
Please consider not adopting Google WebComponents - XzetaU8
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24004
======
smacktoward
Some context that could possibly make the reasoning behind this more clear.

Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox. The purpose of the fork was to retain support
for various legacy technologies that mainline Firefox was abandoning, such as
NPAPI plugins, XUL/XPCOM, and old-style themes.

If keeping up support for those old technologies _and_ keeping up with the
latest improvements in Firefox sounds like a lot of work for a small team to
tackle, that's because it is. As a result, Pale Moon doesn't include all the
performance improvements that shipped with Firefox Quantum, along with various
other "modern Firefox" improvements like not running all tabs in a single
process. (Pale Moon last rebased itself on mainline Firefox circa Firefox 52,
which shipped three years ago.)

My suspicion is that, when Pale Moon asks you not to use Web Components,
they're doing so because their engine is old, it doesn't have the necessary
muscle to deal with things like shadow DOM in a performant fashion, and they
don't have the resources necessary to give it that muscle. They could rebase
onto a newer version of Firefox that _did_ have that muscle, but they'd lose
support for all the legacy technologies they forked away to keep in the first
place; and re-implementing all those APIs on their own would be just as
prohibitively large a project as tuning up their engine on their own would be.
So, in the absence of some huge population of skilled developers volunteering
to pitch in for free, their project is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard
place.

~~~
AnarchistNode7
Well, if I as developer would realize that i pose my users under certain risk
and i am unable to do anything about it, then the only logical and morally
correct option would be, to tell that my users and cease operation.

Everything else is selfish and delusional!

~~~
zelon88
> and cease operation.

I hate when that happens. I choose the applications in my workflow for
specific reasons or for some unique value that they offer. It's one thing when
a developer moves on from a project and leaves it in an unfinished state. It's
an entirely different story when the developer basically throws up his hands
and tells their users they give up because xxx is too hard. Just tell me
what's wrong and let me decide! Then if your userbase crashes you can make the
decision if you want to continue or not. Deciding for yourself what's
important to me is extremely frustrating as a user. Kinda like when Microsoft
deprecated the SmtpClient Class in .NET and told people to use MailKit
instead.

So now it's taboo to use the perfectly good Microsoft class which only takes 6
LOC to send an email and everyone is crapping their pants trying to make 300
LOC mailkit scripts to perform the same task. Because some clown at Microsoft
got a hard-on over MailKit and decided to burn their own house down.

~~~
pjmlp
.NET Core? We are still mostly on .NET Framework land and happily using
SmtpClient.

------
tdumitrescu
What a weird polemic. "With Google WebComponents here we mean the use of
CustomElements and Shadow DOM, especially when used in combination, and in
dynamically created document structures (e.g. using module loading/unloading
and/or slotted elements). ... WebComponents used "in full" (i.e. dynamically)
inherently creates complex web page structures that cannot be saved, archived
or even displayed outside of the designated targeted browsers (primarily
Google Chrome)."

It's a web API. Browsers implement it. Including Safari and FF. If the
argument is that it's hard to implement and makes it harder for new browser
implementations, the same could be said of new CSS features, other APIs like
Web Audio, etc. Trying to brand Web Components as Google-only may have worked
in the v0 prototype days in like 2014, but it's factually not the case today.

~~~
rickcrown
Like it was said already... a lame excuse for "We can't successfully implement
it, our browser is becoming incompatible with a large part of current web, so
please do not use it to make us happy"

Without doubts - this will be Pale Moons final run - as the makers are fully
unable to implement complex features on their own, as they do not have the
tiniest bit of knowledge how to implement medium or highly complex Ecmascript
features.

