[n1vz3r]

The article is just an opinion and some claims, supported by zero evidence. Yes, Google is interested that Web continues to live. But article omits that Google only wants the Web that exists on Google's terms. That's why they practically rebuilt the web themselves, on all levels, from protocol to the client (spdy, webp, amp, dart, chromeos & android, chromium).

[_8j50]

They make changes to web standards and force it's adoption. Innovation is one thing but this is far from a democractic internet.

[blinkingled]

But that is also progress. If it wasn't for Google's investment we would still maybe running Flash. People have had a lot of time to advance the web before Google came along.

The standard is open, the code is open - I don't understand how "is Chrome the new IE?" even a question. It's not like they're bundling it only on ChromeOS and Android , it's not like they have the equivalent of VbScript /ActiveX and plenty of people are making browsers based on Chromium.

[_8j50]

I do think google innovated a lot but I think htlm5 killed flash not google. Html5 is a web standard. Chrome is very much the new IE, it use to be I was forced to run IE for some b.s. legacy corporate webapp now I am forced to run Chrome. Why? Because devs have to prioritize a browser and the amount of non standard supposed engineering by google means they can't support other browsers.

Google is playing a winner takes all game of dominance. Imagine if Ford became so popular that mechanics can't be bothered to fix other cars because Ford does everything differently.

People are being forced to base browsers on Chromium because no one will use anything else due to sites depending on Chromium only features! This is very anti-innovation.

You came up with a cool new feature in firefox (like containers) and you want to standardize it? Well if uncle google says no you're out of luck. Standards exist for a reason and engineers(even at google) use to have enough professionalism to respect the concept and process of having an internet where everyone participates democratically.

I hate to keep on coming to similar conclusions but Browsers need to be regulated if the browser industry is always being overrun by some monopoly.

[Tijdreiziger]

Apple killed Flash.

HTML5 just provided a suitable replacement for Flash, but suddenly having a large browser (Mobile Safari) that just couldn't play Flash content at all provided the incentive for web devs to actually invest the effort to switch to HTML5.

[clankyclanker]

This is the correct answer. To add historical perspective, I had friends who would go into Apple stores and point all the demo machines at newgrounds.com to show people that they shouldn’t waste their money on devices that couldn’t even play flash animations as well as a low end laptop.

[reaperducer]

If it wasn't for Google's investment we would still maybe running Flash.

It wasn't Google, it was Apple that very famously and publicly killed Flash.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200614182254/https://www.apple...

[blinkingled]

Most browsing still happens on desktop and without the equivalent HTML5 standards there would be no replacing Flash. Last I checked Apple really isn’t a big web standards pusher or implementer. I guess people just have to romanticize everything Apple. Sure it was a factor but Apple hardly was the only factor.

[jakelazaroff]

It’s very revisionist history to say that Apple has never been a big standards pusher or implementer. Basically every modern browser engine other than Gecko is descended from Apple’s Webkit.

[rudiv]

Apple WebKit itself is descended from KDE's WebKit IIRC.

[reaperducer]

Apple made Flash a no-go on mobile. At the time, people had no distinction between mobile web and desktop web, so if your web site didn't work on an iPhone, it was forgotten and left in the dust.

Today, you can be on one or the other. But that wasn't the case back then.

Last I checked Apple really isn’t a big web standards pusher or implementer

I'm sorry you wasted your time checking on something that I didn't state.

people just have to romanticize everything Apple

No romanticizing needed. I was there, and lived through it.

[blinkingled]

> I'm sorry you wasted your time checking on something that I didn't state.

Just saying no Flash use our app store apps without contributing to open xp alternatives does not amount to killing Flash. Making the alternative better, accessible to all in an open way does.

[userbinator]

The standard is open, the code is open

"standard" means nothing when Google is churning it every day. It coined the completely idiotic term "living standard" and has basically used its propagandic powers to drag everyone else along.

Its idea of "progress" is the exact opposite of what the web needs.

Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961613

[earthboundkid]

If Google had succeeded we’d be using Dart (yuck) instead of ES6 (yum).

[xrisk]

it’s about the kind of ecosystem they’re attempting to build – look at AMP for example

[MattGaiser]

I would classify those threats as different. Microsoft as one of dominant neglect and Google and one of dominance.

[wlesieutre]

Google has a reputation for getting bored of projects and shutting them down, if they controlled the web it’d be gone in six months and everything would have to be AMP

[xnx]

It cuts both ways. Shutting down projects that aren't core can also be seen as focusing on what matters. Google shutting down products also gives room for other companies to fill that need. The Google Reader shutdown was the besting thing ever to happen to Feedly. I wish Firefox was a little more aggressive in shutting down some of its side-projects to focus on the things where they can provide value that other strictly-commercial companies will not.

