Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Browsers

adactio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 316 posts

Re: Browsers

#141

Post by AsyncAwait »

mirimir wrote: post #114
quanticle wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? They've already started. Google Meet (their version of Hangouts for enterprise) didn't work on non-Chrome browsers for a very long time. If you tried to do a video call with a non-Chrome browser, you were told to in…

> Currently, all of Google's services work on non-Chrome browsers. Last time I checked, Google Authenticator only works on Chrome.

Gmail and YouTube uses Chrome only features that make them slow in other browsers, compared to Chrome.

Re: Browsers

#142

Post by 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.

Re: Browsers

#143

Post by EvilTerran »

pcwalton wrote: post #54
koboll wrote: post #25

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 in…

> 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 G…

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.

Re: Browsers

#144

Post by mda »

eddieroger wrote: post #45

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…

To me biggest reason is security. multiple options gives at least some escape route if one engine screws up. Other is breaking standards, but so far this doesn't seem to be a big issue because of the open nature of blink / webkit.

Re: Browsers

#145

Post by [deleted] »

mirimir wrote: post #114
quanticle wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? They've already started. Google Meet (their version of Hangouts for enterprise) didn't work on non-Chrome browsers for a very long time. If you tried to do a video call with a non-Chrome browser, you were told to in…

> Currently, all of Google's services work on non-Chrome browsers. Last time I checked, Google Authenticator only works on Chrome.

[deleted]

Re: Browsers

#146

Post by [deleted] »

mirimir wrote: post #120
dragonwriter wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Last time I checked, Google Authenticator only works on Chrome. Google Authenticator is available for Android, iPhone, and Blackberry, and not for any browser; there are a number of third-party implementations, however, including a Chrome/ChromeOS one.

I don't use any of those things. I just know that I had to install Chrome to get Telegram's desktop app working.

[deleted]

Re: Browsers

#147

Post by M2Ys4U »

mixedCase wrote: post #13
snarfy wrote: post #10

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

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.

Brave is an advertising company mixed with blockchain snakeoil.

Why should we trust them?

Re: Browsers

#148

Post by pritambaral »

quanticle wrote: post #92
sonnyblarney wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 usa…

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? They've already started. Google Meet (their version of Hangouts for enterprise) didn't work on non-Chrome browsers for a very long time. If you tried to do a video call with a non-Chrome browser, you were told to in…

> Currently, all of Google's services work on non-Chrome browsers.

Google Earth is Chrome-only, because they use the Chrome-only NativeClient.

Google Hangouts dropped calling support on non-Chrome browsers for quite a while: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15889018

YouTube (and perhaps GMail) is extra slow on non-Chrome browsers because they use a dropped-and-never-standardised feature that is available only on Chrome, and force a slow polyfill on Firefox (and perhaps Edge): https://twitter.com/cpeterso/status/1021626510296285185

Re: Browsers

#149

Post by gdfasfklshg4 »

berbec wrote: post #110
AaronFriel wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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

Start a list...

Re: Browsers

#150

Post by [deleted] »

tolmasky wrote: post #23

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 wha…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN