
Browsers - indysigners
https://adactio.com/journal/14608
======
eddieroger
I feel like I’m missing something, because I keep seeing blog posts that tell
me a browser monoculture is bad (and the irony of Microsoft saying this is
nearly too much), but none of them tell me why. I understand that it was bad
in the IE6 days, but IE6 was also closed source and could only be run on
Windows (see also the irony of Microsoft discontinuing IE on Mac, not wanting
to compete with Safari, a browser made by the OS manufacturer). Chromium is
open source - the only lock in is the decision to use it. Sure, Google may be
at the reigns of where the project goes, but then differentiate on features,
or fork it and make it different. Differentiate on the user interface, or
integrations with other services, or go hard on privacy. Maybe the rendering
engine should be more akin to the Linux kernel and less akin to Windows? One
operating system would be bad, but one kernel has spawned many, many Linuxes.
I guess I’m doing my part by using Firefox, but that’s more because I am
worried about just how much Google knows about me, and not because I think
Gecko is remarkably better than Chromium.

~~~
sonnyblarney
The concern is not 'now' it's 'later'.

Google is a business like any other - and when they have the power to lever a
monopolized situation - they will.

For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have
exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden
Google apps start performing better than anyone else's?

Or what if they integrate technology that de-facto collects usage and
behaviour - even from other domains - and then lever that competitively?

The power that Google already has, relatively unregulated is crazy. Remember
that Google is the company that could change the outcome of elections ...
possibly without us even knowing. They could drive markets up or down at will.

This would probably happen as a 'slow drip' \- not one step being close enough
to consumer awareness to create problems, and what with 'business friendly'
politicians, nary a worry of legislation getting in the way.

They could introduce these technologies under the guise of 'improving user
experience' (and maybe legitimately so to start), but other PM's, new CEO's
etc. just take the opportunity before them. Why wouldn't they?

We worry a lot about 'Net Neutrality' at the network level, like it's a
religion ... but that we don't worry about 'information neutrality' as well I
find quite bizarre.

I suggest that having '1 major provider' may be a problem, doubly so if it's
an entity like Google, and that frankly we don't really gain much from this
fact at all. If Mozilla were the provider, great. Even Apple might be a better
choice simply because they are not in the business of managing our information
- at least right now, for them, it's a headache, not a revenue source.

So the concern is real.

~~~
JoshuaJB
"For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have
exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden
Google apps start performing better than anyone else's?"

This is already happening. I very recently worked on the Edge team, and one of
the reasons we decided to end EdgeHTML was because Google kept making changes
to its sites that broke other browsers, and we couldn't keep up. For example,
they recently added a hidden empty div over YouTube videos that causes our
hardware acceleration fast-path to bail (should now be fixed in Win10 Oct
update). Prior to that, our fairly state-of-the-art video acceleration put us
well ahead of Chrome on video playback time on battery, but almost the instant
they broke things on YouTube, they started advertising Chrome's dominance over
Edge on video-watching battery life. What makes it so sad, is that their
claimed dominance was not due to ingenious optimization work by Chrome, but
due to a failure of YouTube. On the whole, they only made the web slower.

Now while I'm not sure I'm convinced that YouTube was changed intentionally to
slow Edge, many of my co-workers are quite convinced - and they're the ones
who looked into it personally. To add to this all, when we asked, YouTube
turned down our request to remove the hidden empty div and did not elaborate
further.

And this is only one case.

~~~
XCabbage
The behaviour that your co-workers claim Google engaged in sounds pretty
exactly like the AMD-Intel antitrust case where AMD alleged that Intel's C
compiler was deliberately crippling performance on AMD processors to help
Intel's processors compete. If true, Microsoft _should_ sue Google over it -
not just out of raw corporate self-interest, but because this sort of conduct
is evil and should be stamped out.

If this case hasn't already been run up to Microsoft's lawyers, start running
it up to them. You'll be doing the world a service.

~~~
ksec
What will Microsoft gain if they Win? Nothing. Google has the upper hand in
public image. Microsoft is still evil outside of Dev Circles. And IE did some
ass moves as well in IE6 era, think about the PR mess this would lead.

It is not the best time to strike now, once the timing is right, I am sure
they will.

~~~
XCabbage
> _" What will Microsoft gain if they Win?"_

Uh, money? It might not exactly be a noble incentive for a lawsuit, but it's
sure as hell an incentive, isn't it?

~~~
sangnoir
I wonder what sort of information Google might dredge up during discovery that
Microsoft wouldn't want to see the light of day. I'm no lawyer/accountant, so
I don't know what amount of money would be worth that risk.

With a lot of legal issues, sometimes the only winning move is not to play.

~~~
gpshead
hiybbprqag for one - [https://www.wired.com/2011/02/bing-copies-
google/](https://www.wired.com/2011/02/bing-copies-google/)

~~~
phoenix616
I mean google was recently caught doing the same thing with baidu...
[https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/google-china-censored-
se...](https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/google-china-censored-search-
engine-2/)

------
sarcasmic
People don't download Chrome because EdgeHTML-Edge sucks; they download Chrome
because it's familiar, and ironically doesn't nag the person to enable half a
dozen Microsoft's services one by one. There's two greater truths here: that
some people are more comfortable using Google's services over those of
Microsoft, and that the power of defaults matter, even when they feel skeevy
to a part of the population. Google proved that defaulting to all the services
enabled by default is reasonable not just with a discretionary application
(like Chrome) but also when the user barely has any other choice on the device
(like Android), and years of these defaults have resulted in a userbase that
relies on them and seeks out the product for this reason.

