undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointskibwen7y ago0 comments

> The Chromium engine itself is open source

Being open source is a red herring in this instance.

Say that Chrome implements a web feature you don't like. You fork the browser and remove that feature. But websites expect Chrome, and they use that feature, so your fork doesn't work with those websites.

Say that Chrome refuses to add a feature you want. You fork the browser and add the feature. But websites expect Chrome, so they don't use your feature so as to not break for their Chrome users, and your fork is no better off.

The insidious part of a web monoculture is allowing Google to dictate the standards of the web platform. Being able to fork the codebase only gives one the power to change things that are strictly client-side.

0 comments

joesb7y ago

Your examples have nothing to do with whether you use Chrominum engine, though.

Say that Chrome implements a web feature you don't like. MS use their own MSengine for their Edge browser that doesn't have that feature. But websites expect Chrome, and they use that feature, so MS Edge doesn't work with those websites.

Say that Chrome refuses to add a feature you want. MS use their own MSengine for their Edge browser that has that feature. But websites expect Chrome, so they don't use MS Edge feature so as to not break for their Chrome users, and MS Edge browser is no better off.

kibwenOP7y ago

Not sure what this is attempting to refute. Your comment is about why monocultures are bad for competition, which I happen to agree with. My comment is about why Chromium being open-source doesn't alleviate any concerns about monoculture.

cortesoft7y ago

How is the situation better if there are two browsers with 50% market share? You still can’t add a new feature the other side doesn’t want, because 50% of users won’t be able to use it.

Any feature that requires a site owner to do something to support it isn’t going to be added.

kibwenOP7y ago

You've just illustrated the advantage of a polyculture: changes to the platform are not unilateral decisions, and therefore require discussion, communication, and documentation. Furthermore, if one actor tries to do something out of blatant self-interest that would be a detriment to the platform as a whole, that action can be blocked. With a Google monoculture, at the end of the day, the web will be whatever the CEO of Google allows it to be. Imagine how little control users have over the Android platform; envision a future where that's the web's model as well.

1 more reply

viraptor7y ago

> You still can’t add a new feature the other side doesn’t want

That's not quite true. This happens all the time with things not standardised (yet). With time those either get wide adoption because people want them, or get dropped, or get standardised in a different widely agreed form.

foepys7y ago

Your argument is easily proven false by looking at the various CSS properties prefixed by vendors like -moz-* and -webkit-* that eventually made it into the standard.

1 more reply

jayd167y ago

Microsoft using Chrome only somewhat reduces Microsoft's power in this regard. In no way does that change your ability to project your will on the internet through Chrome forks. Small devs have little power now and that will stay unchanged if Edge goes Chrome.

Web devs will have to build for the lowest common denominator so this change improves that slightly.

An actual downsides is it increases the power of the Chromium team to make defacto changes.

It might also reduces innovation but I can't really see Microsoft deciding to drop a feature because it would take them further from the chrome trunk.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

joesb7y ago

Your examples have nothing to do with whether you use Chrominum engine, though.

kibwenOP7y ago

cortesoft7y ago

How is the situation better if there are two browsers with 50% market share? You still can’t add a new feature the other side doesn’t want, because 50% of users won’t be able to use it.

Any feature that requires a site owner to do something to support it isn’t going to be added.

kibwenOP7y ago

1 more reply

viraptor7y ago

> You still can’t add a new feature the other side doesn’t want

foepys7y ago

Your argument is easily proven false by looking at the various CSS properties prefixed by vendors like -moz-* and -webkit-* that eventually made it into the standard.

1 more reply

jayd167y ago

Web devs will have to build for the lowest common denominator so this change improves that slightly.

An actual downsides is it increases the power of the Chromium team to make defacto changes.

It might also reduces innovation but I can't really see Microsoft deciding to drop a feature because it would take them further from the chrome trunk.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse