I actually really like Chrome, well Chromium, despite the negative perception about Manifest v3. I truly hope that they work out the kinks quickly enough to resolve some of the concerns. I do get that the new API in some ways is safer for the average user, but there are power users that should be able to do what they want. Unfortunately, ad-blockers go against a business model that is central to Google. Despite the changes possibly being in good faith, it has only harmed their public perception and they may never recover from that unless they try to address and resolve the concerns publicly.
Chrome, 10 Years Later
11–20 of 175 posts
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#12> save newspapers I don't think newspapers (here standing for media organizations in general) need saving. Newspapers have great influence, and they will be funded for that. Let's say, ads go to zero and all newspapers are bankrupt, except BBC, NHK, NPR, and Al Jazeera. Is that a problem? I don't see a problem.
If you think all of the news orgs you just listed have a particular slant, then you'll have a problem. If you don't see a slant because you honestly believe they are neutral or you just happen to agree with them, then of course there's no problem to see. I'm not saying any of those have a slant or not. I'm just seeing how it's pretty obvious there's going to be public perception problem with your list
I mean, obviously all of them have slants. I am saying that generally well respected media organizations exist right now without depending on ads, and I don't see what ads-supported media organizations add over that, except variety. Opposing slants are also represented: Xinhua News and Russia Today will survive without ads. I just didn't list them because they are less respected.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#13> Apple cares about making a browser that renders web pages just adequately enough to be acceptable I think this is biased. It's closer to "Apple cares about rendering currently existing web pages superbly" while "Google also cares about rendering future web pages". Once upon a time, V8 won benchmarks and ran demos faster but JavaScriptCore rendered the web faster. This was mainly due to JavaScriptCore having an opti…
It's hard to speak for Apple why Safari is where it is. Pro: battery life Con: lagging behind on some features
Indeed, battery life shows Apple's goal is being superb, not adequate. For features, that's what focusing on currently existing web is about, instead of future possible web.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#14> History will surely uncover a Machiavellian plot about usurping control over the web, but at the time the story was pretty simple, at least as it was explained to naive pawns like me. Google wanted the web to succeed and even had a team of people contributing to Firefox. Google wanted more influence over the product, Mozilla was (reasonably) uncomfortable with that, so we went our own way.
This resonates with me. Often the narrative is that big tech is malicious. I think that evolves way down the line. Initially it's just about getting stuff done.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to speak for Apple why Safari is where it is. Pro: battery life Con: lagging behind on some features
Indeed, battery life shows Apple's goal is being superb, not adequate. For features, that's what focusing on currently existing web is about, instead of future possible web.
The Safari team has been killing it in interop-2022.[0] They've not only improved the most (and are currently leading) but was also way ahead on certain features like the new color spaces.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#16I actually really like Chrome, well Chromium, despite the negative perception about Manifest v3. I truly hope that they work out the kinks quickly enough to resolve some of the concerns. I do get that the new API in some ways is safer for the average user, but there are power users that should be able to do what they want. Unfortunately, ad-blockers go against a business model that is central to Google. Despite the c…
> Unfortunately, ad-blockers go against a business model that is central to Google. Despite the changes possibly being in good faith
I don't think you've kept up with the way Google has treated certain extensions if you're still considering the possibility that it's in good faith
Anybody remember AdNauseam (still available on Firefox)? It's an adblock that doesn't just block ads but in the background silently clicks ads to create noise and make you harder to track. Clearly against Google's business model
It wasn't enough for Google to find some rules in their policy to exclude it from their app store. They literally labelled it as malware (completely unfounded)
Google's been pretty ruthless about this stuff
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#17> History will surely uncover a Machiavellian plot about usurping control over the web, but at the time the story was pretty simple, at least as it was explained to naive pawns like me. Google wanted the web to succeed and even had a team of people contributing to Firefox. Google wanted more influence over the product, Mozilla was (reasonably) uncomfortable with that, so we went our own way. This resonates with me. O…
to be honest, you can already kind of see the writing on the wall in that quote, too. google wanted more control over the browser, I don't really think that's a neutral act, because they had vested interests in controlling a browser from the start. Of course google's reputation was a lot better back then, so people generally didn't question it too much.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#18I remember how exciting it was to be in my college dorm and having people be like "Man, this new browser is amazing!" It's kind of surreal because I'm not sure desktop software really does that anymore; maybe apps, but they seem to fizzle out really weirdly. It's very crazy to consider Chrome's influence on the Internet, and how most browsers are just skinned Chromium now.
Heck, many desktop applications are just skinned Chromium now…
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#19> History will surely uncover a Machiavellian plot about usurping control over the web, but at the time the story was pretty simple, at least as it was explained to naive pawns like me. Google wanted the web to succeed and even had a team of people contributing to Firefox. Google wanted more influence over the product, Mozilla was (reasonably) uncomfortable with that, so we went our own way. This resonates with me. O…
> Often the narrative is that big tech is malicious.
Chrome now sends all of your URL's you are viewing to Google by default.
So does Edge, to Microsoft.
Big Tech is Malicious.
Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later
#20> History will surely uncover a Machiavellian plot about usurping control over the web, but at the time the story was pretty simple, at least as it was explained to naive pawns like me. Google wanted the web to succeed and even had a team of people contributing to Firefox. Google wanted more influence over the product, Mozilla was (reasonably) uncomfortable with that, so we went our own way. This resonates with me. O…
Why not both? Originally it was benign (do no evil) and later became Machiavellian.