[anoncake]

> Unless the argument is "Microsoft should stop making browsers altogether"

Of course MS should keep making browsers. That gives them control over the UX, just not over the rendering engine.

My point is that assuming that Blink Edge means that there is now a variant of Blink not controlled by Google is optimistic.

> Its been either through exploiting an existing monopoly (IE, Safari on iOS) or merit (FireFox).

Yes, but which way is Chrome winning? I don't think it's merit, at least not solely.

[stephenr]

The entire reason they adopted blink was YouTube putting invisible divs over the video and breaking edge’s hardware acceleration for video.

They rewarded googles shitty behaviour by becoming dependent on them for a rendering engine, and any chance of forking is pointless because they’ll be back where they started: using something different than google, and thus ripe for shit code on google properties.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

A browser that can't hardware-accelerate <video> if there's an invisible <div> above it is broken. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do and any other browser can handle that.

[stephenr]

I agree that they should have just fixed the issue but my point was that there’s zero chance they’re going to fork blink because their reason for adopting it was google properties doing weird things in their own engine - after enough time google properties will do weird things in their forked engine too.

[anoncake]

That doesn't excuse Google intentionally exploiting that bug to attack Microsoft.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

Why do you think they were intentionally exploiting it? It's a perfectly reasonable thing for YouTube to do for several of its features.