It also shows that past precedent can lead you down a gauntlet of bad PR:
Microsoft has tried to be pushy with many features of Windows 10 (telemetry,
inking, online login, Cortana, always-online search) in the same vein that
we've long seen from Google, but their strategy contrasts unfavorably against
long legacy of a less invasive Windows. Google has pursued a policy of opt-out
from the beginning, and by doing so they escape a fair bit a bad press.

Firefox has the worst of it: their users are the most discriminating, the
hardest to please -- even if some of Mozilla's controversies were poor
choices, the level of uproar was immense. Posts like this just encourage the
migration of users driven by causes. This would be less of an issue if it were
entirely community-supported, but Mozilla has paid developers and evangelists,
and deriving revenues from a discriminating userbase is a challenge.

~~~
AaronFriel
As a counter-point, I've had to set up Chrome with ad blockers even for
computer illiterate family members and friends because they eventually have it
installed anyway. Why? Not because they knew they were installing it, but
because every time you visit "google.com" in Edge, you get an intrusive
message that says:

"Switch to Chrome Hide annoying ads and protect against malware on the web [No
Thanks] [Yes]"

And that then appears on every single search. And if you click no thanks, it
reappears.

And then when they go to youtube, they see this:

"Watch YouTube videos with Chrome Google recommends using Chrome, a fast and
secure browser. Try it? [Yes] [No Thanks]"

Again, every page load. It's a dark pattern. What about Gmail?

"Google recommends using Chrome Try a fast, secure browser with updates built
in [No Thanks] [Yes]"

EVERY PAGE LOAD.

~~~
berbec
You'd think there'd be a super-slim version of uBlock that only blocked
Google's nag messages to install chrome

~~~
hannasanarion
Doesn't it already? I've never noticed the nags when using Firefox

~~~
executesorder66
I use Firefox with the vanilla uBlockOrigin. I don't notice any google nagging
except on the google translate page.

------
newscracker
This move by Microsoft may probably help Microsoft have Windows users using
its browser, but I seriously doubt if it's good for the web.

There are people claiming that Microsoft could easily fork from Chromium, but
honestly, do you see that happening in the next few years? Having read that
Microsoft's Edge team was a very small one, I don't believe Microsoft will
fork Chromium anytime in the next two or three years (no financial incentive,
which could be a big motive, to do so)...and that's a long time to keep
pushing the Chrome/Chromium way ("what Google wants for the web").

As an aside, I very much liked this article linked within, titled "The
ecological impact of browser diversity" by Rachel Nabors. [1]

To all those who evangelize Firefox, please also see if you can donate money
to Mozilla. It may seem like Mozilla has a lot of money (more than 90% coming
from Google for being the default search engine added in the browser), but
this is not enough, and could turn to be nothing if Firefox's market share
becomes next to nothing and Google decides to pull the plug when the current
contract expires. Partnerships with Bing (or other search engines that not
many people use) may not bring in as much money to Mozilla.

Read about all the work that Mozilla does (aka "not just Firefox") in its
"State of Mozilla 2017" annual report. [2] The audited financial report is
here. [3]

[1]: [https://css-tricks.com/the-ecological-impact-of-browser-
dive...](https://css-tricks.com/the-ecological-impact-of-browser-diversity/)

[2]: [https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/foundation/annualreport/2017/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/foundation/annualreport/2017/)

[3]: [https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-
fdn-201...](https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-fdn-2017-fs-
short-form-final-0927.pdf)

~~~
avaer
Instead of funding Mozilla, perhaps funding the many non-Blink, non-Gecko
browser authors out there would be more impactful? Even if it's indirectly
through spreading responsible ownership of standards discussions and
components like Skia/ANGLE/etc.

Disclaimer: independent browser author, unpaid.

~~~
newscracker
I’d personally favor both — funding Mozilla as well as non-Blink/non-Mozilla
browsers. We need stronger contenders for the present (like Mozilla) and
stronger contenders for the future (others, assuming they’re still nascent and
aren’t on the radar for most people). Though I support Mozilla for various
reasons, I see value in supporting smaller competition that could ultimately
help everyone (including Mozilla).

Please share your project and other independent browsers/engines. It’s been
some time I’ve checked this space out (and I do know that I could also go to
Wikipedia to get some information on this).

------
Santosh83
There are several comments on this post wondering why a browser monoculture is
bad or speculating that a browser engine monopoly is inevitable and ought to
be accepted.

Let's just replace 'browser' with OS (ironically the similarities are becoming
more with each passing day) above... would we still say the same? Is an OS
monoculture good, regardless of whether it is inevitable? Have we forgotten
the power that MS had with Windows during the 90s and early 2000s before
Linux, MacOS and Android became viable alternatives?

Given that browsers are becoming the new OS and VM, we need competition in
this space more than ever, going forward. Let's not accept Chrome/Google as
the One Ring.

~~~
tokyodude
Unfortunately that's not really a valid comparison at all. Browsers all try to
stay compatible with each other. OSes do not in any way try to stay compatible
with each other. Programming apps for Linux, Mac, and Windows requires
entirely different code. Programming for Firefox, Chrome, Edge, Safari do not
(or at least not supposed to unless you're used new APIs or edge cases)

You can't currently make an alternative browser in the same sense that you can
make an alternative OS. An alternative browser would not use HTML, CSS,
JavaScript. It would use something else in the same way that MacOS/iOS push
ObjectiveC and Swift where as Android pushes Java/Kotlin and other OSes other
languages and each OS as it's own UI API

~~~
gronne
I disagree. MS has recently pushed the “linux on top op windows” solution.
Making windows programs run on linux has attracted plenty of ressources
(commercial and unpaid): open framework clones, wine, steam play vm’s. The
same can be said for osx. iOS and Android not so much though.

------
awinder
The last time I enjoyed using the Firefox rendering engine on a Mac was back
in the Camino days. I’d almost say that that browser is a better Mac
experience than Firefox is today.

I’ve started using Safari and it’s actually pretty OK and the resource
utilization is a lot better than Chrome (no fans blowing!). I empathize with
Firefox making a big deal out of avoiding a monoculture but i really hope
they’re figuring out how to do a better job on things like the Mac internally,
because I don’t think that people are really going to use an inferior product
as some moral statement.

~~~
vSanjo
Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means, but I recently read somewhere that
Firefox is genuinely trying to improve it's MacOS performance in one of the
new releases.

No sources, it was just in passing somewhere, but I distinctly remember it.

~~~
Klonoar
This has been said about a litany of releases, and they don't really ever make
a dent.

~~~
kup0
I cannot remember the number at this point, but there was one specific release
recently that did seem to make a significant improvement for me on MacOS.

I used to have heavy pages hang here and there and really burn some CPU
(Facebook, etc) and sometimes even freeze without loading completely. Now on
the same machine, the latest Firefox works just fine and avoids those states
completely.

It's still a long way from perfect, but I once thought Firefox unusable on
MacOS and went back to Chrome, but now that I've tried the latest FF releases,
I'm happy enough with the performance that I'm staying with FF this time
around

The only remaining sites with poor performance are Google products, and I
blame Google for that and am trying to slowly remove myself from all of their
products.

------
admax88q
The web browser vendors have too much money. They have no incentive to keep
the platform small. Google in particular, the cost to implement Blink is
essentially meaningless to them, but it is beyond affordability for almost
anyone else.

~~~
gsnedders
What's the total money passing through the web? Billions, trillions?

The amount of money that is spent on browsers is such a tiny fraction of web-
derived profit it is, in my opinion, surprising that browser vendors don't
have _more_ money.

~~~
bobajeff
Well they do give away browsers for free.

------
bprasanna
Well, Microsoft opting for Chromium will be a big win for Google. As Google
has a strong hold on Android mobile user base, for many non-technical users
what comes by default is the first browser (may be best browser). Google taps
that privilege/monopoly/advantage to their use. Those who comfortably use
Chrome in mobile device will obviously opt for Chrome in desktop as well.
Because it simplifies their mental model of browser comfort. Microsoft might
have done the same thing for decades, but it has been trying to come out of
that image for the past of couple of years. IMHO Microsoft is no more an evil.
I won't blame Google if it plays fair with respect to its Chrome browser in
Android. In many Android phones we can't uninstall Chrome. If we use Chrome
actively in Android, it pushes lot of notifications (they will say serving the
user with relevant content, but to me its a ad/handle which intend to make me
see pages where ads are again controlled by Google). Even in Desktop when i
open Google's any of the services using browser other than Chrome, at least in
the third world where i live, it suggests me to "Switch to Chrome". Nobody is
forcing anyone. But it is very essential to tell the world that there is
something better available.

The recent better one from Firefox:
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.ro...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.rocket&hl=en_US)

~~~
onion2k
_Those who comfortably use Chrome in mobile device will obviously opt for
Chrome in desktop as well._

You make it sound like users know, or care, which browser they're using. Most
of them don't. Most don't actually know there's more than one browser. They
use the stock browser that's installed on their device, and they don't switch
unless there's a reason to - eg their favourite websites and apps don't work.

In the case of Edge with EdgeHTML there _are_ popular sites that don't work
properly, and that means users seek out Chrome instead. Microsoft switching to
Chromium will mean those users continue to use Edge because "it works
properly" for the user regardless of the _actual_ problem being the developers
of those sites failing to write cross-browser compatible code.

I'm a bit sad that the choice and market for browsers is shrinking, and I
think it's going to slow progress in web tech, but let's be honest here - the
blame for Microsoft's very sensible business decision lies with web developers
who fail to test their code in more browsers than just Chrome. If web
developers did a better job there'd still be business value in developing a
competing browser engine.

------
lwansbrough
If there’s anyone at MS reading this, I’ll once again implore you to push for
Edge to be open sourced, as it should have been before the initial
announcement was made.

------
chrisweekly
Yeah. This stuff matters. Firefox is more important than it's ever been.

