zlacker

>>dochtm+(OP)
We don't have to speculate, we've been through this already during the IE4 to IE6 era.

Microsoft just did whatever they wanted with the web "platform", and so will Google.

In Microsoft's case what they wanted was nothing. They weren't a web business, saw it as a threat to their platform leverage, and so just left it abandoned and stagnant for years.

Google is simultaneously better and worse: they won't leave it stagnant because the web is their platform, but on the other hand they have a lot more to gain by abusing control of it.

>>paol+B6
Comparing it with MS-IE is unfair. It was not Mozilla or Firefox, but Chrome and Android broke the hegemony of IE in many countries. Where I lived, bank or government sites were IE-Windows only until Chrome appeared. In countries like Korea it was a total shit show. I understand it is a shame that only 3 engines left and but please it is not even close to what MS did.

>>aaa_aa+ie
I think you're conflating two different things. One thing is Google's decisions when it comes to standards, another one is websites' decision on which browsers to support. Your conclusion that "websites support more than one browser therefore Google's behavior is not that bad" doesn't follow, even if those things are somewhat correlated in the long run.

It's perfectly possible for Google to be engaging in similar behavior to Microsoft during IE era, while websites decide to support more than one browser for the moment. In the long run, Google's behavior could contribute to more websites deciding to support fewer browsers.

I'm already seeing the occasional website that doesn't work properly on Firefox - for the moment this is rare, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes more common.