13 ms·

That's the point. If you say browser developers need money from the search giant to compete in browser development, you are saying that - right now - you can't

That's the point. If you say browser developers need money from the search giant to compete in browser development, you are saying that - right now - you can't compete in browser development without it. That is a cartel. We only have four major browsers because only four players can play on a fair playing field. There are people who have been paid millions to create and perpetuate this system. Web developers worrying about feature development without it is their KPI. None of this is a coincidence, none of this is a natural law.

roenxi 1y ago
Google thinks - accurately - that the more people use the internet the more money Google makes. It invests a fortune into making the internet more accessible through creating better browsers. There isn't anyone else willing to dump that sort of money into browser development. It is a bit like calling a supermarket a cartel if it relies on local residents for 80% of its profits. No, the technical term is they are paying customers (although in Google's case it is complex and non-traditional because they are carrying the financial burden on behalf of the people who click on ads and there are a bunch of free riders). The odds are against a bunch of alternative customers hiding in the wings waiting to pop up; if they go away then they are just gone.
- shafyy 1y ago
  > It is a bit like calling a supermarket a cartel if it relies on local residents for 80% of its profits. This comparison does not make sense?
  - GlacierFox 1y ago
    Yeah, have read the segment multiple times. Can not fathom a logical coherent meaning for that sentence.
  - roenxi 1y ago
    The point I'm trying to make is that we've identified the prime customer of web browser development - it is Google. That is like identifying the prime customers of a supermarket - people who live nearby. Having customers who are particularly keen or invested for whatever reason does not make an enterprise a cartel.
    - shafyy 1y ago
      What makes Google a cartel (or rather, monopoly) in this case is that they own > 80% of the browser market. Not that they pay other companies so that they appear as the default search engine.
      - roenxi 1y ago
        I think that is a mistaken view, but rather than argue that I'll put a more interesting question. If you believe that there is a cartel here and the result is that we the plebs get high quality products for free, do you think cartels are a bad thing? Because it seems to be all upside for pretty much everyone. If this is a cartel (which, again, I don't see it), we should be looking to get cartels involved in food and housing. Breaking up this 'cartel' is literally going to mean that the best 4 web browsers won't get quite as much development effort directed towards them. The plan seems to be to choke them of so much development that even dodgy hobbyist projects can complete. That is a low-quality bar.
        shafyy 1y ago
        But we don't get the high quality products for free. Google is using Chrome to strenghten their market dominance in other markets, such as advertising. Furthermore, they are using their market power in browsers to push through standards and protocols that mostly benefit them. Just ask yourself this: Google is one of the largest and most profitable companies on Earth. They are a for-profit, capitalistic company. Legally, their main duty is to maximize shareholder profit. Why would they give away somehting for free, if in the end, it does not benefit them more than not giving it away for free? Competition is always better for consumers, unless you believe in a "benevolent dictator" situation (which, as reality shows, also never ends well).
  - ApolloFortyNine 1y ago
    Nor does calling browsers dependent on Search funding a cartel. People expect web browsers to be provided for free, which heavily complicates funding. There is nothing stopping someone from making a new browser. The base of Chrome is open source, you don't even have to do the hard part. And distribution worldwide is relatively easy, if you can give people a reason to use your browser.
- lukan 1y ago
  How did the developement of chrome made more people use the internet? Some remember the time, when browsers existed before chrome as well .. and I am not a ware of a uniquie chrome feature, removing significant barriers. But by developing the browser, they can A) decide the direction where the web is heading B) get direct control over peoples internet experience and their data
  - tnh 1y ago
    There are alternate histories where the web stagnated as an app development platform in favor of other ecosystems. MS development slowed around IE6 after winning browser war against Netscape. Apple's mobile ecosystem competes successfully with web, but could have gone further. Chrome and Android have helped keep the web more relevant.
    - lblume 1y ago
      At its core, the ideals of the Web as an interoperable, nearly universal platform are extremely promising. I highly doubt people would prefer completely split ecosystems where programs could only be accessed on specific platforms.
  - koalaman 1y ago
    You could not watch Netflix on Linux until Chrome came along. You also didn't have very good security from browser exploits until Chrome. Chrome also made the web significantly faster to use. Chrome was critical in unblocking the use of Linux on desktop.