This link explains everything with all necessary details - also shared before:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/palemoon/comments/fk4fnl/attention_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/palemoon/comments/fk4fnl/attention_palemoon_is_going_to_die_most_likely/)

~~~
Ajedi32
Nonetheless, its still mildly concerning that smaller players in the browser
space are finding it difficult to keep pace with all the new APIs being
introduced to the web these days. Even Microsoft sort of gave up and killed
their browser engine in favor of a Chromium fork.

It's a tricky situation with no obvious solutions. The Pale Moon dev's plea to
slow down isn't going to work; devs _want_ these new features and they're not
going to stop using them just because a smaller browser developer with no
significant market share can't keep up.

There is, perhaps, the beginnings of a solution with the Extensible Web
Manifesto[1], which aims to shift the focus of browsers from implementation of
many high-level features to instead focus on smaller, simpler low-level
features which high-level features can then be built on top of. (Though
ironically, web components are a part of this movement.) CSS Houdini[2] is one
such feature which seems like it might be relevant in this specific situation
(though whether it's helpful I have no idea; in the short term I suspect it
might just translate to a lot more work).

[1]:
[https://github.com/extensibleweb/manifesto](https://github.com/extensibleweb/manifesto)

[2]: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/Houdini](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Houdini)

~~~
SickOfSlowSites
> devs want these new features

Devs wanted Flash and real-player plugins pack in the day too. They wanted
ActiveX plugins too. No-one else wanted them and it was ultimately the
downfall of IE.

> Microsoft sort of gave up and killed their browser engine This will be the
> downfall of chrome. Google will ultimately be fined under anti-trust, chrome
> funding will dry up and browsers will stop supporting these absurd features.
> Have a nice time rewriting all your webcomponents in javascript in 5 years.

~~~
untog
> Devs wanted Flash and real-player plugins pack in the day too. They wanted
> ActiveX plugins too. No-one else wanted them

The idea that users didn’t want Flash is laughable. It was enormously popular
and enabled all kinds of multimedia presentation that the web couldn’t come
close to rivalling.

> Have a nice time rewriting all your webcomponents in javascript in 5 years.

Web components are JavaScript. And it’s a standard agreed upon by all the
major browser manufacturers. They aren’t going away, no matter what happens to
Google.

------
gambler
By some strange coincidence maintaining a working web browser became a task
that only Google can do "properly". Microsoft gave up. Firefox is struggling.
Doing something from scratch is insanity.

So here we are. A website choke-full of people who constantly post about
modulariy, protocols and advanced type systems, yet sheepishly accept that a
browser with its zillion unrelated features is a giant, tightly coupled blob
that cannot be tackled by anyone except an ubercorp like Google.

~~~
cmroanirgo
How do you mean that Firefox is struggling? It is not my experience this is
so. Everyone around me is ditching Chrome for Firefox.

Firefox is also ahead in a few areas too: containerisation & privacy. It's
also now the default browser on a few oses.

To me this does not indicate struggling at all.

~~~
SEJeff
[https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-
share](https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share)

Chrome: 65.54%

Firefox: 4.58%

Perhaps your sample size of people around you is too small?

~~~
kybernetikos
You might well be right, but I, along with lots of other firefox users run
extensions like NoScript which blocks 3rd party javascript unless explicitly
whitelisted, so I expect a much higher proportion of firefox users probably
don't show up on analytics packages (which is how statcounter stats are
generated). DuckDuckGo Privacy essentials plugin also blocks statcounter, as
I'm sure do many other privacy related plugins.

Even if you are a firefox user who doesn't use third party plugins, firefox
itself will block statcounter if you have enhanced tracking protection turned
on. I couldn't find a similar setting in Chrome.

~~~
Sohcahtoa82
Unless you're spoofing your User-Agent string, servers still know what browser
you're using. You don't need to be running client-side analytics scripts for
browser market measurements.

~~~
kybernetikos
Sure, but that's not how statcounter or most advanced analytics packages work.

Your browser doesn't make a request to the analytics server if you're blocking
it, so while the content server might know the user agent, the analytics
server generally doesn't.

------
TeffenEllis
Disclosure: I maintain an open source web component library.

This is a strange take on what I think the author is fighting against: a less
open web platform. What confuses me is how the adoption of Web Components will
somehow make things worse than they already are. Take a look at any
contemporary web framework and you'll see there's little overlap in
compatibility or portability -- sometimes even between versions of the same
library!

I've seen first hand how difficult web components can be, but they're still a
better solution than trusting the foundations of the web to the teams at
Angular or React. In my opinion we need an API that lets young developers
start their web apps with plain HTML/CSS/JS without experiencing into the same
decades-old issues that created frameworks in the first place. How should an
intermediate developer beging organizing their CSS? Or importing helpful
libraries? Or even something as simple as making a reusable HTML template
without spending any time in Webpack?

