[asddubs]

to be honest, you can already kind of see the writing on the wall in that quote, too. google wanted more control over the browser, I don't really think that's a neutral act, because they had vested interests in controlling a browser from the start. Of course google's reputation was a lot better back then, so people generally didn't question it too much.

[duped]

Another way of framing this is that Google wanted to do things that browsers couldn't and better, and built a new browser that redefined what the standards could be.

You could call that "control" but in the early days when Chrome was gaining dominance it made the web better.

The change in reputation is directly related to the change in the decision making and reasons behind it, imo.

[pavlov]

From this narrow perspective, Internet Explorer was the exact same story. Starting around version 4.0 it really was a better browser than Netscape, implemented the new standards better, and also did essential new things that other browsers couldn’t (XmlHttpRequest anyone?). IE’s dominance really made the web better because developers could write to a single standard and end users had a unified browser UX.

Now, I disagree with this definition of “better” because it doesn’t consider the indirect effects on the open web platform. But my opinion is presumably a minority one because the community has sleepwalked into the same situation with Google and Chrome.

[izacus]

> Now, I disagree with this definition of “better” because it doesn’t consider the indirect effects on the open web platform. But my opinion is presumably a minority one because the community has sleepwalked into the same situation with Google and Chrome.

Yes, and meanwhile prevented the content being locked inside the walled garden platforms like Facebook and apps on Apple AppStore. It's really strange how none of you remember that having most news and other content locked off behind a mobile app was a serious trend that happened before web caught up?

[subradios]

Serious trend? It never stopped. Literally every website on the mobile version will outright demand I download the app. Even sites that are on a desktop will refuse to do anything the site should do and instead tell me to download the app.

It's harder to game app downloads than site visits, so companies chased app downloads. It has very little to do with the user experience or preference.

[iforgotpassword]

I don't remember that. When was any news locked in at Facebook? How even? When chrome came around, how many people even had smartphones? The majority of people still used Facebook via Browser then.

But even if; just like in the movies, when the good guy finally turns bad, you have to get rid of him.

[asddubs]

I think it's kind of two sides of the same coin. Of course google didn't exclusively use their increased control over the web for strictly evil purposes, but it's more about whether someone who has a vested interest should be the one controlling browsers. It's kind of like a manufacturer being in charge over the safety regulations of their own factories. Sure, you can argue that they might know better than anyone what needs to be regulated, and might regulate things for the better where other manufacturers are worse than them, but there's also a huge conflict of interest built into the scenario.

Of course chrome was an improvement over browsers at the time, it's hard to dispute that, but that doesn't really mean that googles intentions were pure. Or that it wasn't a strategic move to place themselves into a position of having a grip on a central piece of internet infrastructure.

If a wal mart shows up in your town and drives all the smaller stores out of business you can also argue that they might have genuinely lower prices and a wider selection, but that's also just part of a larger strategy to assume dominance.

[makeitdouble]

It feels like we're dancing around the concept of Embrace Extend Extinguish.

The first two phases are prominently positive and benefit the users enough for the newcomer to gain traction up to a dominant position. It's also only if that position is reached that the third phase kicks in.

[glogla]

> Another way of framing this is that Google wanted to do things that browsers couldn't and better, and built a new browser that redefined what the standards could be.

For sure!

But what were the things they wanted to do that browsers couldn't? Was it removing tracking everything, shoving more and more ads down everyone's throat and turning Web into their walled garden?