Because at the time IE6 was a terrible browser with poor standards support, while Chrome is an excellent browser with leading standards support. It is a gilded cage.
> Chrome is an excellent browser with leading standards support.
Google learned it can be "standards compliant" if it submits a draft spec to WHATWG/W3C, and while the comment and revision process is still ongoing, roll out those features in Chrome and start using them in YouTube, Gmail, Google docs, and AMP. Now Firefox and Safari are forced to implement those draft specs as well or users will leave in droves because Google websites are broken. Soon enough, Google's draft spec is standardized with minimal revisions because it's already out there in the wild.
The debate, revision, and multistakeholder aspects of the standards process have been effectively bypassed, a la IE6 and ActiveX, but Chrome can claim to be on the cutting edge of standards compliance. This is a case of Goodharts's law.
I don't mean this to doubt you, it is a sincere question. Do you have any examples of that happening? It sounds very believable, but it would be great to have actual sources for future reference.
Anytime you see someone on HN lamenting that Safari is the new IE because it doesn't implement something, 99.9% of the time it's Chrome-only non-standards.
- Most of standards advertised on web.dev as "new exciting opportunities you can try now". E.g. WebTransport https://developer.chrome.com/docs/capabilities/web-apis/webt.... The status of that spec is "scribbled on a napkin", but somehow already released in Chrome.
Can I Use had to create a special UNOFF tag for all the web APIs that Chrome (mostly Chrome) ships. If you go to MDN and look at all APIs marked as "experimental", you'll find that most of them are already shipped in Chrome: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API
push notifications, webgpu and webusb are examples of chrome being a reference implementation and using things for their services while simultaneously pushing the standard.
Push for mail, webgpu for maps (iirc) and I believe WebUSB is used for Android flash/debug.
WebGPU is the only one of those I’ve really followed, but hasn’t that had a huge amount of input and changes due to other voices in the working group? That seems to contradict the simplistic picture painted above of Google just dictating standards to the industry.
To add insult to injury, we probably would have gotten WebGL 2.0 Compute, which was initially done by Intel, if Chrome had not refused to ship it on Chrome, arguing that WebGPU was right around the corner, and it would take too much space, this was about 5 years ago.
And to those rushing out to point out the excuse part about OpenGL on Mac not having support for compute, WebGL already back then wasn't backed up by OpenGL on all platforms, see Windows (DirectX), PlayStation (LibGNM).
Also eventually Safari also moved their WebGL implementation from OpenGL to Metal, and Chrome did as well, replace their WebGL to run on top of Metal on Mac.
So not really that much of a problem regarding the state of OpenGL on Mac as "required" implemenatation layer for WebGL.
If Google websites break on Safari, users will stop using Google before they stop using an iPhone. They will blame Google as well. Safari has refused to implement standards multiple times.
That is revisionism, IE only stagnated because they kind of wipedout the competition, like Chrome is today, and Microsoft withdraw most of the development resources from the team.
WPF XAML was originally designed by ex IE team members, and they were the same that a few years later proposed XAML Grid concept as CSS Grid initial design.
Many JavaScript devs have to thank their abuse of JavaScript in the browser to XMLHttpRequest introduced by IE.
> IE only stagnated because they kind of wipedout the competition
Yeah, people forget that IE was a great browser. It was easily the most performant, I think driven by the Outlook web (I believe the first web app to make use of XMLHttpRequest) team demanding IE team make it so. The issue, like you said, is they won and then stopped updating.
> Internet explorer became the dominant browser for one reason only: it came by default.
Default helped, but IE was the far superior browser for a long time. People chose to use it.
I was also a FF user and it came out a few years later than IE6. When FF came out IE6 was still the superior browser, though it was eventually overtaken by both FF and Chrome.
It was sad to me watching that battle unfold. Maybe i was ignorant (and maybe i still am), but I learned most of what i know about web dev on Netscape sitting in a mac lab at university viewing source code. I HATED when IE started to takeover and eventually won that first battle. I miss Netscape :-(
Revisionism? I was around then and I implemented plenty of sites in IE. It always had bugs that other browsers did not (and there were more than two engines back then). Maddening lack of support of features that other browsers had implemented, often requiring crazy workarounds. Transparent PNGs didn't even work! Not to mention all the proprietary crap like ActiveX.
"Leading" being the operative word. Ship a new feature, submit it as a standard and encourage its adoption so things only work on chrome and further increase market share when people find other browsers "broken".
MS did exactly the same shit with IE - the only really difference was that the standards body (w3c) was independent, so they couldn't self declare it as a standard. Now the "standards" body (whatwg) is mostly google...
CSS Canvas Drawings
CSS filter() function
Video Tracks
Audio Tracks
FIDO U2F API
SPDY protocol
JPEG XL image format
HTTP Live Streaming
HEIF/HEIC image format
SVG fonts
CSS hanging-punctuation
And broken support for:
CSS font-smooth
CSS Initial Letter
Speech Recognition API
CSS -webkit-user-drag property
CSS3 Multiple column layout
CSS text-indent
Synchronous Clipboard API
HEVC/H.265 video format
TLS 1.1
text-decoration styling
CSS display: contents
CSS Container Style Queries
CSS clip-path property for HTML
CSS Counter Styles
Ruby annotation
WAI-ARIA Accessibility features
Media Fragments
autocomplete attribute: on & off values
DOMMatrix
SVG effects for HTML
X-Frame-Options HTTP header
DNSSEC and DANE
WebXR Device API
DeviceOrientation & DeviceMotion events
Permissions Policy
asm.js
Network Information API
theme-color Meta Tag
Document Policy
Your copy&paste does not support your argument. Just looking at the top items on your list, it's basically a bunch of Safari-only features which no other browser vendor ships:
- CSS Canvas Drawings is not a web standard. It's a WebKit-specific feature, only Safari implements it. Chromium removed it in order to replace it with an actual web standard (CSS Painting API).
- Likewise, the CSS filter() function is Safari-only.
- U2F API has been deprecated for years, was replaced by WebAuthn, and only Safari still implements it.
- Same with SPDY, which was replaced by an actual web standard (HTTP2). Only Safari still ships it, but has marked it deprecated.
- SVG Fonts were removed from the SVG spec.
- HLS, JPEG-XL, HEIF/HEIC are essentially Safari-only as well.
CSS hanging-punctuation and audio/video tracks are new features that haven't been widely implemented yet.
The last thing Google would want is the web to turn into a Chrome platform. Unlike with Microsoft or even Apple, their source of revenue is web, and they they are doing everything in their capacity for this platform to win. This is exactly why they open-sourced most of Chrome and almost fully finance Chrome's biggest competitor.
>Unlike with Microsoft or even Apple, their source of revenue is web, and they they are doing everything in their capacity for this platform to win.
I feel like there's a missing step in the argument here. Yes Google's revenue comes from the web, yes Chromium being open source and paying for search deals are a hedge against anti trust, but why does it follow that they wouldn't want to dominate the browser space? They do, and it seems to be working quite well for them. But it feels more like a minimum effort hedge against antitrust then a demonstration of a healthy ecosystem.
Also, every time Chromium comes up you have people pointing to it like it's a counterpoint to their browser dominance. It's open source, so what's the issue? But the issue is that Chromium as a body decides whether commits make it into the browser and the decision making body is an invite only group of full time Google developers. So it is controlled by Google after all.
>But the issue is that Chromium as a body decides whether commits make it into the browser and the decision making body is an invite only group of full time Google developers.
I understand that "just fork it" has been the canonical response to disagreements over direction of open source software. Sometimes that's the right call, the world is better for having a forked Syncthing, forked Nextcloud, and so on.
But I think there are cases, such as Chromium where the "just fork it" response is unrealistic about the burden of maintaining a codebase or the ongoing relationship to new updates, or not having capacity to solve new problems or comply with new standards in Google-independent ways. Part of the problem of Chromium is that it's normalized a velocity of development and of codebase size in exactly the way you would if you were going for embrace-extend-extinguish.
And the foundational point is still true, Google controls commits to Chromium, so the core project itself is not ever going to be an organic manifestion of community desires for an egalitarian internet. It's going to be whatever helps consolidate Google's monopoly.
You're not wrong, but there are organizations which could hard-fork Chromium, it just happens to be more productive to collaborate as long as Google remains a good steward.
The only reason Safari has any market share is because it's the default on every iPhone.
4/5 top browsers by market share are there because they are preinstalled on millions of devices and none of them are terrible enough for an average person to look for an alternative.
Exactly right and I wish more people understood this as the key dynamic driving change in browser adoption. Just for one more example, what little toehold Edge and Bing have right now are from muscling those in front of people as defaults.
Which I think is important as it relates to Mozilla. Because a lot of the arguments back and forth about Mozilla assume that change in browser adoption was about what features they did or didn't add. But I think that completely ignores powerful actors leveraging monopoly positions to drive users to their browsers, which is more important by several orders or magnitude. Any explanation of that history which leaves that part out is revisionist history in my opinion.
I disagree wholeheartedly, the current state of browser market share has nothing to do with how good any of the browsers are, it's just monopolistic behavior. Device manufacturers should force you to pick one during setup, which is absolutely a reasonable policy decision away.
In fact, as of this year, Apple devices in the EU already have to ask you which browser you want to use during the setup process, while Android devices don't have to ask you which browser you want to use, but do have to ask you which search engine you want to use. It is a bit inconsistent and arbitrary, but it's a step in the right direction.
What do you mean? It is on many Androids and every Chromebook.
I just checked some website stats I have access to and ~78.6% of iOS users use Safari. On Android on the other hand, ~76% of them use Chrome, ~8.1% uses the Samsung Browser, and there's a marginal amount of people using other manufacturer-provided browsers like Huawei Browser and MIUI (Xiaomi's default). Of course I don't know the exact manufacturer of Android phones to be able to tell what percentage of say Samsung devices switched to Chrome, but I'd say the pattern's still pretty clear.
The only people likely to switch browsers are desktop users, but they total to <20% of the traffic. Funnily enough Chrome isn't even the top browser overall, it's Safari, but that tells you more about my clientele (richer than average for my target market).
An alternative explanation is they fund Mozilla to avoid a monopoly breakup. The evidence? The fact that everyone currently knows exactly how much Google pays Mozilla because of the recent attempt to do a monopoly breakup.
I took "don't BE evil" to mean don't let the company image be that of an evil company which already made me distrust them. Once it was gone I knew the death star was fully operational.
the (very challenging) "trick" is to use Libre hardware/software, like Pinephone and LineageOS, but that's not realistic for the vast majority of people :(
Why did we ever bothered with the IE lawsuit, for a newer generation to give the Web on a plate to Google?