The truth is that we don't have easy answers for these aspiring developers,
and we won't get any sympathy from them by demanding the web return to it's
document roots. I think Web Components can solve all these issues with some
guidance from the community. The platform is ready and so are we.

~~~
throwaway77384
I am inclined to agree with this comment indeed. Having had to learn a lot
about these things recently (and trying to stay away from frameworks), it is
quite difficult to not feel 'boxed in' by the rules imposed by React, Vue,
etc. I feel as though one is encouraged to learn a framework instead of the
basics. Having learned the basics, I can now see why there are frameworks, and
what their uses are, but often I wonder whether people decide to do something
in [x] framework to make their work sound cool, before even knowing what it is
they are building.

------
Blackthorn
I don't get it. The ability to source some js and then add a <custom-element>
wherever you want just like it was a built in element is one of the best
things to ever happen to web design. This is what we should have had ten years
ago, not the post-jquery framework madness we have now.

I do think it was dumb that <style scoped> got removed though.

~~~
gildas
Is it okay for you if you save a webpage but no contents are saved in fact? Do
the test and save in HTML (with the native "Save as" feature) this page [1].
The saved page will be almost empty because it's made of web components. This
is an example of issue that should be fixed.

[1]
[https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list)

Edit: This might be fixed, see my first post
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22604632](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22604632)

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
Are you sure that's why? It seems possible that the issue is how the data is
being loaded. How did you confirm that web components are the issue with
loading that page from a saved file?

~~~
gildas
Yes I'm sure. It was a bug in SingleFile [1] and to fix it (I'm the author), I
must add a JavaScript script in the saved page to deserialize the shadow root
contents that are missing. It means that JS is required to view this saved
page correctly.

[1] [https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFile](https://github.com/gildas-
lormeau/SingleFile)

~~~
mattnewton
I mean, JavaScript being required to view pages sounds like Pandora’s already
opened box.

~~~
gildas
I disagree, I develop SingleFile for 10 years. That's the first time I need to
include a script in the saved page in order to display it properly. Until the
existence of Web Components, JavaScript was not needed to display a saved
page.

Edit: to be clear, saved pages are HTML snapshots, not full web apps stored in
a page.

------
gildas
To play devil's advocate, note that Google is trying to propose something to
make the shadow root contents deserializable without relying on JavaScript
[1][2].

[1] [https://github.com/mfreed7/declarative-shadow-
dom/blob/maste...](https://github.com/mfreed7/declarative-shadow-
dom/blob/master/README.md)

[2]
[https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-d...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-
dev/nJDc-1s3R9U/uCJKsEqpAwAJ)

~~~
Blackthorn
I hope [1] takes off, that's a nice enhancement idea.

------
aasasd
Ironically, that very page handles link clicks with JS without bubbling back
to the browser, so since my browser is set to forbid opening new tabs on a
webcoder's whim, I also can't cmd-click links on that page to open a new tab
when I want it. _And_ the page does open new tabs on simple clicks if it's
allowed in the browser. Such simplicity and accessibility, wow.

I also have no idea from that post what particular problems the authors see
with WebComponents and Shadow DOM and why those would be Chrome-only.

------
bugmen0t
Given they are based on a fork of Mozilla's Gecko engine I think the real
reason behind this post is that their inability to cherry-pick Web Components
from Gecko.

It's likely the compatibility cost is making the browser unusable on many
websites which is rendering their browser useless over time.

------
throwaway77384
I mean, with the dawn of webassembly, I feel as though things are going to get
closed off more and more. We've had this with flash and java applets too.
Ultimately I hope an open internet will prevail. Otherwise we will not be able
to archive things effectively. Don't get me started on accessibility also.

While I'll happily jump on the let's-bash-google-train, is there any effort to
do the same thing in a non-scoped way?

