| > Everything, really. Nothing at all, really > To my knowledge, Chromium doesn't feature anything that couldn't be reverse-engineered or conditionally re-implimented by third-parties. To your knowledge. It's just Chrome-only Chrome-specific code inside a 50-million-line codebase that may or may not depend on very Chrome-specific things. > Maybe some things are nonstandard, but if there's user demand for it then why complain? Because you've just literally supplanted standards processes with "whatever Chrome ships is standard now". Are you even aware that Chrome ships 400 new web APIs a year? > Nobody but you has been talking about Chrome's anticompetitive practices in this thread. Indeed. Very few people talk about Chrome's practices, period. You could look up the thread why I started talking about Chrome's practices. > I'd have an easier time believing you if I couldn't use the web with my Open Source browser. Ah yes. The only thing that's needed for a company doing whatever the hell it wants is to provide the source. Who cares if no one has any say on what gets implemented in that browser. Who cares if even that company admits that no one contributes to that browser: https://twitter.com/RickByers/status/1715568535731155100 I mean, you could use the web with internet Explorer, too, so why complain? And yes, there's an increasing number of sites (including sites from Google) that carry the "only works in Chrome" or equivalent banner. So no, increasingly I cannot use the web using an open-source browser of my choice. > Much as you'd rather minimize it, "who owns the web" is also a valid question when leveled against Apple too. I don't minimize it. I point out the one-sidedness of the judgments leveled against Apple. |
If you want to circle back around to the point, I'm glad to keep discussing it.