• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    The reality of the situation is that developing a browser takes a huge amount of resources. Google effectively owns Chromium development, and gets to make all the decisions regarding how the engine works of what features are there. Recent controversy over Chromium trying to remove APIs using adblockers is a perfect example of this.

    Furthermore, as Chromium becomes the dominant engine, website only care that they work properly with this engine. When the engine breaks the standards, what the engine is doing becomes the implicit standard. AMP is a great example of that.

    The fact that you can theoretically fork and modify the source is completely meaningless in practice. If the web is designed around how Chromium works, then it doesn’t matter what some tiny fork with a dozen users is doing.

    Google is fundamentally an ads company, and the internet is far too important for Google to become the sole gatekeeper for accessing it.

    • tmpod@lemmy.pt
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 years ago

      Very well said.

      Furthermore, despite being open source, Chromium still has Google’s stuff baked in. Projects like Ungoogled Chromium and Bromite aim at removing them, but due to the extremely complex nature of a browser, it is hard to be sure you have gotten them all.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 years ago

      It is a problem, but I don’t think it’s as big as you or the video lets on. If Google does make particularly problematic changes, it’s not going to be some random users forking it, it’s going to be Microsoft. Microsoft is perfectly capable of maintaining an alternate version, after all they made edgeHTML almost from scratch and it worked fine. True, edge only has ~6% market share but it’s growing and whatever bad decision Google makes is likely to drive users away from chrome. Other chromium browsers would also likely switch to Microsoft’s fork.

      And of course, Google also has to worry about pushback from other corporations or even governments, like they did with FLoc.

      Google knows this, and so doesn’t do anything too out of line.

      Manifest v3, which you gave as an example was delayed and google backtracked on like half the changes, just because some extension devs and a vocal minority of nerds protested. And in that situation, Google’s power over chromium was only half the reason, because google also has the chrome webstore, which they do truly have full control over and is not open source, but that’s a separate issue.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        Another megacorp forking Chromium doesn’t really help solve thee problem. We need a browser that’s an actual community driven open source project. Microsoft is unlikely to have problems with features harmful to users such as tracking or disabling adblocker APIs because that sort of thing is perfectly compatible with their business model.

        The entity maintaining the browser has to be fundamentally non-commerical. Mozilla is not perfect, but it’s the closest we have at the moment.

        The reason Google backtracked is precisely because there is a viable alternative available, and if they made this change then we’d see droves of people moving to FF. In a world where Chromium is the only game in town they can push these kinds of changes through much easier.

        • morrowind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 years ago

          Gecko is no more “community driven” than chromium. Mozilla has just as much control over it. You could argue that Mozilla is better company, but that’s a separate argument.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 years ago

            Mozilla is fundamentally a non profit foundation. It’s not perfect, but it’s not remotely comparable to commercial companies like Google and Microsoft that have a clear conflict of interest. I would personally prefer if Firefox was a true community effort, but having it as imperfect as it may be is still vastly better than not.

      • liwott@nerdica.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 years ago

        If Google does make particularly problematic changes, it’s not going to be some random users forking it, it’s going to be Microsoft.

        But that’s assuming that the changes will also be problematic for Microsoft, while their interest may align with Google’s in a lot of situations

        • morrowind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 years ago

          That is true, we cannot always assume Microsoft will will be opposed to it.

          But they are a competitor and considering how they’ve been pushing edge lately, I don’t think it would take too much for MS to split if they thought they could get an advantage that way.