I feel a set of 'web-components' would in fact be a super useful thing to have
for everyone. Why does it have to be google-chrome / whatever-specific and
locked down?

~~~
dfabulich
> _is there any effort to do the same thing in a non-scoped way?_

It's already done! Web Components (Custom Elements + Shadow DOM) are web
standards, ratified by W3C, and they already work great in Firefox and Safari.
This whole article is simply incorrect.

[http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/custom/](http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/custom/)
[https://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/](https://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/)

[https://www.webcomponents.org/](https://www.webcomponents.org/) see "Browser
Support"

~~~
ChrisSD
I would note that "ratified by W3C" does not mean much nowadays. WHATWG won
that war and the W3C now essentially rubber stamps whatever WHATWG decides.

~~~
throwaway77384
What happened there? I am not in the loop on this, so wouldn't mind getting
some more details.

~~~
ChrisSD
When W3C's XHTML 2.0 stalled WHATWG created a new "living standard" (which is
subject to constant modifications and additions) to continue HTML development.
W3C attempted to create fixed standards from the document (e.g. HTML 5.1, HTML
5.2, etc) that only included things that were widely supported and that met
standards for accessibility and so on. However, due to the constant churn of
WHATWG's document this was difficult and WHATWG were strongly against having
what they saw as competing standards.

Therefore there was some conflict between the two groups until WHATWG emerged
victorious. Here's the final agreement:
[https://www.w3.org/2019/04/WHATWG-W3C-MOU.html](https://www.w3.org/2019/04/WHATWG-W3C-MOU.html)

It boils down to complete capitulation by W3C.

------
DannyB2
WebComponents might make sense for complex Applications as opposed to web
sites.

Not everything done on the web is a "web site". Or blog.

There are untold numbers of Boring Business Applications that make the world
go around. (like it or not...) These applications are increasingly built to
run in web browsers. (not necessarily over the public internet)

These types of applications may be large and complex. They might have hundreds
of forms, thousands of reports, etc.

Web Components, and other various web technologies might be great for this
type of use. This isn't a web site where you want to "save" a "page". The
application isn't organized as "pages". The browser is more like a remote
smart terminal with a rich set of technologies available.

Next time you check out a library book, or a nurse draws your blood for lab
work, or you get your oil changed, look at the application they are using. Is
it running in a web browser?

~~~
floatboth
They're also great for blogs too.

Remember how everyone was adding stuff like lightboxes to their pages with
jQuery Plugins? Well now that kind of thing is much cleaner and doesn't
require writing a line of JS.

------
ernsheong
Please, it's not "Google Web Components", just "Web Components". Web
components has pretty decent support in Safari and Firefox. But of course, the
real problem is that that is just about the full list isn't it, not
considering other Chromium-based ones, and nobody really wants to reinvent the
wheel.

------
mavsman
Interesting points here, especially about `<style scoped>` being removed from
browsers after Google requested it. That would be really handy to use.
[https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/552](https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/552)

~~~
oefrha
I (a mere dabbler in web stuff) for one liked <style scoped>, but saying it
was killed because Google alone refused to implement it is disingenuous. Just
look at [https://caniuse.com/#feat=style-
scoped](https://caniuse.com/#feat=style-scoped) And here, style scoped
experiment in Chromium in 2012:
[https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2012/03/A-New-
Expe...](https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2012/03/A-New-Experimental-
Feature-style-scoped)

~~~
smnthermes
But even Mozilla is having problems implementing it. Bugzilla has more than
100 open bugs about WebComponents.

------
cryptica
>> WebComponents used "in full" (i.e. dynamically) inherently creates complex
web page structures

That ship sailed a very long time ago.

WebComponents is dead simple compared to React, TypeScript, WebPack and all
the complex tooling which developers are essentially forced to use these days
due to a lack of alternatives.

~~~
SickOfSlowSites
> forced to use these days due to a lack of alternatives.

The alternatives were barebones HTML, CSS, and javascript.

They were forced, in 2013, by Google who used their monopoly search position
to enforce 'responsive' design (i.e. frameworks) otherwise your page got
delisted. This company is ripe for anti-trust.

------
2T1Qka0rEiPr
(aside: I haven't seen a PHPBB forum in aggges! Amazing to know they're still
going)

------
luckydata
to be dismissed without even a bare minimum of consideration. Palemoon is a
waste of time and it makes me sad there's people out there thinking otherwise.

