3 ms·

Google is playing a dangerous game here and I think it's going to bite them in the butt. First, some history. One thing that made Microsoft successful was a st

by jmyeet 29d ago

Google is playing a dangerous game here and I think it's going to bite them in the butt. First, some history. One thing that made Microsoft successful was a strategy called embrace, extend and extinguish ("EEE"). This is what they tried to do to Java back when it was believed that Java was a threat to Microsoft's platform monopoly since the Java mantra was "write once, run anywhere". Microsoft added all these proprietary extensions after licensing Java. Well, Microsoft basically did the same thing to knock Netscape off its throne. It was the whole basis for the antitrust suit. This was aimed at Java too because Java introduced applets. MS added ActiveX controls. MS did succeed at killing Netscape but the antitrust suit (and probably the victory over Java and Netscape) led us to more than a decade of hell with IE6 compatibility as MS basically abandoned their browser. Google did something in the mid-2000s that nobody thought was possible: they created a browser and got mass adoption without having a platform. People willingly downloaded it. And when it was first released, it was magical. They pioneered one process per tab. At the time, Netscape had faded into Fireforx and it was pretty bad. Your entire browser could hang since it was one thread per tab and it absolutely did hang. At this time and really through the mid-2010s, Google was a good actor with Chrome (IMHO). Chrome was secure, stable and a pretty open platform. Unfortunately for Google, this became a problem as use of ad blockers became more widespread. Where Chrome once became a posterchild for standards support, other parts of Google weren't so... open. Youtube at this time started playing games when people were using non-Chrome browsers. Anyone who uses Chrome knows that the anti-ad blocking really stepped up. Changes to what extensions are allowed to do killed uBlock Origin. Google has risked regulatory wrath by special-casing their own user-tracking and ad cookies while blocking other third-party cookies. They also tried to phase out third-party cookies in favor of what sounded like a first-party only tracking (FLoC? I think it was called?). Another issue is that Google always wanted people to be logged in with search and for the longest time they weren't. Well, people basically opted in to this by using Chrome and using a Google account. I used to really like the Google account syncing with Chrome. A lot of that for me has been replaced by using a password manager. My point is I once was a huge Chrome fan and now I really want there to be an alternative. I trust Apple with Safari/iOS more than Google with Chrome/Android at this point. YMMV. I find myself using Firefox a lot (again). Anyway, this whole messing with user tracking and ads I think could be Chrome's downfall and might invite regulatory scrutiny.

jcranmer 29d ago
Microsoft did attempt the EEE strategy against Java with Visual J++, but Sun slapped that attempt down and Visual J++ was always a pretty minor footnote. The end result of this effort was C#. I should note that the much more successful EEE strategy against Java was Google's Android. MS was successful at killing Netscape largely because paid software is difficult to compete against free software. The ActiveX controls weren't a feature with a lot of use--I can probably count all the sites I usedwith ActiveX controls on one hand. More common were the four big plugins: Java (for applets), Flash (counting Shockwave as part of Flash), Adobe Acrobot Reader, and Silverlight. Netscape famously rewrote its codebase to try to implement the new web standards (like CSS2) more quickly, which contributed greatly to its ultimate collapse. After Netscape collapsed, MS laid off most of its browser development team, which let IE6 languish for years without improvements, going from the most standards-compliant browser on the market to the least standards-compliant. The rise of Firefox caused MS to pay attention again to web browsers, eventually restarting development and leading to IE7 being finally released. Only subsequent to that (and Firefox taking a large chunk of the browser market) did Google Chrome come out.
exceptione 29d ago
> Google did something in the mid-2000s that nobody thought was possible: they created a browser and got mass adoption without having a platform. People willingly downloaded it I have to say that things weren't so bright. You were correct that Google had no platform, but Google never had any qualms about doing illegal things. To start with, the average person had no idea what a browser is, they had 'the internet' installed on their computer. Someday 'the internet' had changed on their computer. How? Well, remember that Windows had (or: has) no equivalent of Linux software repositories. People browsed the internet and downloaded software (including malware) from big download sites. Google sponsored those sites and had google chrome injected in every installer. Think about that when Google talks about 'sideloading Android apps'. People just had no idea, but all of a sudden their internet had changed. Secondly, Google hijacked other browsers by urging people on the Google homepage to install Google Toolbar (if I remember the name correctly) This provided a different way to spy on user's browsing activity, plus it provided a springboard toward a full chrome install. Thirdly, Google pushed users aggressively to download Chrome across all of their products. I remember Google telling me on every page that my browser was not Chrome. Chrome was never an offer from a benevolent party, on the contrary. I have been talking against many a deaf ear that it isn't that smart to install an ad viewer from an ad company, even if the first page load feels more flashy in Chrome. I am glad that people finally are starting to wise up, better late than never. Especially the stupid excuses I heard from tech people that insisted Chrome is the only way has learnt me that tech people aren't as smart as we think they are. Don't take that personally. We now have to free the internet for the average Joe. That won't be easy if we can't evade consequences from crime as Google can.

by jmyeet 29d ago

jcranmer 29d ago

Microsoft did attempt the EEE strategy against Java with Visual J++, but Sun slapped that attempt down and Visual J++ was always a pretty minor footnote. The end result of this effort was C#. I should note that the much more successful EEE strategy against Java was Google's Android. MS was successful at killing Netscape largely because paid software is difficult to compete against free software. The ActiveX controls weren't a feature with a lot of use--I can probably count all the sites I usedwith ActiveX controls on one hand. More common were the four big plugins: Java (for applets), Flash (counting Shockwave as part of Flash), Adobe Acrobot Reader, and Silverlight. Netscape famously rewrote its codebase to try to implement the new web standards (like CSS2) more quickly, which contributed greatly to its ultimate collapse. After Netscape collapsed, MS laid off most of its browser development team, which let IE6 languish for years without improvements, going from the most standards-compliant browser on the market to the least standards-compliant. The rise of Firefox caused MS to pay attention again to web browsers, eventually restarting development and leading to IE7 being finally released. Only subsequent to that (and Firefox taking a large chunk of the browser market) did Google Chrome come out.

exceptione 29d ago

> Google did something in the mid-2000s that nobody thought was possible: they created a browser and got mass adoption without having a platform. People willingly downloaded it I have to say that things weren't so bright. You were correct that Google had no platform, but Google never had any qualms about doing illegal things. To start with, the average person had no idea what a browser is, they had 'the internet' installed on their computer. Someday 'the internet' had changed on their computer. How? Well, remember that Windows had (or: has) no equivalent of Linux software repositories. People browsed the internet and downloaded software (including malware) from big download sites. Google sponsored those sites and had google chrome injected in every installer. Think about that when Google talks about 'sideloading Android apps'. People just had no idea, but all of a sudden their internet had changed. Secondly, Google hijacked other browsers by urging people on the Google homepage to install Google Toolbar (if I remember the name correctly) This provided a different way to spy on user's browsing activity, plus it provided a springboard toward a full chrome install. Thirdly, Google pushed users aggressively to download Chrome across all of their products. I remember Google telling me on every page that my browser was not Chrome. Chrome was never an offer from a benevolent party, on the contrary. I have been talking against many a deaf ear that it isn't that smart to install an ad viewer from an ad company, even if the first page load feels more flashy in Chrome. I am glad that people finally are starting to wise up, better late than never. Especially the stupid excuses I heard from tech people that insisted Chrome is the only way has learnt me that tech people aren't as smart as we think they are. Don't take that personally. We now have to free the internet for the average Joe. That won't be easy if we can't evade consequences from crime as Google can.