    - belter 1y ago
      Al Capone did a lot of good on his neighborhood...
      - mensetmanusman 1y ago
        Chrome didn’t murder anyone
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > the technical term is they are paying customers (although in Google's case it is complex and non-traditional because they are carrying the financial burden on behalf of the people who click on ads and there are a bunch of free riders) Not the fact that Google is the one doing the paying?
- Qwertious 1y ago
  I'm wondering which local residents didn't eat food before supermarkets existed.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    The vast majority since according to Wikipedia the first supermarket was in the 1930s, and thus very few were born before that. I know that I personally have never lived someplace where most of my food didn't come from a supermarket.
- CPLX 1y ago
  That’s not correct. Google believes the more people use its search engine the more money it makes from ads. That’s correct. So it monopolizes the distribution platforms for search engines. The easier analogy here is an oil monopolist paying off all the tanker and rail and pipeline companies so nobody else can get oil to customers, and then splitting the massive profits with the shippers. By the way this example actually happened and is the origin of the term “antitrust” which is the area of law that Google was found guilty of violating by multiple judges. So the analogy is right on the nose.
secondcoming 1y ago
Is it a cartel or is it a fact that writing a fully specs-compliant browser is a huge undertaking due to the complexity of everything?
- lazide 1y ago
  Maybe we can finally reduce some of the absurd complexity then?
- citrin_ru 1y ago
  The complexity is enormous but isn’t google employees are active on various standards committees? Google benefit from the complexity because it ensures there will be less competing browsers.
  - jopsen 1y ago
    A lot of the complexity stems from backwards compatibility. Also I seriously doubt there is any conspiracy here! (opinions are my own)
    - citrin_ru 1y ago
      It is not necessary a conspiracy. It's just google had (and still has) no incentives to keep web ecosistem simple and accessible to browser developers, while making it harder perfectly aligns with google's interests.
  - gwillen 1y ago
    I think Google basically _is_ the standards committees, at this point. Not in the sense of having majority control just by themselves, but in the sense of (1) the cartel being argued over here (browsers funded by Google) having that or close to it, and (2) Chrome being the main source of new features getting implemented, so that the job of the standards committees is mostly to play catch-up with Chrome.
- deeThrow94 1y ago
  At what point does the complexity of the browser cross a line to being anticompetitive?
YetAnotherNick 1y ago
How is this a cartel?
- mike_hearn 1y ago
  It has some cartel-like aspects but lacks others, probably because the software industry has a unique structure in which there are nearly no distribution costs. Cambridge Dictionary: A cartel is a group of similar independent companies or countries that join together to control prices and limit competition. It involves restricting output, controlling prices, and allocating market shares. Group of similar but independent companies (check) that join together to control prices (no, but they do join together to control the web in other ways), and limit competition (yes, by constantly adding features to HTML whilst market dumping they prevent competitors from arising). It involves restricting output (not in the literal sense, does apply if you consider the synchronized way they implement standards), controlling prices (yes, forcing them to zero instead of the natural market rate), and allocating market shares (yes, if you consider iOS browser restrictions).
  - ndr42 1y ago
    I remember that apple, google, ms had some anti-poaching agreements in place, while not directly related it seems that that is also pattern of cartels to have informal agreements that hinders competition.
  - YetAnotherNick 1y ago
    But they are not joining together in any way. In fact they have transactional relationship which is opposite of cartel.
    - mike_hearn 1y ago
      They all have contracts with Google, work on the same shared specifications and in the case of most browser companies, work on the same shared codebase. That would count as a joining together for the purposes of cartel law.
firecall 1y ago
"A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other as well as agreeing not to compete with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market. A cartel is an organization formed by producers to limit competition and increase prices by creating artificial shortages through low production quotas, stockpiling, and marketing quotas. Jurisdictions frequently consider cartelization to be anti-competitive behavior, leading them to outlaw cartel practices." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel I don't agree that the current situation in the browser market fits the definition of a Cartel, as I understand it! :-)
- dijit 1y ago
  Not sure I agree. The “price fixing” aspect could be about ads, after all- and none of the major browsers are neutral in this. Manifest v3 for example, and various standards that make fingerprinting easier.