------
revskill
I still remembered when i first time used Firefox in 2004, and it's like a
life-saver to me to get out of the terrible Internet Explorer. What i want
now, maybe from 2020, i could use Firefox, but as a replacement for Mobile App
container.

~~~
IntelMiner
I still remember when my Dad marched me over to his laptop, to boldly proclaim
the new Internet Explorer 7 had TABS

He legitimately looked as though he'd unlocked some kind of arcane technology
that mortal man should never have wielded

I still feel a little bad when I casually shrugged it off with "Firefox has
had that for years". He looked legitimately shattered

------
21
Sometimes I still browse Digg (it's different now). Since the last Firefox
update from a week ago which disabled Symantec certificates the site doesn't
work anymore. I bet the day Chrome disables Symantec certificates they will
immediately notice and fix it.

It's sad that in one week not even one of their people opened it in Firefox,
and not many of their users either (there was just a couple of mentions on
Twitter about this issue)

~~~
chrisseaton
> Since the last Firefox update from a week ago which disabled Symantec
> certificates the site doesn't work anymore.

Is this the fault of Firefox or Digg though?

~~~
m3talsmith
It's pointing out the mindshare and impact that Chrome has.

------
sys_64738
This move is actually genius by Microsoft. They will negate the need to
install Chrome on Windows. Microsoft will gain control of the browser market.

~~~
krackers
How so? I don't believe the layperson really cares all too much about the
underlying engine, it's more a marketing thing. And the IE brand is forever
tainted.

~~~
sys_64738
Word of mouth. Ads. The media. Plenty of avenues will quickly frame why
Installing Chrome is so yesterday.

------
snarfy
Firefox has one feature the other browsers will never have - privacy.

~~~
mixedCase
Brave seems to go for the same, but with a Chromium base (currently in beta).
They seem to de-claw whatever's left by Google.

~~~
Sylos
Firefox has still some clear advantages over Brave, thanks to owning their
engine.

A trivial example is the battery API. It's nowadays mainly used for tracking,
but is an official webstandard. Mozilla decided to fuzzy it, so it lost its
usefulness for tracking. Google didn't.

And I imagine, there's hundreds of similar examples at this scale, which as an
average user you'll just never hear of.

One bigger feature is Firefox's Containers. It's based on work from the Tor
Browser. Which also just illustrates what this partnership sometimes brings
forth. Tor Browser is going to always be there, checking the Firefox code for
privacy problems, and will suggest better ways of doing things, which Mozilla
can just adopt.

For Chromium, there exist in principle similar efforts, like Brave, Iridium
Browser, ungoogled-chromium, but these will always fight an uphill battle
against Google and obviously Google isn't going to adopt and maintain their
fixes.

------
almostarockstar
How many billionaires have made their fortunes through the web? Surely some of
them care enough about preventing a monoculture to foot the bill for an
independent browser development team - if not for profit, for the greater
good. Consider it philanthropy.

~~~
cyborgx7
>an independent browser development team

So Mozilla?

~~~
almostarockstar
Well maybe another Mozilla? The point is the ecosystem needs variety and there
are people who could afford to create that.

------
mastrsushi
Firefox and Gecko are going to die because the vast majority of people do not
care about layout engine monopolies. Corporations rely on the vast majority of
people. What will probably happen is as Mozilla goes bankrupt, they will spin
off Firefox's development structure to a more community driven approach. Then,
Firefox and all of its derivatives will continue to live in Linux/Unix Open
Source world. Let's face it, political software issues are developer centric.
From there, Firefox will end up like Galeon and Gnome Web, slowly losing
relevance, lacking modern browser features, and lose development support over
the years because a layout engine is very complex and MUST have a corporate
backing. Microsoft proved this themselves with their decision.

All of these articles love to fear their listeners by warning them of another
IE monopoly situation. None of them seem to mention why monopolistic browsers
are an issue, or even how history will repeat in this crazy modern internet
world. The only point anyone's made is that security vulnerabilities will span
across all browsers. With that logic we might as well write all programs in
different languages, and use 20 different operating systems. Obviously that
isn't efficient and neither is wasting development money on yet another layout
engine. But hey, it's fun to worry about petty issues, so I'll keep reading
these blogs.

------
tolmasky
The biggest danger to the web in terms of control right now is _browser
monopoly_ , not _engine monopoly_. And this move is probably the most
effective way at combatting that. I think this is the right move at this time
not just for Microsoft, but for the web.

Borrowing from a previous comment I made, think of it this way: do you think
it helps or hurts Google to have every version of Windows come pre-installed
with what is essentially already Chrome, except, of course, it will probably
have Bing as its default search engine. Do you think the odds of people just
using Edge to download Chrome and nothing else go up or down with this move?
Do you think it helps or hurts Google to have most tech people not bother
telling their parents to download Chrome anymore? There is significantly less
control from "owning" an engine than owning an actual browser. I don't think I
would have had much of an issue with the dominance of IE 20 years ago if I
knew I could compile and modify (and release!) IE myself.

If you care about the state of search monopoly, out of control ads, and
identity on the web, then you should be _happy_ with this move. This is more
akin to most browsers now having a common starting point. The problem with
browsers is that if you truly want to make a new one you need to somehow
replicate the decades of work put into the existing ones. What that means is
that before you can exercise any of your noble privacy/security/UI/whatever
goals, you must first make sure you pass Acid 1 and replicate quirks mode
float behavior and etc. etc. etc. This is a non-starter. But now, Microsoft
can launch from Chromium's current position and have a browser that can
actually compete with Chrome. It's as if they've taken "engine correctness"
off the table, and can compete on cool features or "we won't track you" or
anything else. Websites will work in Edge by default, so if you like that one
new feature in Edge, you can feel OK switching to it without compromising
devtools/rendering/speed/etc.

Now I know that the initial response to this is "but Google will call the
shots!". Not if the way this has gone down every other time has anything to do
with it. Google's Chromium started as KHTML. When Apple based WebKit off of
KHTML, the KHTML team had very little say in anything and they eventually
forked of course. Then Google based Chromium off of Apple's WebKit, and once
again, there was very little "control" Apple could exercise here. Sure, they
remained one monolithic project for a while (despite having different JS
engines which just goes to show that even without forking you can still have
differentiation), but inevitably, Chromium was also forked from WebKit into
Blink.

And there should be no reason to think the same won't happen here, and it's a
good thing! Microsoft in the past couple of years has demonstrated amazing OS
culture. I can't wait to see what the same company that gave us VSCode is able
to build on top of Blink, and eventually separate from Blink. Ironically
enough, the worst thing that could have happened to Google's search dominance
is have Blink win the "browser engine wars": we all agree Blink is the way to
go now, so we can all start shipping browsers that at minimum are just as
good, and won't auto-log you in, or have their engine set to default, or etc.
etc. etc.

