I appreciate your succinct explanation regarding WEI—it highlights the core issue effectively.
I’d like to expand upon your point, not to contradict, but to further explore the implications. I’m encouraged by recent announcements suggesting a shift away from policies that could hinder browser user agents.
I believe Google’s actions represent a compromise with media IP owners, who were instrumental in the initial advocacy for these changes. By limiting technological controls to Android, Google appears to appease media stakeholders while avoiding restrictions on the open web, despite their dominant browser market share.
This issue is particularly pertinent to me since my business depends on the freedom of alternative browser user agents to access the web unimpeded. While some might argue my stance stems from self-interest, it does not diminish the value of an unrestricted web.
My product, BrowserBox, is designed to circumvent web content embedding restrictions on both mobile and desktop, eliminating the need for a Webview tag. Hence, Google’s approach doesn’t concern me personally.
In fact, I view it as a positive—if it deflects media companies’ pressure from the open web.
Furthermore, if Android’s technology faces constraints, people might look for other options, and BrowserBox stands as a prime, open-source choice. It’s a low-maintenance solution compared to others, like proxy-based DOM mirroring, which often result in site breakages and require constant, costly tweaks.
As video streaming bandwidth becomes more affordable, the operational cost advantages of these alternative solutions diminish. High-volume operations can leverage colocation services with unlimited bandwidth, further reducing concerns over data transmission costs.