[kaba0]

> 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.

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.

[techrat]

So now we have the Whiny Nerd Paradox.

Google is evil because they took over the web with Chrome.

But they're still evil because they're singlehandedly keeping Mozilla alive with funding.

Yes. Especially evil for keeping distant competition alive.

And really evil for enforcing web standards with a browser engine that works.

And also evil because they open source everything.

Grr. Google bad, of course.

[skinkestek]

Mostly agree in fact, and there are many good people at Google.

But can you see that a company can be both good and bad at the same time?

And that in cases like this with huge companies (both in brain mass and economic impact) the negative sides has extreme effects on the surroundings?

One nitpick:

> And really evil for enforcing web standards with a browser engine that works.

One of the problems with Chrome and IE was that they don't enforce web standards: you get away not only with behavior that others hasn't implemented yet, but also with certain shortcuts that aren't in any standard.