- Tarq0n 1y ago
  The more appropriate term is an oligopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly
  - popcorncowboy 1y ago
    Or perhaps even racketeering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering
- xg15 1y ago
  If the article is true, it would be worse than a cartel, it would be effectively a monopoly with a few sockpuppet competitors. In an actual cartel or oligopoly, you'd expect at least the cartel members be relatively equal in power. But if the article is right, then Google has basically all the power to decide the course of web tech going forward, as the other browsers devs can't meaningfully deviate from whatever vision Google has for the web, without risking their funding.
- CPLX 1y ago
rolandog 1y ago
I think we're at an awkward place where governments worldwide have been slow to understand the importance of the global infrastructure that has sprouted, largely due to open source software... Given that browsers are essential to access information, I think they shouldn't be developed behind a business model, but rather as part of a global digital infrastructure fund. There should be some independence guarantees in order to make that organization not have to bow to pressure from governments to sacrifice privacy due to funding threats.
- verisimi 1y ago
  Could it possibly be that governments are perfectly ok with restricting and controlling browsers as this allows them far greater control?
  - ffsm8 1y ago
    Sure, but they're not doing that either? It's Google that's in control of Chrome and sponsors it's competitors, not the government.
    - verisimi 1y ago
      How separarate do you think google are from the governance system? Are you aware that their early funding was from in-q-tel?
      - ffsm8 1y ago
        Okay, given your theory that Google control equals government control... Wouldn't the anti trust now be against their interest of controlling the browsers? You seem to have a very contradictory opinion
        gymbeaux 1y ago
        You have to admit (in the U.S.) companies have significant power over the government.
eru 1y ago
> That is a cartel. Wikipedia says: > A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other as well as agreeing not to compete with each other[1] in order to improve their profits and dominate the market. A cartel is an organization formed by producers to limit competition and increase prices by creating artificial shortages through low production quotas, stockpiling, and marketing quotas. Jurisdictions frequently consider cartelization to be anti-competitive behavior, leading them to outlaw cartel practices. What you are alleging sounds bad, but it doesn't sound like a particularly good match for the term 'cartel'.
- fHr 1y ago
  Classic nitpick to be fair it's almost a cartel but because it is not fitting 100% it's not. Do you work at one of these companies by any chance?
  - eru 1y ago
    Not all things we dislike are the same. The same in politics: people there often have the tendency to call everyone they dislike either a Nazi or a communist. Totally ignoring that there are many, many different and exciting varieties of bad. I used to work for Google for a few years for what it's worth.
fifilura 1y ago
Pretty sure that Opera and most likely e.g. Vivaldi also has this kind of deal. If they do it, there would be no reason, other than administrative, for Google to hold this money back to only a handful of vendors. I think that weakens the cartel argument.
FollowingTheDao 1y ago
Can anyone tell me a browser that does not depend on being funded by google?
- NetOpWibby 1y ago
  Orion by Kagi
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- bradleyankrom 1y ago
  Orion from Kagi is not bad, but it has enough quirks that I only use it for personal browsing, not work (dev-related) stuff.
  - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
    Thanks, it is still in beta as well, but I will give it a try.
- nicoburns 1y ago
  Safari. Servo. Ladybird. Flow.
  - ImJamal 1y ago
    Apple gets money from Google for the default search engine.
    - selectodude 1y ago
      Apple monetizes safari but it’s certainly not reliant on Google for its continued existence.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  Edge.
welfare 1y ago
It's more of an oligopoly than a cartel to be honest. It's more like how the telco industry operates. High barriers to entry with generous subsidies and incentives for the existing few providers.
glitchc 1y ago
It sounds to me that Google started this payment scheme precisely to avoid anti-trust legislation. By propping up competitors, Google could always point and say "Look, there's the competition and they're thriving. How can we be a monopoly?"
exabrial 1y ago
Alternative stance: Google has made sure that _nobody_ can implement a browser with hostile takeovers the "standards" committees and pushing the standards solely in the direction of corporate interests, bypassing consumer interests. The whole point was to make them so complicated it would be impossible for someone without an insane budget to implement one. Proof of this is the whole advertising sandbox crap... what the hell does an HMTL Client "need" an advert sandbox for? Breakups are painful. Ultimately they're better for everyone.
- ksec 1y ago
  I have been wondering if we could have a much much simpler subset of HTML / CSS and JS. Or May be even a new standard that compiles into HTML / CSS / JS. A standard that fits most uses cases and is simpler to implement.
  - exabrial 1y ago
    How about SVG+WASM?
  - Mr_Minderbinder 1y ago
    I have long thought that it would be nice to have a new Web-alternative based on XHTML. With XHTML you get a clean break from the legacy early HTML cruft and design errors as well as avoiding the corporate browser vendor designed HTML5/HTML Living “standard”. XHTML is essentially the last Web markup standard actually designed (and not rubber stamped) by the W3C and I think it is telling that even today Tim Berners-Lee’s own personal website uses XHTML.
- gtf21 1y ago
  I think I share the same opinion: I think this is going to be a very painful break with the previous paradigm, but a much needed one, and that actually this version of the current paradigm is quite bad: browsers only survive when Google pays them money. Instead this will put all browsers on a much more even playing field, and perhaps it will force governments and citizens to realise that free software takes someone to write it.
zeroq 1y ago
Say what you want, but I genuinely miss the comfort of working with Flash where you had a single target and you knew that whatever you see on the screen right now will be exactly the same for every single user, ever, despite on whatever device they will be viewing your project. I earned my first money for "web developement" in '99, and as much I understand underlying dynamics, I - as a user but mostly as a developer - really enjoy the current phase and I really liked that brief period when IE was the browser.
- taftster 1y ago
  Are mobile apps the equivalent of that experience today? Cross-platform SDKs for mobile devices have been around for awhile. This might be the closest equivalent to a Flash application?
mattmcknight 1y ago
It's bizarre to suggest this. They don't need Google's money to compete in browser development. The hard part is competing with a free product. If someone comes up with another way to offer the browser for free, or offer features that make someone want to pay, they can compete. Chromium is already open source. Moving Chrome out of Google does nothing that benefits anyone.
- xg15 1y ago
  Microsoft isn't exactly a garage startup - and they weren't just dethroned by Google, they actively tried to compete and gain back ground afterwards, building an entirely new browser in the process (pre-Chrome Edge) and offering it for free. All for nothing, in the end even they had to give up and switch to white-label Chromium.
  - mattmcknight 1y ago
    I am not sure they had to give up, but my initial experiences with Edge weren't great. There are some interesting claims of bad behavior on Google's part, but I wasn't only seeing problems on Google properties. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18697824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18697824
  - xnx 1y ago
    > All for nothing, in the end even they had to give up and switch to white-label Chromium. How is that a loss? All Microsoft wants is a controlled space to push their own products/services. Google gave them a tool to do just that for free. Microsoft would absolutely be writing its own (probably worse) browser if Google wasn't so generous to give them on without Microsoft having to incur any development cost.
    - Nab443 1y ago
      Don't say they were generous, that was a completely strategical move. By having more browser adopt their engine they can have a better control on ads and ensure they keep a way to profile users. Goal obviously shared with microsoft which knows the engine is in the best hands for their needs too.
xhrpost 1y ago
Anyone remember when you could buy a physical copy of Netscape Navigator off a store shelf? I personally feel in this weird position where I don't want to pay for software and expect it for free but maybe not fully grasping that "free" software (particularly from for-profit companies) still comes at a cost. Trying to make myself more open to paying for good software again. Unfortunately the subscription model everyone is moving to doesn't make that easier.
- prmoustache 1y ago
  Web browsers would not need so many development if we accepted the fact that we don't need them to be full blow Operating Systems.
TheRealPomax 1y ago
Three. Edge is a chrome rebadge, it's not actually different in the way webkit (somewhat) and gecko (very) are.
xnx 1y ago
> That is a cartel. Never heard of a cartel that gives its product (and the ingredients to make it) away for free to anyone including their direct competitors.
xnx 1y ago
I read of a lot of complaints that web standards are too complicated. This is absolutely true if you simply want a web browser to be a document reader. Thankfully (in my opinion) the modern browser is realizing the dream to "reduce Windows to a buggy set of device drivers".
bugturgidson 1y ago
Web developer jobs are not an obligation of natural law. You all were impressed upon by the cartel you claim to hate to prop them up. It’s electromagnetic geometry in the machine. Future hardware makers do not have an honorific obligation to validate developer illusions. They’re working on closed ecosystems that self manage their electromagnetic geometry through to the task at hand without the energy wasting ad hoc effort of human programmers. Your real problem is nVidia and other chip companies who have no obligation to save jobs of American workers who are just going in circles repeating old memes like a fuzzy VHS.

