[dmitriid]

> No one is stopping another company from disrupting Chrome and making their own vision of the web by building a better browser.

It's is almost impossible for anyone to create a new browser. Even for a corporation with near-unlimited resources it would be a daunting task. Hell, Microsoft gave up, and they are definitely not short on resources.

At the time of this writing Chrome ships 7600 web apis [1]. Firefox and Safari ship 6500 and 6300 respectively. Chrome will happily ram its own internal APIs through standards committees with nothing but a lip-service to the other implementors because this only assures Chrome's dominance. This also assures that no other browser will ever appear.

> Many new web technologies like PWAs originated with Chrome. Apple, on their own, would never have pushed for PWAs and even now, their support for them are lackluster.

Ah yes. The bad-bad Apple. How can Apple not be bad when we have the great saviour of the web, the Saint Disruptor Chrome.

Meanwhile, both Apple and Mozilla are increasingly on the same side with regards to the non-standards that Chrome rams through: they are vocally opposed.

A very-very non-exhaustive list: https://webapicontroversy.com These "disruptions" are so badly specified (read: are so Chrome-only) that sometimes the devs from competing browsers can't even understand them: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459#is...

And yet, Chrome will have you believe that these standards are not only there, but that they are complete (so many of them are just drafts that have been cobbled together by some googlers), and that they are immediately available and can be used (they can only be used in Chrome).

[1] https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence

Edit: grammar and typos

[theturtletalks]

I do get your point, Chrome is launching new APIs faster than the other guys can catch up. My issue is that the others guys had a lot of time to create the APIs Chrome is creating now and has created. When Chrome was focused on making the web better, these guys were working on making it more restrictive.

On https://webapicontroversy.com, I see these APIs that Chrome supports that clash with Mozilla:

Web Bluetooth API Web NFC API Web USB API

These seem like useful APIs. Mozilla seems against these due to security risk, but then why not work on a protocol that is safe? Bringing NFC, USB, and Bluetooth to the web is important in my opinion. Apple still doesn't let you connect a bluetooth device via WebKit, but guess what? You can pay to install a browser on the App Store that does.

Nothing is going to be perfect at the beginning but if Mozilla is so against it, the best response is a better product.

[dmitriid]

> When Chrome was focused on making the web better, these guys were working on making it more restrictive.

What the hell are you talking about? Safari and Firefox were building a better web long before Chrome even came onto the scene.

Safari precedes Chrome by 5 years.

Firefox precedes Chrome by 6 years.

They were both making the web better when IE6 held something like 99% of the market.

> Mozilla seems against these due to security risk, but then why not work on a protocol that is safe?

What the hell are you talking about? You want Mozilla to implement a new safe protocol to replace USB?

> but if Mozilla is so against it, the best response is a better product.

Yes, and both Mozilla and Safari are against WebUSB for one simple reason: they want a better product that doesn't compromise user security. But sure, why they don't just build one, right?

Chrome doesn't care and ships it anyway, and for some reason you're saying it's Google who are building a better product. No. They are building a product that's better for Google, first and foremost, and everyone else (including security, privacy, long-term health and sustainability of the web) be damned.