------
arxpoetica
There are plenty of reasons to not like web components:
[https://dev.to/richharris/why-i-don-t-use-web-
components-2ci...](https://dev.to/richharris/why-i-don-t-use-web-
components-2cia)

------
superkuh
The motivations (and problems) of mega-corps rarely align with the motivations
(and problems) of human persons and it's always a mistake for everyone to copy
their practices blindly.

You have to decide what you want the web to be. An opaque application or a
document. Using the tools of applications for documents is pretty stupid even
if it is hip and looks good on a resume. There are two webs. There's the money
web run by coporate persons and then there's the web run by human persons. If
you're being paid you don't really have a choice and that sucks. But if you do
have a choice, please please, consider what Moonchild is asking here.

------
at-fates-hands
In case someone else has no idea what Palemoon is:

 _Pale Moon is an open-source web browser with an emphasis on customizability;
its motto is "Your browser, Your way". There are official releases for
Microsoft Windows and Linux, an unofficial build for Mac OS, and contributed
builds for various platforms. Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox with substantial
divergence._

[https://www.palemoon.org/](https://www.palemoon.org/)

------
throw_m239339
All that drama would not have happened with XHTML 2.0 spec which solved many
of the problems WebComponents tries to solve (in a worse way). And don't get
me started on ES4 vs Typescript. A lot of energy wasted for things that could
have been solved once and for all 10 years ago, but were not because browser
vendors and big web corporations favored the sloppiness of the status quo back
then.

------
zzo38computer
Some features of the Web Components are stuff I thought should be available to
the end user only, not for the web developer. This includes shadow DOM, and
some of my own ideas such as "privileged CSS" and "meta-CSS" (including the
ability to set more fine priorities). I also thought of the <widget> element,
which provides better backward compatibility (it acts like a <span> if it is
not recognized), better user customization, faster loading, and potentially
ability to work even if JavaScripts (and WebAssembly) are disabled or are
implemented at all. This would be better than Google WebComponents, I think.

(I also don't like that they removed <blink> but did not remove <marquee>; I
don't want <marquee>, but I do want <blink>, which I have done with
userChrome.css, which also allows me to program the blink rate, is good.)

------
no_wizard
I know this seems like its a silly question, but why are they calling it
_Google_ web components?

Aren't web components now apart of the main spec via W3C acceptance?

------
JohnFen
Sites that use WebComponents are sites that I will be unable to use. Not that
whether or not I can use a site matters to web devs, of course.

------
s_m
People are already not adopting Web Components ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

------
nailer
To fix the overly long lines:

    
    
        document.querySelector('.content').style['max-width'] = '650px'

~~~
aembleton
Or toggle reader view in your browser

------
void445be54d48a
As a web developer for over 15 years, I can safely say that bad decisions will
continue to be made. Such as, CSS-in-JS. Expect the worst. And it's not
completely Google's fault although they should never have bothered to invent
WebComponents, this sort of thing comes from the hubris of CTOs and technical
leads who are the ones pushing these various technologies, and the acolytes
who desire these positions following suit. Believe it or not, some people like
to use certain tech to satisfy their own personal itches and not because the
tech is actually demonstrably better.

------
newsletterguy
Interesting topic about possible death of Pale Moon because of that
specification and their inability to adopt it:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/palemoon/comments/fk4fnl/attention_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/palemoon/comments/fk4fnl/attention_palemoon_is_going_to_die_most_likely/)

Who knows the Palemoon team realizes pretty fast that when the developer is
writing something like that here -
[https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24004](https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24004)

that it has the meaning that they can't move forward or have serious issues in
attempting to do so. Google-Web-components... The next BIG thing in web
development which is used in Youtube and other big pages will be most likely
Palemoons undoing. Without it - no more videos on Youtube! Media and business
sites are no longer loaded and can't be used properly, buttons can't be
pressed anymore so pages are partly or fully broken! This is what more and
more pages adopt, as it is the NEXT BIG THING! The Palemoon team failed in the
past to implement highly complex features and the only solution so far was in
the end to adopt fresh engines from Mozilla on a regular base, something which
is NO LONGER POSSIBLE as future Firefox engines have not the features the
Palemoon team sees as vital! Get slowly ready to start the search for a new
browser to which you can switch in the near future - the best and most logical
time in doing so is NOW!

Additionally - regarding this whole topic:
[https://freenode.logbot.info/binaryoutcast/20200314](https://freenode.logbot.info/binaryoutcast/20200314)

WHY it most likely will die... While we all should be grateful for Gaming4JC
and his attempts to bring over some code lately - Google Web components is TOO
BIG - Seamonkey guys don't have it inside their new new 2.53 - which is based
on Firefox 56. Waterfox - using the same code - also has issues. And if it is
already problematic with Firefox 56 based code... how big is the chance to
succeed with Firefox 52 based code? With the help of only one skilled guy? My
suggestion is try as much as other possible browsers now to make the switch
when it is forced on you as less annoying as possible.