roenxi 1y ago

Google thinks - accurately - that the more people use the internet the more money Google makes. It invests a fortune into making the internet more accessible through creating better browsers. There isn't anyone else willing to dump that sort of money into browser development. It is a bit like calling a supermarket a cartel if it relies on local residents for 80% of its profits. No, the technical term is they are paying customers (although in Google's case it is complex and non-traditional because they are carrying the financial burden on behalf of the people who click on ads and there are a bunch of free riders). The odds are against a bunch of alternative customers hiding in the wings waiting to pop up; if they go away then they are just gone.

shafyy 1y ago
> It is a bit like calling a supermarket a cartel if it relies on local residents for 80% of its profits. This comparison does not make sense?
- GlacierFox 1y ago
  Yeah, have read the segment multiple times. Can not fathom a logical coherent meaning for that sentence.
- roenxi 1y ago
  The point I'm trying to make is that we've identified the prime customer of web browser development - it is Google. That is like identifying the prime customers of a supermarket - people who live nearby. Having customers who are particularly keen or invested for whatever reason does not make an enterprise a cartel.
  - shafyy 1y ago
    What makes Google a cartel (or rather, monopoly) in this case is that they own > 80% of the browser market. Not that they pay other companies so that they appear as the default search engine.
    - roenxi 1y ago
      I think that is a mistaken view, but rather than argue that I'll put a more interesting question. If you believe that there is a cartel here and the result is that we the plebs get high quality products for free, do you think cartels are a bad thing? Because it seems to be all upside for pretty much everyone. If this is a cartel (which, again, I don't see it), we should be looking to get cartels involved in food and housing. Breaking up this 'cartel' is literally going to mean that the best 4 web browsers won't get quite as much development effort directed towards them. The plan seems to be to choke them of so much development that even dodgy hobbyist projects can complete. That is a low-quality bar.
      - shafyy 1y ago
        But we don't get the high quality products for free. Google is using Chrome to strenghten their market dominance in other markets, such as advertising. Furthermore, they are using their market power in browsers to push through standards and protocols that mostly benefit them. Just ask yourself this: Google is one of the largest and most profitable companies on Earth. They are a for-profit, capitalistic company. Legally, their main duty is to maximize shareholder profit. Why would they give away somehting for free, if in the end, it does not benefit them more than not giving it away for free? Competition is always better for consumers, unless you believe in a "benevolent dictator" situation (which, as reality shows, also never ends well).
- ApolloFortyNine 1y ago
  Nor does calling browsers dependent on Search funding a cartel. People expect web browsers to be provided for free, which heavily complicates funding. There is nothing stopping someone from making a new browser. The base of Chrome is open source, you don't even have to do the hard part. And distribution worldwide is relatively easy, if you can give people a reason to use your browser.
lukan 1y ago
How did the developement of chrome made more people use the internet? Some remember the time, when browsers existed before chrome as well .. and I am not a ware of a uniquie chrome feature, removing significant barriers. But by developing the browser, they can A) decide the direction where the web is heading B) get direct control over peoples internet experience and their data
- tnh 1y ago
  There are alternate histories where the web stagnated as an app development platform in favor of other ecosystems. MS development slowed around IE6 after winning browser war against Netscape. Apple's mobile ecosystem competes successfully with web, but could have gone further. Chrome and Android have helped keep the web more relevant.
  - lblume 1y ago
    At its core, the ideals of the Web as an interoperable, nearly universal platform are extremely promising. I highly doubt people would prefer completely split ecosystems where programs could only be accessed on specific platforms.
- koalaman 1y ago
  You could not watch Netflix on Linux until Chrome came along. You also didn't have very good security from browser exploits until Chrome. Chrome also made the web significantly faster to use. Chrome was critical in unblocking the use of Linux on desktop.
  - belter 1y ago
    Al Capone did a lot of good on his neighborhood...
    - mensetmanusman 1y ago
      Chrome didn’t murder anyone
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> the technical term is they are paying customers (although in Google's case it is complex and non-traditional because they are carrying the financial burden on behalf of the people who click on ads and there are a bunch of free riders) Not the fact that Google is the one doing the paying?
Qwertious 1y ago
I'm wondering which local residents didn't eat food before supermarkets existed.
- bluGill 1y ago
  The vast majority since according to Wikipedia the first supermarket was in the 1930s, and thus very few were born before that. I know that I personally have never lived someplace where most of my food didn't come from a supermarket.
CPLX 1y ago
That’s not correct. Google believes the more people use its search engine the more money it makes from ads. That’s correct. So it monopolizes the distribution platforms for search engines. The easier analogy here is an oil monopolist paying off all the tanker and rail and pipeline companies so nobody else can get oil to customers, and then splitting the massive profits with the shippers. By the way this example actually happened and is the origin of the term “antitrust” which is the area of law that Google was found guilty of violating by multiple judges. So the analogy is right on the nose.