~~~
pcwalton
> I can't wait to see what the same company that gave us VSCode is able to
> build on top of Blink, and eventually separate from Blink.

The situation here is very different from WebKit and Blink. Google was already
the plurality contributor to WebKit at the time of the fork. By contrast,
Microsoft has contributed virtually nothing to Blink, and they intend to be
identical to upstream Chromium. Microsoft is not going to fork Blink.

Blink is completely controlled by Google. (98% of Blink patches are reviewed
by a Google employee.) This means that Google has complete control over the
direction of the Web platform. While Google may not be able to set the default
search engine in Edge, it has and will exert more subtle influence on the Web
as a _platform_ in ways that benefit Google. (Just to name one example,
Chromium has deployed whitelists of Google properties for NaCl support.)

~~~
tolmasky
“Subtle control of the web platform” is strictly better than the explicit
control of the web platform and the web browser space the currently enjoy.
Microsoft’s IE and Edge _together_ currently have just 10% market share,
compared to Chrome’s ~70%. Step 1 to winning back a meaningful amount of
control over the web platform is making a browser people actually use. And if
in the meanwhile you can win other important battles? Amazing!

I feel people don’t analyze this move realistically in the current context,
but instead compare it to some imagined magical alternative where we snap our
fingers and have a fresh new viable competitor or people just decide to switch
away from a browser most people _like_.

Regarding the specific example you gave, I’m fairly certain Microdift’s
wrapped Chromium can exclude participation to those lists. And frankly I’d be
surprised if they didn’t. Microsoft didn’t sign on Google as an OEM provider
of a browser for their OS, they are building their own browser on top of
Google’s engine. Im not super worried about Microsoft being bullied, they’re
probably the best suited to do something like this in a defensible way.

------
zimbatm
Why? Because the W3C is a factory the never stops churning out specs.

It's quite telling that even Microsoft was not able to keep-up with the
complexity and decided to piggy-back on the biggest investor.

If we want less mono-culture, the first thing to do is to bring the complexity
down to something manageable.

------
dak1
I'm not sure this changes as much as people keep saying. Microsoft isn't
completely abandoning browser development, and it will still have (sometimes
strong) opinions on the development of the web.

The conversation though will shift from conversations in external
organizations between stakeholders, to conversations in a shared codebase
between stakeholders.

In some cases this could be better, as it means we will have fewer occurrences
where there's agreement on a feature, but implementation lags in 1 browser.
Instead, adoption of many features should now be quicker, while debate about
larger or more controversial features will still exist.

------
koboll
Meh. I don't buy it.

First of all, individual boycotts will never, ever overcome a collective
action problem, so a fundamentally futile solution is being proposed here.

Plus, this is only bad if Google act destructively evil and no one steps in to
change it. If the endgame is control of Chromium being passed from Google to a
neutral foundation -- which I suspect it will be -- then everyone wins.

It's always seemed inevitable to me that one browser engine will win out. This
is the way of all web technologies. Should we go back to competing variants of
(proto-)JavaScript to prevent web monoculture, too?

~~~
pcwalton
> If the endgame is control of Chromium being passed from Google to a neutral
> foundation -- which I suspect it will be -- then everyone wins.

There is _zero_ chance of that happening. Like all public companies, Google
acts in its own self-interest. Google controls Chromium, and there is
absolutely no benefit to Google to hand control of Chromium over to an outside
entity. 98% of all patches to Blink are reviewed by a Google employee.

If establishing a foundation were going to happen, then it would have happened
when Apple and Google were still collaborating on WebKit.

~~~
EvilTerran
I wouldn't say the chance is _exactly_ zero - if Google's monopolistic
behaviour surrounding Chrome (the "install our browser!" nags on their web
properties come to mind) get too egregious, they may be forced to divest via
antitrust law.

------
ksec
I know there is a lot of hate for Safari on HN ( Still don't understand why )

But I wish Microsoft worked with Apple and bring Safari / WebKit to Windows,
and invest in Webkit instead.

( Blink and Webkit are now pretty much different Engine )

~~~
scarface74
In the distant past, Safari was officially available for Windows.

------
EGreg
Can I question the orthodoxy on this one?

Suppose WebKit or Blink are the one engine that everyone uses. Do you know how
much uncertainty and effort that will save around the world that goes into
browser compatibility and quirks? Look at the x86 architecture or POSIX as
well.

Here is my serious practical question: this is open source, so if you want to
make some extension, you should be able to distribute it. And if it becomes so
popular as to be merged into the core, or included with the main distribution,
then it will be.

It seems on balance, this would be a good thing.

~~~
ben-schaaf
x86 and POSIX are actually great comparisons to the current state of browsers.
They all have well defined standards that everyone should follow in theory. In
practice CPUs have bugs[0] that kernels and applications make a lot of effort
to work around. There are also enough implementation/non-compliance quirks in
POSIX[1][2] implementations to matter when porting. Just like all of the web
standards, x86 and POSIX don't solve the compatibility problems that come from
innovation.

[0] [https://wiki.osdev.org/CPU_Bugs](https://wiki.osdev.org/CPU_Bugs)

[1]
[https://personal.opengroup.org/~ajosey/tr28-07-2003.txt](https://personal.opengroup.org/~ajosey/tr28-07-2003.txt)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base)

------
ecthiender
I think Microsoft just wants to give up on the browser market/share/innovation
(for business reasons ofcourse </snark>). They just needed to have a default
browser installed on their system and hence just wants to rebrand chromium and
drop it in their default installation.

If they really cared, they could have adopted Gecko/Spidermonkey atleast.

------
mclightning
Author starts by saying NDAs are useless, and he keeps secrets better without
them... Then in the right next sentence, he shares how he learnt about a big
secret from a friend at Microsoft without any NDA!

------
voryzen
The biggest mistake we've ever made is not realising that Google used to be
called.. SkyNet.

Just my two cents

------
fastball
People keep telling me that Firefox is super fast!

But it's slower than Chrome and my laptop runs hotter.

Sorry.

------
stupidcar
I find it kind of hilarious that people seem to think the solution to the
Chrome monoculture is them personally switching to Firefox and then writing a
blog post / comment / tweet about it. It's like saying we need to get serious
about climate change, so you're going to start cycling to work, and encourage
your friends to do the same. If that salves your conscience, then great, but
your individual actions are statistically irrelevant.

There are systemic trends and market forces at play here involving _billions_
of people. And nowhere amongst the significant forces and trends will you find
"there are insufficient nerds evangelising Firefox". Hacker News can upvote as
many as these kinds of articles as it likes, but Chrome's market share will
continue to grow until there is something far more substantial to stop it than
philosophical objections by tech insiders.

~~~
philliphaydon
So when MS controller the browsers we threw our arms in the air. But when
google controls it we just sit here and go meh?

~~~
wyqydsyq
How does the next default Windows browser being forked from Chromium mean
Google controls it?

You know what open-source is, right?

People threw their arms in the air because IE was substantially behind other
browsers in stability and capabilities, and all their new features were IE-
specific APIs that didn't work anywhere else.

Chromium is an open-source project that largely follows IETF/W3C/ECMA
standards.

The two are not even remotely comparable.

~~~
albru123
It's great that it follows all these standards, but the browser (due to recent
changes) and the company behind it doesn't seem to follow some necessary
ethical standards.

~~~
wyqydsyq
It's open source, the recent changes you mention (which I'm not aware of, a
reference to these changes would be nice) can be reverted and the ethics of
the company behind it aren't really relevant because it's an open-source
project, the only way Google really benefits from it's use is if they receive
contributions back to the Chromium project, which also benefits everyone else.

------
michalstanko
I'm not going to use Firefox for development and I'm not going to install
Firefox for my family members, simply because Chrome is better for both
scenarios. Firefox is pretty good, but Chrome is just better.

Instead, I send Mozilla some money every month (a small amount), because I
still care that Firefox continues to be developed.

~~~
lwansbrough
What would Mozilla have to do to make their browser better than Chrome?

~~~
michalstanko
For me, as a developer, it boils down to the Web Dev Tools (Elements, Console,
Network panels), which keep getting better and better.

For my family, Chrome is on desktop and their phones, everything synchronized.
Chrome autoupdates without bothering them. Chrome is simple and it just works
for them, and everything works in Chrome.

Please don't downvote me, I've been supporting Mozilla with monthly donations
for years, and after Edge switches to Chromium, I'll probably increase the
amount ;-) And I invite more of us to do the same. :-)

~~~
lwansbrough
All of those things are available on Firefox, which is why I asked. There are
a diminishing number of features not available to Firefox users at this point.

------
protomikron
What I would like to see is some kind of "white-list" browser - I think it's
our best chance to keep an ad-free environment. Maybe it is a bad idea in
general to allow a remote page write pixels to your screen: images, videos,
text and now applications

It is nice that the web is open (at least reasonably), but maybe raw JS, HTML
and CSS is too general? The most valuable webpages have simple designs and are
liked because of their content, like

    
    
      - wikipedia.org
      - HN
      - stackoverflow.com
      - maps.google.com
      - ...
    

