51–60 of 536 posts
Extensions. I am now locked into Chrome because several services I use require Chrome extensions that aren't available elsewhere. The idea that Chrome can be unseated, or isn't needed, is unrealistic for the many users who rely on Chrome-exclusive extensions.
> Ten years ago, we needed Google Chrome to break the Web free from corporate greed How? It never stops puzzling me why anyone thoght Chrome would be any different. Somehow less corporate.
It was open source from start. Yes, Firefox as well, but it had Google as a brand behind it which put lots of trust in it because of the engineering talent they have.
I find posts like this kind of interesting. Chrome gained prominence because it had great performance improvements over the competition -- IE and Firefox. IE in particular was dog slow at all times, and Chrome ran everything at least as well and almost always better. Firefox didn't have process isolation when Chrome came onto the scene, and that kind of knocked it for security and stability. It's not as if people swi…
The knowledgeable minority, maybe. _Most_ people switched because Google pushed it like a piece of adware. Bundling it with other software installers, prompting you to use it whenever you use Google search or other products, and bundling it with an OS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd also add that 2008 Google was trusted by the public a lot more than 2019 Google.
> by the public by technical users I imagine the general public still trusts them all the same or maybe even more.
I enjoyed this post, but I take issue with the idea that Chrome was initially adopted, or served, "to break the Web free from corporate greed." Chrome's appeal was primarily technical. Each tab got its own process and could crash without taking down the entire browser. No one else had this at the time, and it was a big deal because Flash was still widespread so sites were even less stable than they are today. Luckily…
Indeed. When Chrome was first released Firefox had already broken the IE monopoly having reached around 33% of the browser "market share", and was still growing. Speed was the issue I seem to remember most people switching to Chrome for at the time.
It left a sour taste in my mouth that Microsoft joined Chrome instead of investing in FireFox and helping them advance their multi-process architecture quicker.
There is an important difference between Google and Microsoft. Google is using their market dominance to push their opinions on the open standards bodies; Microsoft used their market dominance to ignore standards bodies completely.
Googles browser offers functionality to Googles websites that it does not offer to any other website. When you log into an Google owned site, it interacts with the browser so that you are 'logged into your browser' with that Google account. That is not pushing standards into a direction. That is blatant exploitation of ther market position.
I'm not exactly sure how advantageous you think this is.
Do we know why Google grew dissatisfied with Apple and forked Webkit?
Extensions. I am now locked into Chrome because several services I use require Chrome extensions that aren't available elsewhere. The idea that Chrome can be unseated, or isn't needed, is unrealistic for the many users who rely on Chrome-exclusive extensions.
[1] - https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360017909112-How...