too? Slack: downloads 500+ megabytes of trash and stores it on your computer. It also is dogshit slow to load conversations. It used to have a bunch of really neat integrations, and then they did the rug-pull for chat history, APIs, and other costs. It's going on momentum now but most businesses and gamers have moved off of it. Its calling feature simply refuses work on Firefox on Linux for no technical reason whatsoever. Zoom: barely works in a browser tab, and the app receives updates daily, and still has broken user experiences. Chat is barely functional, and screen sharing breaks often. Little or no useful API or integrations. Terrible user experience. But the configuration is probably the best of the apps you cite. Skype: Microsoft killed this a decade ago, I don't know why you'd bring it up. Discord: well at least they have best-in-class user experience for gaming voice comms. Up until you have too many people, at which point... good luck getting your whole gaming group together. There's a huge cult for bots and integrations, but I fear its messages will go the way of Slack -- pay for (or otherwise encumber) old/large message histories. It's terribly organized, and doesn't like running more than one client or window at a time, so it's a really terrible user experience for power users -- and it's very hostile to running a third party client to improve that. It's pretty bloated for the capabilities it has (better than Slack though), but it is packaged fairly well (very easy to install or update the Electron app) and integrates into things like Slack used to. > most performant (Figma) Figma is performant? Figma is dog slow compared to what functionality it provides. Apps ran faster on Mac OS 9 with a 275MHz PPC processor 30 years ago that do pretty much the same thing that Figma does today. > Only way I'd have a take like yours is if I was a native dev, and my job security relied on companies hiring 3 people to lead 3 teams for 3 codebases (Web, Android, iOS native) - rather than 1 team and 1 codebase for all 3. I'd dishonestly dismiss the notion of cross-platform programming only out of self-preservation, and not any semblance of pragmatism. That's a typical thought for someone who's acting on the defensive and hates computer science. Maybe you should change careers into middle management or executives, you seem the type. Or maybe you might want to cut back on personal attacks because there's plenty of pragmatism in wanting native applications if you'd look past your own short-sighted career-driven opinion. If you don't want to handle the unique benefits that each platforms give then you don't need 3 teams. Writing for web and Android and iOS native isn't what I'm arguing for, and you're moving the goalpost by trying to change it to that. Native apps have way better performance than web apps there, but they're still put into user-hostile walled gardens. You want pragmatism? Focus on why I want native apps on my desktop platform, discussed in the sibling fork of this comment thread.
    - JoshTriplett 2y ago
      Step 1: Convince your users that they should trust a native application that runs outside of a sandbox. Step 2: Wonder why you don't have more users. The more applications stay confined inside a browser tab, the better.
      - inetknght 2y ago
        Instead of complaining about native applications being outside of sandboxes... try looking at existing sandbox solutions. Or, hey, use an open source operating system and extend the existing sandbox solutions for whatever you think is missing.
        JoshTriplett 2y ago
        You're trying to present an "instead of" that assumes I should want native apps and should jump through hoops to find a way to get what I want from apps that aren't designed for it. I want web apps, because they already do what I want, and keep getting better. The right answer to "download our app!" is "no, stay in your browser tab". > try looking at existing sandbox solutions. I have, quite extensively; virtualization and sandboxing are things I have a great deal of expertise in. The best available application sandboxing solution that provides useful comprehensive APIs is the web. The next best solutions are mobile platforms, but that doesn't help laptops/desktops (no, iOS apps on macOS don't count), and aren't designed to let the user do things like block ads. If an application is open, then sure, there are plenty of other options. If an application isn't open, I want it contained in a sandbox not of its own making, that it can't escape, that provides sufficiently comprehensive APIs such that interesting applications get built for it, and that keeps the user in control.
        inetknght 2y ago
        > You're trying to present an "instead of" that assumes I should want native apps Yes. > and should jump through hoops to find a way to get what I want from apps that aren't designed for it What do you want which isn't designed for a native app? > I want web apps, because they already do what I want, and keep getting better. Perhaps. But where a web app might do what you want and get better, a native app can do what you want and get even more better. > The best available application sandboxing solution that provides useful comprehensive APIs is the web. You missed the next part: Or, hey, use an open source operating system and extend the existing sandbox solutions for whatever you think is missing. > If an application is open, then sure, there are plenty of other options. If an application isn't open, I want it contained in a sandbox not of its own making, that it can't escape, that provides sufficiently comprehensive APIs such that interesting applications get built for it, and that keeps the user in control. So you're either wanting to use and develop for Linux, or you're wanting to build apps that fit in walled gardens. Guess which one lets you build and/or run native apps in a sandbox not of its own making, and provides comprehensive APIs, and keeps the user in control? It's not macOS or Windows, it's not iOS or Android, and it's definitely not web apps (which are the least common denominator of the list).
    - MisterSandman 2y ago
      > native applications ah got it, so instead of writing React Native, I can instead learn how to write in SwiftUI for iOS, Kotlin for Android and C# for Windows. Easy!
stock_toaster 2y ago
> Who would even buy Chrome? You mean.. who would want to buy an app that has 65% marketshare? I just imagine some shady company (shadier than google at least) buying it to slap ads all over inside the browser itself.
- karencarits 2y ago
  Re shady company: the possibility of some shady foreign governmental agency getting control of Chrome, through layers of shell companies, is terrifying to think about. This possibility hasn't been discussed much in this thread, perhaps surprisingly. The value of collecting data from or inserting backdoors into Chrome seems so massive that I find it hard to trust any but the existing large tech companies to have the skills and infrastructure to keep it safe (keeping the pager bombs story in mind)
karmasimida 2y ago
No one. It will be a be new Chrome entity I guess, spun off the Google mothership. However, how does it make money is very unclear to me, like how? Selling the search bar to highest bidder, a.k.a Google still?
jeroenhd 2y ago
I can see a billionaire like Musk wasting some of their net worth to play some stupid political theatre.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

delfinom 2y ago

[flagged]

mmphosis 2y ago

No one's building new browsers Ladybird, servo, and Flow are new browsers currently being built. These new browsers are not derived from any of the big three browser engines: Google Chromium, Apple WebKit, and Mozilla Gecko. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_browser_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_browser_engines

john_the_writer 2y ago
Sure, but their standards, and what they support aren't even something you can look up. As a JS dev these are the stuff of nightmares.
- inetknght 2y ago
  Learn to write native applications instead.
  - privacyking 2y ago
    And native applications on web browsers are programmed in...?
    - inetknght 2y ago
      No. You don't write "native applications on web browsers".
      - HaZeust 2y ago
        Electron would like a word.
        inetknght 2y ago
        If you think Electron is a native app then you're missing out on truly native performance and functionality.
        HaZeust 2y ago
        Heard the same thing from React Native - now some of the biggest (Slack, Zoom, Skype, Discord), most performant (Figma) apps are built on both. Only way I'd have a take like yours is if I was a native dev, and my job security relied on companies hiring 3 people to lead 3 teams for 3 codebases (Web, Android, iOS native) - rather than 1 team and 1 codebase for all 3. I'd dishonestly dismiss the notion of cross-platform programming only out of self-preservation, and not any semblance of pragmatism.
        inetknght 2y ago
        > some of the biggest (Slack, Zoom, Skype, Discord) If everyone is jumping off a cliff, would you too? Slack: downloads 500+ megabytes of trash and stores it on your computer. It also is dogshit slow to load conversations. It used to have a bunch of really neat integrations, and then they did the rug-pull for chat history, APIs, and other costs. It's going on momentum now but most businesses and gamers have moved off of it. Its calling feature simply refuses work on Firefox on Linux for no technical reason whatsoever. Zoom: barely works in a browser tab, and the app receives updates daily, and still has broken user experiences. Chat is barely functional, and screen sharing breaks often. Little or no useful API or integrations. Terrible user experience. But the configuration is probably the best of the apps you cite. Skype: Microsoft killed this a decade ago, I don't know why you'd bring it up. Discord: well at least they have best-in-class user experience for gaming voice comms. Up until you have too many people, at which point... good luck getting your whole gaming group together. There's a huge cult for bots and integrations, but I fear its messages will go the way of Slack -- pay for (or otherwise encumber) old/large message histories. It's terribly organized, and doesn't like running more than one client or window at a time, so it's a really terrible user experience for power users -- and it's very hostile to running a third party client to improve that. It's pretty bloated for the capabilities it has (better than Slack though), but it is packaged fairly well (very easy to install or update the Electron app) and integrates into things like Slack used to. > most performant (Figma) Figma is performant? Figma is dog slow compared to what functionality it provides. Apps ran faster on Mac OS 9 with a 275MHz PPC processor 30 years ago that do pretty much the same thing that Figma does today. > Only way I'd have a take like yours is if I was a native dev, and my job security relied on companies hiring 3 people to lead 3 teams for 3 codebases (Web, Android, iOS native) - rather than 1 team and 1 codebase for all 3. I'd dishonestly dismiss the notion of cross-platform programming only out of self-preservation, and not any semblance of pragmatism. That's a typical thought for someone who's acting on the defensive and hates computer science. Maybe you should change careers into middle management or executives, you seem the type. Or maybe you might want to cut back on personal attacks because there's plenty of pragmatism in wanting native applications if you'd look past your own short-sighted career-driven opinion. If you don't want to handle the unique benefits that each platforms give then you don't need 3 teams. Writing for web and Android and iOS native isn't what I'm arguing for, and you're moving the goalpost by trying to change it to that. Native apps have way better performance than web apps there, but they're still put into user-hostile walled gardens. You want pragmatism? Focus on why I want native apps on my desktop platform, discussed in the sibling fork of this comment thread.