[edoceo]

Looking at Pocket. Hey, FF I want to love you but I feel you lack focus. Also, fix the autocompleter on the URL bar on mobile - it should not aggressively autocomplete when I'm pressing bksp !

[Tijdreiziger]

I haven't personally encountered that problem on mobile, but Fenix (the new Firefox for Android) was rushed out, and it sadly does show.

[edoceo]

I'm on Android, using Firefox 79.0.5 (Build #2015758619) - which is like freshest bits for GP - it's where they moved the address bar to the bottom.

So, go to a long URL, like paging through a forum. Then edit the URL. Place cursor at end and hit bksp. As you continue to delete chars the purple-phantom highlight where it tries to autocomplete goes crazy and flickers the heck out of the UI. It's definitely a regression.

I don't know the best way to capture screen on this device tho, and I don't have time to spin up any emulators and go through those steps

[ekianjo]

> Google has a reputation for getting bored of projects and shutting them down, if they controlled the web it’d be gone in six months and everything would have to be AMP

They haven't shut down Search yet, even though it's pretty boring as a service.

I'm sure you can understand there are "core" projects, and non-core ones.

[wlesieutre]

They can put their ads in the AMP pages, what do they need the rest of the web for?

[The_rationalist]

I wonder when they will drop Google Search, about the time they should get bored soon! Oh unless such belief doesn't make any sense for product that are necessary to Google lucrativity? Yes, Google devs on non necessarily lucrative projects such as flutter or dart might get bored to some extent.

[ekianjo]

> But article omits that Google only wants the Web that exists on Google's terms.

That's probably why the team behind Chromium is composed of so many contributors who are not at Google?

[saagarjha]

I hear this argument come up a lot and frankly it's just misleading to even bring it up. When a company controls an open source project, the project follows their vision–regardless of whether there are a couple other groups with slightly-more-than-nominal contributions. Ask yourself whether any one group could prevent a commit from going in that Google corporate had decided they wanted in Chromium–the answer is of course no. It'd be like saying Apple doesn't have essentially full control over WebKit's direction, even though this page lists a bunch of people who aren't from Apple: https://webkit.org/team/

[ekianjo]

Free and Open-Source projects, unlike IE, can be forked anytime by just anyone or any other organization. There is nothing preventing anyone to go ahead and rework Chromium for their own needs - and that's what happening in practice already with Brave, Edge, etc...

The day that people/organizations are upset with the direction Google takes with Chromium is the day where a real fork will start existing and being actively developed by a larger community.

[afiori]

For this I would propose a litmus test for forkability of a project. If the original parent company disappeared would the fork be able to sustain its development and maintenance alone?

For current chromium forks (and also for firefox forks) the answer is no.

The only fork that would have the resources would be from microsoft, but it would be a huge, expensive, and non-trivial task.

[ekianjo]

> If the original parent company disappeared would the fork be able to sustain its development and maintenance alone?

The counterexample is the Linux kernel. No single company can actually sustain its development, so in practice many companies work on it together with an agreed governance to direct where things go.

[afiori]

Indeed Linux is not forkable in practice, most current forks rely on the cooperation and coordination of the linux foundation at least partially.

For chrome as long as google exist I don't really see an industry consortium to invest in marginal improvements (considering also how the interested industry partners are likely heavy google customers)

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

Don't forget WebRTC, currently on the HN front page. Web-based peer-to-peer introduced by Google.

[sebazzz]

I think you forget AMP and related technologies to empower it like HTTP Signed Exchanges.

[tssva]

Your comment is just an opinion and some claims supported by zero evidence.

[zakki]

Aren’t all protocols gp mentioned the evidence, are they?

[Chyzwar]

spdy become HTTP2, quic become HTTP3 it is expensive in time and money to develop and test new ideas in protocols. I think it is a bit unfair to to bundle android, chromium and AMP into same bag. AMP is clearly driven by money but there is a lot of open source that benefit everyone.

Google is big company. I think trying to paint whole google as evil is not effective.

[rhacker]

It's like this beast that does these benevolent things, but at some point it catches up to them and they shut something down after getting people kinda hooked. For example Picasa - massively popular - free and pretty amazing desktop photo management tool. It slowly morphed such that all of the users of it were just folded into a cloud offering: Drive.

Chrome and all of it's open source awesomeness, again, mostly used to fold people into the bigger profitable picture. So even though there are developers that work at Google creating protocols that help everyone, including non-Chrome browsers - that benevolence has a product manager paying that developer's time. At some stage it's not all free beer.

[tssva]

It is a list of protocols, applications and operating systems which the the commenter is assigning some sort of nefarious intent to with no evidence.