These pages could implement

    
    
      - Knowledge-Base
      - Topic-Comment-Community
      - Answer-Response-Community
      - Interactive-GIS
    

specifications, that obviously do not exist. E.g. if a newspaper implements a
hypothetical "Newspaper-Specification" it would have to provide original,
sourced content containing text, images, audio and video via some API (which
is often already the case when single page apps fetch content client-side via
e.g. JSON). There would be no _visual_ difference between reading "The
Guardian" vs. "USA Today" or browsing "OpenStreetMap" vs "Google Maps" as
content would be _rendered_ on the client.

~~~
krapp
>Maybe it is a bad idea in general to allow a remote page write pixels to your
screen: images, videos, text and now applications

Computers have been doing this since the 60s, at least, in some form or
another. I don't think you want to live in a world where the very idea of
networks is considered harmful. Where all of the software you consume has to
be loaded from physical media and the internet and any network connected
device just doesn't exist. You couldn't even have _cellphones._

We don't need a "whitelist" browser - you simply choosing not to visit sites
you don't want to visit is already a sufficient whitelist. Having
"specifications" that websites and authors would have to enforce based on
content would make the web less free.

Websites are software. Software authors have the right and the freedom to
write whatever they like, any way they choose, up to and including the UI. The
Guardian being able to make their own decisions about how to implement the web
versions of a "newspaper" \- including design choices which might
differentiate them from USA Today, is part and parcel the same sort of freedom
that any author of any work, software, literary, music, what have you, enjoys.
That HTML, CSS and JS don't step over the line from describing content to
making editorial decisions about content is a feature, not a bug.

~~~
protomikron
Maybe I have expressed myself unclear, but I don't want to advocate against
networked software and loading resources over a network in general. I would
like to have a more "typed" API to networking services (including web-pages)
that provides sufficient information to render the application on my client -
the term "whitelist" may indeed be a sub-optimal term.

> Having "specifications" that websites and authors would have to enforce
> based on content would make the web less free.

We already have enforced specifications (HTML, HTTP, TCP, ...) and they _did_
make the web free, as you could and can participate, when you implement these
specifications (at least to a sufficient degree). However we could go further
and provide specifications for more high-level tasks.

Consider the problem of going from A to B via public transport. Cities with a
working public transport infrastructure normally provide a webpage that allows
you to search for routes and reporting journey time, cost and additional
information. However these webpages are more or less convenient to use and
every transportation provider has to implement its own shitty webpage.
Hypothetically it could implement an API that provides this information and
the "Browser" has its builtin GUI (configurable by the user) to access this
information.

> Software authors have the right and the freedom to write whatever they like,
> any way they choose, up to and including the UI.

I am more talking about users who should have the possibility to access the
information they seek in an uncluttered way. And we can keep stuff like
<canvas>, so you are still able to draw your pixels.

------
wyqydsyq
Honestly I just see all this, even despite the author claiming taking time to
"mull it over", as a knee-jerk reaction. There is little evidence that MS
changing to Blink/V8 will have any tangible impact on the web.

Microsoft has hardly offered much as far as competition and diversity goes
since IE6, basically the only web "innovations" they're responsible for is a
bunch of IE-specific APIs that didn't work in any other browser.

The garbage rhetoric that Mozilla and their supporters have been spreading is
pure FUD:

> By adopting Chromium, Microsoft hands over control of even more of online
> life to Google.

MS' new default browser being based on Chromium does not give any additional
control of online life to Google. They're open-source projects that, while
Google manages, does not have absolute control over the consumption of. If
Google did ever try to muscle control on Chromium like they've been doing with
Android, Microsoft could simply fork it without the hostile Google changes.

If anything I see this whole thing being beneficial for the web in the long
run - now instead of MS engineers pissing their time and effort down the drain
on a dead browser and needlessly fragmenting the market with engine
differences, even if people don't use the default Windows browser Microsoft's
engineers can contribute to and benefit the web by contributing their
improvements upstream to the Chromium/Blink/V8 projects.

~~~
tannhaeuser
The problem is this: HTML (+CSS) is supposed to be a standardized and
recommendable format for publishing rich text with the expectation that it can
be rendered for a long time to come. But if only a single browser will be able
to display it, this not only questions the longevity claim, but also questions
the whole web stack. New CSS specs can't be reviewed and proven with
independent implementations, and web specs will, even more so than they
already do, become "whatever Chrome does".

This is a terrible and fatal result for the web as we know it. Because why
would we continue the practice of creating baroque, power-inefficient web
frontends with JavaScript and the browser stack monstrosity when we're
essentially targetting a single browser? We could as well use a much leaner
and lighter GUI framework designed for the purpose, and a saner language.

What did we really expect from the way so-called web standards are created?
WHATWG (who write the HTML5 specs and call this a "standard") pride themselves
in creating a "living standard" where nothing ever is locked down, and ECMA
has put itself up to creating yearly JavaScript updates (after the language
has stagnated for 15 years). W3C creates an enormous amount of CSS specs and
has said goodbye to versions/levels and profiles a long time ago. The result
is that there is no reasonable spec as an implementation target for browser
development. Those in the game have closed the door behind them.

Firefox has, unfortunately, a shrinking user base, is financially dependent on
Google, and might suffer from problematic incentives in the future.

The web is in tatters.

~~~
wyqydsyq
> But if only a single browser will be able to display it, this not only
> questions the longevity claim, but also questions the whole web stack. New
> CSS specs can't be reviewed and proven with independent implementations, and
> web specs will, even more so than they already do, become "whatever Chrome
> does".

Safari and Konqueror still use WebKit, Firefox still uses Gecko, so not "only
a single browser will be able to display it", but multiple maintained browsers
using 3 different implementations will still be able to display it.
Additionally, even in that worst-case scenario of Chromium/Blink/V8 becoming
the de-facto implementation and making standards irrelevant, it wouldn't be
"whatever Chrome does", but "whatever Chromium does". Being in that situation
Chromium would be in use by everyone, so if anything that only places more
power in the hands of the community because Chromium is an open-source
project. Why should every browser have their own competing (and often
incompatible) implementations of each standard to the detriment of the web?
How is that more beneficial than browser developers all collaborating on a
common, shared implementation? Very rarely have implementation-specific
differences between browsers benefited the web, generally such differences
will either remain implementation-specific and become redundant (e.g. all the
IE-only APIs) or are experimental implementations of a standard that's only in
draft state and will be updated to be consistent once the relevant standard is
finalised, in both cases they're just neat toys for developers to play with
that aren't practical to employ in production (because they'll only work for a
fraction of viewers).

> This is a terrible and fatal result for the web as we know it. Because why
> would we continue the practice of creating baroque, power-inefficient web
> frontends with JavaScript and the browser stack monstrosity when we're
> essentially targetting a single browser? We could as well use a much leaner
> and lighter GUI framework designed for the purpose, and a saner language.

This is a fantastic and wonderful result for the web as we know it. With less
implementations to support, the web would be substantially faster and more
efficient. Because why would we want to load our asset bundles with megabytes
of polyfills and shims just so things don't explode on the odd chance someone
tries to view your website in the default browser of their OS that's either
outdated or poorly implements specs?

If every major browser ran Blink/Webkit + V8, the web could be written once in
native ES2018 javascript and consistently execute anywhere. This is not the
case today because implementations behave differently, you can't write a
webapp purely following the established specs because the specs are
inconsistently implemented. For example `navigator.mediaDevices` API works
differently across browsers, some browsers support-sub features that others
don't etc. This ends up requiring checks and work-arounds that waste
processing power to execute and human resources to implement.

~~~
tannhaeuser
Making some WebKit derivative the de-facto engine would be very short-sighted.
There will come a time, maybe in a distant future, when we need to get rid of
C and our whole approach to mobile O/Ss, CMOS, and everything else. In any
case, the situation we have now -- that of the web getting out-of-hand -- is
what WHATWG, W3C, and co. should have avoided. They totally fubar'd it
instead, so the world has to move to something else. HTML is a means to an
end, not an end in itself. HTML hasn't changed much since the beginning,
although it has been supplanted with the disgrace that is CSS and JavaScript.
Can you seriously recommend to write a dissertation, a school book, a law
text, a contract, or anything that matters in HTML at this point?

~~~
jhasse
WebKit isn't written in C, but in C++.

------
knowingathing
Why is this such big news? No-one I know uses Edge as their daily browser.
Based on the Google Analytics data of the various apps I work on, the usage
for Edge is so small that it is basically irrelevant. If we are concerned
about a lack of browser diversity, why weren't more people using Edge to being
with? Or is it all the people who are now chanting "Use Firefox" are the ones
who used Edge and feel cheated somehow?

~~~
r3bl
It's not about the browser, it's about browser engines. Edge will still exist,
but EdgeHTML will not. We're down from four major browser engines to three,
with one clearly dominating the market.

------
virtualwhys
OT, but I was and am still pretty steamed that Mozilla spearheaded the effort
to deprecate WebSQL back in 2010 [1], while providing a replacement that left
many disappointed [2] (see comments in both threads universally deriding the
decision).

The idea was that javascript libraries would be created that would replicate
SQLite in the browser (albeit horribly inefficiently with terrible APIs
compared to shipped-with-the-browser native C implementation that is SQLite).

Anyway, now that Firefox has become less relevant than ever with Microsoft's
adoption of Chrome, I wonder if there's any chance that WebSQL will live on
despite its deprecation? After all, it's still available in Chrome and Safari,
which dominate the browser market.

IndexedDB is fine if NoSQL is how you store your data, but an absolute PoS if
you want to work _efficiently_ in a relational model with joins, grouping,
etc.

Such a shame, every server-side language under the sun compiles to javascript
now; imagine being able to share SQL statements between client and server;
being able to aggregate data, count & sum with reckless abandon. Instead we
have to do it all by hand in javascript, such a step backward [3]

/rant

[3]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9978540](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9978540)

[1] [https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-
apis...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-apis-and-the-
road-to-indexeddb/)

[2] [https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/comparing-indexeddb-and-
we...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/comparing-indexeddb-and-webdatabase/)

~~~
swsieber
You couldn't share SQL statements between the backend and the frontend. It's
for the same reason it was shot down: SQL implementations are incredibly
varied.

~~~
virtualwhys
Limited to a certain subset you most definitely could use the same statements
(obviously not CTEs and the like).

Ideally you'd have a translation layer, so instead of writing error prone
string-y SQL, you'd have a type safe DSL in the vein of LINQ to SQL,
Esqueleto, Slick, Quill, etc. that generates approriate SQL based on the
target driver. That way you write the same query once, with the same model,
and dispense with the inefficient square wheel that is IndexedDB + javascript.

------
NoPicklez
Did we really need the stupid viewpoint on non-disclosure agreements? Like
cmon, don't take it too personally that a company might want to try and cover
its own arse when giving you access to sensitive information.

It still shouldn't change your character with regards keeping secrets so why
does it matter?

