Sure, competition is good, but Google vs. Mozilla isn't a fair fight. Google has more resources. As long as Google improves Chrome enough to keep users, they ca

Sure, competition is good, but Google vs. Mozilla isn't a fair fight. Google has more resources. As long as Google improves Chrome enough to keep users, they can simultaneously do things that are not good for the Web as a whole. They can, on average, get away with it if people don't complain or switch away due to the parts that are unsavory. The article does not lay out a watertight argument, but I see what it is trying to say: pay attention to more than just the obvious features of a browser -- also pay attention to its implications in the market. Smart people realize that it is not in your self-interest to simply buy the best (cheapest or fastest) product or service, if defined narrowly. If you care about reliability, longevity, and service, sometimes you pay more or accept some idiosyncrasies, because your goal is to support an organization that behaves in a way that you like. It is naive to think that "choosing the best browser" is simply a matter of the browser itself. There is a bigger story, and if you don't at least recognize this, it might be time to take the blinders off.