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
You fail to mention that IE was closed source while Chromium is open source. That's a completely different situation.

We already have a number of Chromium based browsers that go against some of Google's most fundamental interests (e.g Brave).

>>fauige+Rf
That's exactly where F/OSS has failed us big time. Just because it's "open source" doesn't mean browsers have to aggregate to whole operating systems. There was once this idea, you know, of exchanging documents and links via TCP/IP, and it was good. Then came platforms and browser wars, and the piece of crap that is JS and CSS along with them. In the end our only way out of this is to start over with a decentralized/p2p medium for document exchange. But F/OSS don't seem to get it that we need open standards not necessarily open implementations.

The same thing has happened to Linux which was ok as long as it was chasing commercial Unix, spawning POSIX even; but look what happened with systemd, wayland, snaps/flatpacks, Docker, k8s, and all the other erratic developments - all the while not a single end-user app was created in the last decade.