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    Step 1: Convince your users that they should trust a native application that runs outside of a sandbox. Step 2: Wonder why you don't have more users. The more applications stay confined inside a browser tab, the better.
    - inetknght 2y ago
      Instead of complaining about native applications being outside of sandboxes... try looking at existing sandbox solutions. Or, hey, use an open source operating system and extend the existing sandbox solutions for whatever you think is missing.
      - JoshTriplett 2y ago
        You're trying to present an "instead of" that assumes I should want native apps and should jump through hoops to find a way to get what I want from apps that aren't designed for it. I want web apps, because they already do what I want, and keep getting better. The right answer to "download our app!" is "no, stay in your browser tab". > try looking at existing sandbox solutions. I have, quite extensively; virtualization and sandboxing are things I have a great deal of expertise in. The best available application sandboxing solution that provides useful comprehensive APIs is the web. The next best solutions are mobile platforms, but that doesn't help laptops/desktops (no, iOS apps on macOS don't count), and aren't designed to let the user do things like block ads. If an application is open, then sure, there are plenty of other options. If an application isn't open, I want it contained in a sandbox not of its own making, that it can't escape, that provides sufficiently comprehensive APIs such that interesting applications get built for it, and that keeps the user in control.
        inetknght 2y ago
        > You're trying to present an "instead of" that assumes I should want native apps Yes. > and should jump through hoops to find a way to get what I want from apps that aren't designed for it What do you want which isn't designed for a native app? > I want web apps, because they already do what I want, and keep getting better. Perhaps. But where a web app might do what you want and get better, a native app can do what you want and get even more better. > The best available application sandboxing solution that provides useful comprehensive APIs is the web. You missed the next part: Or, hey, use an open source operating system and extend the existing sandbox solutions for whatever you think is missing. > If an application is open, then sure, there are plenty of other options. If an application isn't open, I want it contained in a sandbox not of its own making, that it can't escape, that provides sufficiently comprehensive APIs such that interesting applications get built for it, and that keeps the user in control. So you're either wanting to use and develop for Linux, or you're wanting to build apps that fit in walled gardens. Guess which one lets you build and/or run native apps in a sandbox not of its own making, and provides comprehensive APIs, and keeps the user in control? It's not macOS or Windows, it's not iOS or Android, and it's definitely not web apps (which are the least common denominator of the list).
  - MisterSandman 2y ago
    > native applications ah got it, so instead of writing React Native, I can instead learn how to write in SwiftUI for iOS, Kotlin for Android and C# for Windows. Easy!

stock_toaster 2y ago

> Who would even buy Chrome? You mean.. who would want to buy an app that has 65% marketshare? I just imagine some shady company (shadier than google at least) buying it to slap ads all over inside the browser itself.

karencarits 2y ago
Re shady company: the possibility of some shady foreign governmental agency getting control of Chrome, through layers of shell companies, is terrifying to think about. This possibility hasn't been discussed much in this thread, perhaps surprisingly. The value of collecting data from or inserting backdoors into Chrome seems so massive that I find it hard to trust any but the existing large tech companies to have the skills and infrastructure to keep it safe (keeping the pager bombs story in mind)

karmasimida 2y ago

No one. It will be a be new Chrome entity I guess, spun off the Google mothership. However, how does it make money is very unclear to me, like how? Selling the search bar to highest bidder, a.k.a Google still?

jeroenhd 2y ago

I can see a billionaire like Musk wasting some of their net worth to play some stupid political theatre.