~~~
tomku
Before voting on this post, please note that the body of it is a copy/paste of
the linked Reddit post and does not appear to be newsletterguy's personal
opinion.

------
pjmlp
I used to be big into XHTML, but that ship has long sailed.

Also if Web Development is now becoming a synonym to "ChromeOS", Chrome did
not reach that state magically, rather thanks to the crowd that kept bashing
IE and FF thorough the last decade.

~~~
Ygg2

        > I used to be big into XHTML
    

I know :(

    
    
        > rather thanks to the crowd that kept bashing IE and FF thorough the last decade.
    

I like FF, but that's too simplified.

Chrome was preinstalled on a bunch of devices (namely Android) and heavily
advertised (through Google). Firefox and even IE is having an uphill battle
fighting that kind of power.

What governments need to do is do to Google what they did to Microsoft.
Lawsuit, hefty fine and mandatory choose your own browser. Although, I doubt
even that would help.

~~~
marcus_holmes
> Chrome was preinstalled on a bunch of devices (namely Android)

Linux comes with Firefox pre-installed (or some variant of it, depending on
distro).

Windows comes with Edge pre-installed.

MacOS comes with Safari pre-installed.

OSX comes with Safari Mobile pre-installed.

Android devices appear to have a decent choice of browsers, and the default is
chosen by the manufacturer. For a lot of them that's Chrome, but not all.

I don't think there's actually any large group of devices that has Chrome pre-
installed.

Also, pure Android users are free to install any browser and set it as the
default.

Chrome is so popular because it has been the best browser for years. Whether
that's still true is open for debate. But I remember when it came out, finally
an answer to the godawful shite that was IE. We may dislike it now, but it
saved us from Microsoft's disaster. It's fascinating that you're now claiming
that "even IE is having an uphill battle fighting that kind of power". How the
tables have turned.

The problem is not so much with marketing power, but with coding investment.
Writing a browser is a mammoth undertaking, with all the strange edge cases
and standards. Even Microsoft has decided it doesn't see the point in writing
one. We're going to be left with two browser choices not because of corporate
power, but because it's just too much effort for not enough reward to write a
third.

I see where TFA is coming from: if we could agree that browsers don't need to
be this complex, then there would be more of them. But that would mean less
flexible web pages, and we'd end up with something Flash-like being an
attractive alternative.

~~~
SickOfSlowSites
> Chrome is so popular because it has been the best browser for years. Whether
> that's still true is open for debate. But I remember when it came out,
> finally an answer to the godawful shite that was IE. We may dislike it now,
> but it saved us from Microsoft's disaster.

That wasn't Chrome at all. It was Firefox. Where is this history re-write
coming from. Firefox lost market-share when they went to Australis and became
followers of Chrome instead of leaders (helped in part no doubt by funding
from Google).

~~~
marcus_holmes
No, Firefox was off lost in the weeds and being useless at the time. I
remember it well. Chrome was necessary to stop IE, utter piece of crap that it
was, from dominating the world.

~~~
Ygg2
No. That's not it. IE was losing market share, Firefox was gaining market
share slowly. Then after success of WebKit in iOS, Chrome was forked and rose
exponentially.

------
FpUser
Google is trying substitute the OS with their browser. The rest is accordingly
to this goal. They'll be exposing more and more of underlying OS functionality
on one hand and turning Chrome to be a fully fledged IDE as well. Web and at
some point traditional app developers will play along as well since having one
platform to develop for is very attractive idea. Web components is just on of
many other steps towards this goal.

So yes I'm afraid that at some point we will all end up being servants of
Google. Hopefully something will prevent this from happening.

