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
Licensing isn’t what is important here, control is. The vast number of major contributions and contributors come from Google, and therefore they can steer the project in any direction they wish. That it happens in the open is and accidental side effect that Google can leverage at will to claim it isn’t really in control when regulators come knocking.