3 ms·
I did not say it was brand new, but it is the youngest and that's inarguable. It's pre-webkit state also was not exactly much to write home about, and I say tha
by stormbrew 14y ago
I did not say it was brand new, but it is the youngest and that's inarguable. It's pre-webkit state also was not exactly much to write home about, and I say that having been a user of Konqueror back in the day.
Google seems to be replacing the AOSP browser in Android with Chrome, btw.
I think you underestimate the non-technical cost of entry of a new browser by a lot while overestimating the technical. I'm not saying that it's a small feat to make a compliant browser by any means, but if a non-Google company were to attempt to market a new browser the way Google did (including ads of equivalent value to links on Google's front page), it would be absurdly expensive. There's a reason all the dominant and growing players in this space are massive corporations: a plucky underdog stands little chance against Google, Apple, or Microsoft. So who else's browsers would they have to hold off exactly?
- dasil003 14y agoNo, it's only 15 years old out of 20 years of the history of the web. Sheesh.