61–70 of 249 posts
In the case of Chrome, you can't blame Google. They made a good browser, did some marketing and it got popular. However the current situation is worrisome, because alternative implementations are dying and in the case of the web, diversity is important. Both Opera and Microsoft's Edge are now powered by Chromium. Chromium is a project controlled by Google. Its redeeming quality, in terms of its open source nature, is…
In the case of Chrome, you can't blame Google. They made a good browser, did some marketing and it got popular. However the current situation is worrisome, because alternative implementations are dying and in the case of the web, diversity is important. Both Opera and Microsoft's Edge are now powered by Chromium. Chromium is a project controlled by Google. Its redeeming quality, in terms of its open source nature, is…
I do not trust Google, but I do not trust Mozilla either. An overwhelming majority of Mozilla funding comes from Google, Microsoft, and other giants it directly competes with. Added to that, many of it's battles (at the W3C and like) prioritize philosophy over customer satisfaction and ease of use. 99.9% of browser users don't care or don't even know if their browser is open source - what they want is convenience and…
Mozilla Foundation is a Non-profit foundation who mission to the ensure the web is open and accessible to all, not to make the most commercially successful web browser
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That, and they paid money to surreptitiously bundle it with other software. Chrome is notorious for suddenly being mysteriously installed on relatives' computers: https://imgur.com/NIZk9Pd And advertising something on your own property sure sounds reasonable, but I think it's a slightly different story when "your own property" is "the de facto homepage of the internet". That's what I meant by "abusing monopoly positi…
That's not a dark pattern though. Potentially poor behavior, sure, but dark pattern, no.
In the case of Chrome, you can't blame Google. They made a good browser, did some marketing and it got popular. However the current situation is worrisome, because alternative implementations are dying and in the case of the web, diversity is important. Both Opera and Microsoft's Edge are now powered by Chromium. Chromium is a project controlled by Google. Its redeeming quality, in terms of its open source nature, is…
" They made a good browser, did some marketing and it got popular. " They did make a good browser. However, their market share is not down to better browser or "some advertising." They use their other assets (search, youtube, android, docs..) to make chrome the "default" option. It's a dominance breeds dominance cycle... a hallmark of modern monopoly. Chrome wouldn't have gotten anywhere if it wasn't a very good brow…
The benefit needs to be worth the effort. Early on, in the days you refer to, browsers were often crappy and motivated switching often. I bounced between IE and FF a lot (and later chrome), because things were often broken/bad, or various websites I wanted to use didn't work in one or the other. However, in the last few+ years, that's not really true (in any way I notice) now.
Basically, I think the only improvements that can be made are incremental/marginal, and aren't enough to make switching browsers worth it. They're all pretty good now. So, I expect market share for browsers to change much more slowly now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That, and they paid money to surreptitiously bundle it with other software. Chrome is notorious for suddenly being mysteriously installed on relatives' computers: https://imgur.com/NIZk9Pd And advertising something on your own property sure sounds reasonable, but I think it's a slightly different story when "your own property" is "the de facto homepage of the internet". That's what I meant by "abusing monopoly positi…
That's not a dark pattern though. Potentially poor behavior, sure, but dark pattern, no.
I really don't like how browser vendors have become extension gatekeepers, strongly discouraging any integration they disapprove of. I like what Gab has done with the Dissenter Browser (fork of Brave) after being removed from the Google/Firefox stores.
Imagine being so convinced that nazis and white supremacists are "right" that literally fork your own browser.
Google is a clear monopoly, there's no doubt about it. It has a 70% browser market share, 70% market share in the search ecosystem. Even though their service is good and people are happy, I think they need to be broken down for the sake of keeping an open internet. Even Facebook for that matter. That's my opinion
Has this course of action ever actually worked? I can't say US telecoms are a great example of competition. I'm not anti-regulation but it seems like simply enforcing open standards might be more effective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I remember that too, worded with scummy, deceiving wording, like most other malware/spyware at the time. Instead of “Virus detected! Click here for free scan” it was “Old browser detected. Click here to upgrade”. It was literally 100% out of the malware deployment hand guide.
In this case Chrome was actually miles better and secure than those old browsers though. It wasn't deceiving, it was the truth.
I really don't like how browser vendors have become extension gatekeepers, strongly discouraging any integration they disapprove of. I like what Gab has done with the Dissenter Browser (fork of Brave) after being removed from the Google/Firefox stores.
Imagine being so convinced that nazis and white supremacists are "right" that literally fork your own browser.