Google had to have had the better product otherwise you wouldn't have been introduced to Chrome by using their search engine.
Do you mean that tree style tabs now works on Chrome or that everyone agrees that Chromes memory issues have been sorted? Or something else?
> Google had to have had the better product otherwise you wouldn't have been introduced to Chrome by using their search engine.
Maybe ten or fifteen years ago this was true.
These days it is so broken you can search for a literal term and get all spam and no ham.
Also ads are exempt from that anyway and these ads in particular were probably hard coded since no other ads has ever been shown in that spot.
Edit, some more details:
The reason Chrome leads is kind of the same as why IE dominated the marked for years:
- a generally good browser (IE was best for a long time)
- strategic incompatibility on core web assets: MSDN for Microsoft (worked nicely if you changes request headers in Opera to simulate IE), various web properties for Google
- enough non standard hacks that people who just slap together code and only test in IE/Chrome might easily include some IE/Chrome-specific hack
- carpet bombing of the market: In Microsofts case by bundling it with all new PCs, in Googles case by massive ad campaigns, including smothering the otherwise always clean and minimal front page(!) with Chrome ads.
- Also by adding it to shareware/freeware installers
- In Microsofts case also by shadyd deals with others about not including competing browsers. (Not confirmed in Googles case, yet ;-)
There is a reason why we old timers say "Chrome is the new IE".
A company putting an ad on their own website for their own product isn't an abuse of market position. That's the falsehood I'm referring to.
Everything else that you keep tossing back in as "do you mean..." is an attempt to evade that point that I made and to put words in my mouth.
Don't trust Google? Don't like Chrome? Don't use it. It's not like we've only got one bundled browser to work with these days. Even if it's crypotrash mining and referral link hijacking software like Brave. That's better, right? Or Apple's stagnant Safari. Or... Perhaps you'd be more comfortable in Lynx or Mosaic. They work as well now as they used to then.
So. Yeah. Chrome has market share because it continues to remain better than the alternatives. Not really that difficult of a concept, methinks.
The difference between then (IE/Windows Bundling) and now (Chrome/Google Advertising Might) is that we still get everything Google releases as open source. Use de-Googled Chromium and move then fuck on with your life.
Get off my lawn, punk.
In that case bundling IE with Windows definitely isn't abuse of market power either.
> It's tiresome and doesn't contribute one bit when you defeat any points you may legitimately have with all that griping. What's the point in tossing out the age card here?
First time I've heard anyone at HN indicating age is an advantage.
I put that there for humorous effect, a self depreciating joke in between the serious comparison of two abusing monopolies.
> Everything else that you keep tossing back in as "do you mean..." is an attempt to evade that point that I made and to put words in my mouth.
So tell me what you mean then.
Except that having only one implementation of the web will make it into a closed ecosystem. The current few (partial) implementations are a very weak state and firefox should be kept alive for this reason alone.
And with the grossly huge scope of web browsers, creating a new one is basically impossible to even large players.