secondcoming 1y ago

Is it a cartel or is it a fact that writing a fully specs-compliant browser is a huge undertaking due to the complexity of everything?

lazide 1y ago
Maybe we can finally reduce some of the absurd complexity then?
citrin_ru 1y ago
The complexity is enormous but isn’t google employees are active on various standards committees? Google benefit from the complexity because it ensures there will be less competing browsers.
- jopsen 1y ago
  A lot of the complexity stems from backwards compatibility. Also I seriously doubt there is any conspiracy here! (opinions are my own)
  - citrin_ru 1y ago
    It is not necessary a conspiracy. It's just google had (and still has) no incentives to keep web ecosistem simple and accessible to browser developers, while making it harder perfectly aligns with google's interests.
- gwillen 1y ago
  I think Google basically _is_ the standards committees, at this point. Not in the sense of having majority control just by themselves, but in the sense of (1) the cartel being argued over here (browsers funded by Google) having that or close to it, and (2) Chrome being the main source of new features getting implemented, so that the job of the standards committees is mostly to play catch-up with Chrome.
deeThrow94 1y ago
At what point does the complexity of the browser cross a line to being anticompetitive?

YetAnotherNick 1y ago

How is this a cartel?

mike_hearn 1y ago
It has some cartel-like aspects but lacks others, probably because the software industry has a unique structure in which there are nearly no distribution costs. Cambridge Dictionary: A cartel is a group of similar independent companies or countries that join together to control prices and limit competition. It involves restricting output, controlling prices, and allocating market shares. Group of similar but independent companies (check) that join together to control prices (no, but they do join together to control the web in other ways), and limit competition (yes, by constantly adding features to HTML whilst market dumping they prevent competitors from arising). It involves restricting output (not in the literal sense, does apply if you consider the synchronized way they implement standards), controlling prices (yes, forcing them to zero instead of the natural market rate), and allocating market shares (yes, if you consider iOS browser restrictions).
- ndr42 1y ago
  I remember that apple, google, ms had some anti-poaching agreements in place, while not directly related it seems that that is also pattern of cartels to have informal agreements that hinders competition.
- YetAnotherNick 1y ago
  But they are not joining together in any way. In fact they have transactional relationship which is opposite of cartel.
  - mike_hearn 1y ago
    They all have contracts with Google, work on the same shared specifications and in the case of most browser companies, work on the same shared codebase. That would count as a joining together for the purposes of cartel law.

firecall 1y ago

"A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other as well as agreeing not to compete with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market. A cartel is an organization formed by producers to limit competition and increase prices by creating artificial shortages through low production quotas, stockpiling, and marketing quotas. Jurisdictions frequently consider cartelization to be anti-competitive behavior, leading them to outlaw cartel practices." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel I don't agree that the current situation in the browser market fits the definition of a Cartel, as I understand it! :-)

dijit 1y ago
Not sure I agree. The “price fixing” aspect could be about ads, after all- and none of the major browsers are neutral in this. Manifest v3 for example, and various standards that make fingerprinting easier.
Tarq0n 1y ago
The more appropriate term is an oligopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly
- popcorncowboy 1y ago
  Or perhaps even racketeering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering
xg15 1y ago
If the article is true, it would be worse than a cartel, it would be effectively a monopoly with a few sockpuppet competitors. In an actual cartel or oligopoly, you'd expect at least the cartel members be relatively equal in power. But if the article is right, then Google has basically all the power to decide the course of web tech going forward, as the other browsers devs can't meaningfully deviate from whatever vision Google has for the web, without risking their funding.
CPLX 1y ago

rolandog 1y ago

I think we're at an awkward place where governments worldwide have been slow to understand the importance of the global infrastructure that has sprouted, largely due to open source software... Given that browsers are essential to access information, I think they shouldn't be developed behind a business model, but rather as part of a global digital infrastructure fund. There should be some independence guarantees in order to make that organization not have to bow to pressure from governments to sacrifice privacy due to funding threats.

verisimi 1y ago
Could it possibly be that governments are perfectly ok with restricting and controlling browsers as this allows them far greater control?
- ffsm8 1y ago
  Sure, but they're not doing that either? It's Google that's in control of Chrome and sponsors it's competitors, not the government.
  - verisimi 1y ago
    How separarate do you think google are from the governance system? Are you aware that their early funding was from in-q-tel?
    - ffsm8 1y ago
      Okay, given your theory that Google control equals government control... Wouldn't the anti trust now be against their interest of controlling the browsers? You seem to have a very contradictory opinion
      - gymbeaux 1y ago
        You have to admit (in the U.S.) companies have significant power over the government.

eru 1y ago

> That is a cartel. Wikipedia says: > A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other as well as agreeing not to compete with each other[1] in order to improve their profits and dominate the market. A cartel is an organization formed by producers to limit competition and increase prices by creating artificial shortages through low production quotas, stockpiling, and marketing quotas. Jurisdictions frequently consider cartelization to be anti-competitive behavior, leading them to outlaw cartel practices. What you are alleging sounds bad, but it doesn't sound like a particularly good match for the term 'cartel'.

fHr 1y ago
Classic nitpick to be fair it's almost a cartel but because it is not fitting 100% it's not. Do you work at one of these companies by any chance?
- eru 1y ago
  Not all things we dislike are the same. The same in politics: people there often have the tendency to call everyone they dislike either a Nazi or a communist. Totally ignoring that there are many, many different and exciting varieties of bad. I used to work for Google for a few years for what it's worth.

fifilura 1y ago

Pretty sure that Opera and most likely e.g. Vivaldi also has this kind of deal. If they do it, there would be no reason, other than administrative, for Google to hold this money back to only a handful of vendors. I think that weakens the cartel argument.

FollowingTheDao 1y ago

Can anyone tell me a browser that does not depend on being funded by google?

NetOpWibby 1y ago
Orion by Kagi
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
bradleyankrom 1y ago
Orion from Kagi is not bad, but it has enough quirks that I only use it for personal browsing, not work (dev-related) stuff.
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  Thanks, it is still in beta as well, but I will give it a try.
nicoburns 1y ago
Safari. Servo. Ladybird. Flow.
- ImJamal 1y ago
  Apple gets money from Google for the default search engine.
  - selectodude 1y ago
    Apple monetizes safari but it’s certainly not reliant on Google for its continued existence.
charcircuit 1y ago
Edge.

welfare 1y ago

It's more of an oligopoly than a cartel to be honest. It's more like how the telco industry operates. High barriers to entry with generous subsidies and incentives for the existing few providers.

glitchc 1y ago

It sounds to me that Google started this payment scheme precisely to avoid anti-trust legislation. By propping up competitors, Google could always point and say "Look, there's the competition and they're thriving. How can we be a monopoly?"

exabrial 1y ago

Alternative stance: Google has made sure that _nobody_ can implement a browser with hostile takeovers the "standards" committees and pushing the standards solely in the direction of corporate interests, bypassing consumer interests. The whole point was to make them so complicated it would be impossible for someone without an insane budget to implement one. Proof of this is the whole advertising sandbox crap... what the hell does an HMTL Client "need" an advert sandbox for? Breakups are painful. Ultimately they're better for everyone.

