Google controls Chromium, which means they control all decisions that impact Chromium, including web standards or browser features. Chromium-based browsers have to either deal with it and include Google's changes, or keep a perpetual fork.
Google's decision to remove Manifest 2 extensions, or that Chrome Extensions have to go through the Google Chrome Extension Store is a method that Google uses to control the browser and ensure that ad-blockers and malware blockers become more insufficient.
Aka, Google is working to make it so that adblockers don't work, and no Chrome alternative has tried competing with a seperate extension store except Firefox. And Firefox is controlled opposition.
Yes, Google is asshoe, but realistically what does "selling chrome" look like? And who would maintain it? There aren't that many orgs that can, so it would likely be someone like MSFT, which is also asshoe. Who will "buy chrome" who also isn't interested in shoving ads down your face? That Chromium is open source means that google would likely retain control of it regardless, same as linus is in control of linux.
Firefox is controlled opposition.
Mozilla is pozzed, but I wouldn't call them "controlled opposition"?
Alphabet does given them something like 400m a year and like you said, effectively owns Mozilla, but when I think "controlled opposition" I think like Fox News. But the existence of Mozilla, and their current situation, just seems like an artifact of of the history of browser development. Google also gives a lot of money to various software organizations, so outside funding them what's the controlled opposition angle exactly?
Google controls Chromium, which means they control all decisions that impact Chromium, including web standards or browser features. Chromium-based browsers have to either deal with it and include Google's changes, or keep a perpetual fork.
Google's decision to remove Manifest 2 extensions, or that Chrome Extensions have to go through the Google Chrome Extension Store is a method that Google uses to control the browser and ensure that ad-blockers and malware blockers become more insufficient.
Aka, Google is working to make it so that adblockers don't work, and no Chrome alternative has tried competing with a seperate extension store except Firefox. And Firefox is controlled opposition.
Yes, Google is asshoe, but realistically what does "selling chrome" look like? And who would maintain it? There aren't that many orgs that can, so it would likely be someone like MSFT, which is also asshoe. Who will "buy chrome" who also isn't interested in shoving ads down your face? That Chromium is open source means that google would likely retain control of it regardless, same as linus is in control of linux.
Mozilla is pozzed, but I wouldn't call them "controlled opposition"?
Mozilla is literally "controlled opposition." Google (Alphabet) is effectively the owner of Firefox through "donations".
Alphabet does given them something like 400m a year and like you said, effectively owns Mozilla, but when I think "controlled opposition" I think like Fox News. But the existence of Mozilla, and their current situation, just seems like an artifact of of the history of browser development. Google also gives a lot of money to various software organizations, so outside funding them what's the controlled opposition angle exactly?