ksec 1y ago
I have been wondering if we could have a much much simpler subset of HTML / CSS and JS. Or May be even a new standard that compiles into HTML / CSS / JS. A standard that fits most uses cases and is simpler to implement.
- exabrial 1y ago
  How about SVG+WASM?
- Mr_Minderbinder 1y ago
  I have long thought that it would be nice to have a new Web-alternative based on XHTML. With XHTML you get a clean break from the legacy early HTML cruft and design errors as well as avoiding the corporate browser vendor designed HTML5/HTML Living “standard”. XHTML is essentially the last Web markup standard actually designed (and not rubber stamped) by the W3C and I think it is telling that even today Tim Berners-Lee’s own personal website uses XHTML.
gtf21 1y ago
I think I share the same opinion: I think this is going to be a very painful break with the previous paradigm, but a much needed one, and that actually this version of the current paradigm is quite bad: browsers only survive when Google pays them money. Instead this will put all browsers on a much more even playing field, and perhaps it will force governments and citizens to realise that free software takes someone to write it.

zeroq 1y ago

Say what you want, but I genuinely miss the comfort of working with Flash where you had a single target and you knew that whatever you see on the screen right now will be exactly the same for every single user, ever, despite on whatever device they will be viewing your project. I earned my first money for "web developement" in '99, and as much I understand underlying dynamics, I - as a user but mostly as a developer - really enjoy the current phase and I really liked that brief period when IE was the browser.

taftster 1y ago
Are mobile apps the equivalent of that experience today? Cross-platform SDKs for mobile devices have been around for awhile. This might be the closest equivalent to a Flash application?

mattmcknight 1y ago

It's bizarre to suggest this. They don't need Google's money to compete in browser development. The hard part is competing with a free product. If someone comes up with another way to offer the browser for free, or offer features that make someone want to pay, they can compete. Chromium is already open source. Moving Chrome out of Google does nothing that benefits anyone.

xg15 1y ago
Microsoft isn't exactly a garage startup - and they weren't just dethroned by Google, they actively tried to compete and gain back ground afterwards, building an entirely new browser in the process (pre-Chrome Edge) and offering it for free. All for nothing, in the end even they had to give up and switch to white-label Chromium.
- mattmcknight 1y ago
  I am not sure they had to give up, but my initial experiences with Edge weren't great. There are some interesting claims of bad behavior on Google's part, but I wasn't only seeing problems on Google properties. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18697824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18697824
- xnx 1y ago
  > All for nothing, in the end even they had to give up and switch to white-label Chromium. How is that a loss? All Microsoft wants is a controlled space to push their own products/services. Google gave them a tool to do just that for free. Microsoft would absolutely be writing its own (probably worse) browser if Google wasn't so generous to give them on without Microsoft having to incur any development cost.
  - Nab443 1y ago
    Don't say they were generous, that was a completely strategical move. By having more browser adopt their engine they can have a better control on ads and ensure they keep a way to profile users. Goal obviously shared with microsoft which knows the engine is in the best hands for their needs too.

xhrpost 1y ago

Anyone remember when you could buy a physical copy of Netscape Navigator off a store shelf? I personally feel in this weird position where I don't want to pay for software and expect it for free but maybe not fully grasping that "free" software (particularly from for-profit companies) still comes at a cost. Trying to make myself more open to paying for good software again. Unfortunately the subscription model everyone is moving to doesn't make that easier.

prmoustache 1y ago
Web browsers would not need so many development if we accepted the fact that we don't need them to be full blow Operating Systems.

TheRealPomax 1y ago

Three. Edge is a chrome rebadge, it's not actually different in the way webkit (somewhat) and gecko (very) are.

xnx 1y ago

> That is a cartel. Never heard of a cartel that gives its product (and the ingredients to make it) away for free to anyone including their direct competitors.

xnx 1y ago

I read of a lot of complaints that web standards are too complicated. This is absolutely true if you simply want a web browser to be a document reader. Thankfully (in my opinion) the modern browser is realizing the dream to "reduce Windows to a buggy set of device drivers".

bugturgidson 1y ago

Web developer jobs are not an obligation of natural law. You all were impressed upon by the cartel you claim to hate to prop them up. It’s electromagnetic geometry in the machine. Future hardware makers do not have an honorific obligation to validate developer illusions. They’re working on closed ecosystems that self manage their electromagnetic geometry through to the task at hand without the energy wasting ad hoc effort of human programmers. Your real problem is nVidia and other chip companies who have no obligation to save jobs of American workers who are just going in circles repeating old memes like a fuzzy VHS.