Im not particularly interested in this conversation btw so ill leave you with this:
I put all the chrome based browsers in the same bucket because google has final say in what web standards are basically adopted for chrome and without firefox being entirely independent codebase that alternative is lost.
Thats the important bit. The data collection isnt my worry, its just the main benefit google gets from building the browser and why they did it in the first place.
The judges revenue sharing idea might also mean more money for Firefox since who’s revenue are you sharing? If its the value an individual using firefox brings to google then suddenly thats significantly higher than a flat fee.
Google has the final say on what goes into Chromium. However, they don’t have the final say on what each individual Chromium-based browser decides to do. Google definitely influences the decision, but they can’t dictate it. This is made apparent in the responses of Chromium-based browsers to the changes that are perceived as counter-productive.
The one with that final say is the one in the final end of the chain producing the browser. The one who ultimately decides whether to update/rebase to the new version of chromium or not; or abandon chromium entirely and maybe use something else, like Webkit, that many other Linux browsers are using; or coordinate together to maintain a version with certain features removed; or maybe just simply abandon the project and contribute this way to the death of the Chromium ecosystem. Google has no say in who decides to raise their voice and publicly expose Google practices in blog posts that have been linked already in this thread.
Plus, the second most used browser is not Firefox… it’s Safari, another non-Chromium based browser independent of Chrome’s current codebase, and that has also opposed to those changes. It’s engine is used in products from many other companies independent from Google that are no small fries (Amazon, Sony Playstation, Nintendo, Valve, Samsung’s Tizen, etc.) and it no longer shares code specific to Chrome, Google’s influence over WebKit ended when they moved over to Blink.
Google definitely influences the decision, but they can’t dictate it.
it definitely dictates it when you’re talking about things like APIs exposed etc. no one is going to try and maintain core apis if google isnt going to play nice. sorry you’re just wrong on this one. its played out repeatedly in software for decades. same deal with webkit on apple hardware.
The one who ultimately decides whether to update/rebase to the new version of chromium or not; or abandon chromium entirely and maybe use something else, like Webkit, that many other Linux browsers are using
incorrect. very few browsers will go the extra mile for functionality that google is hostile to. firefox is basically the only one simply because they have their own engine. those that hook into blink almost never do anything more than cosmetic simply because the maintenance burden for doing so is too high.
it definitely dictates it when you’re talking about things like APIs exposed etc.
I gave examples of the opposite in an earlier comment. Though it’s unclear what level of APIs you refer to here, specially given that you said “same deal with webkit” (which, again, is not under google). You might as well apply the same deal to gecko too.
incorrect. very few browsers will […]
This is a contradiction. If few browsers will do it, then my statement that it can happen is correct, and I included that just as one among a list of many other possible choices, including entirely killing their project and contributing to the death of Chromium’s ecosystem, making a scene about it and further sway public opinion towards alternatives… in fact, another option could be to have their team move over to contribute to one of the existing Webkit alternatives, or fork one of those with whichever cosmetic changes their userbase likes. The point was that the final say on what those projects will do is a decision those projects can make, not Google.
I gave examples of the opposite in an earlier comment. Though it’s unclear what level of APIs you refer to here, specially given that you said “same deal with webkit” (which, again, is not under google). You might as well apply the same deal to gecko too.
I do apply the same standard to gecko. and if it every becomes a larger market share I’ll be more critical of it than I already am. However those criticisms are immaterial to the decision this judge had to make.
This is a contradiction. If few browsers will do it, then my statement that it can happen is correct…
its not a contradiction. the difference here is every browser you mentioned as ‘alternatives’ are not well funded dont actively add new functionality in the same way mozilla/google do. they dont actively trying to drive the feature set of the web. apple’s browser is just there to give apple control they dont care about it beyond that, which results in a captured ecosystem on macos. most/all 3rd party browsers use chrome under the hood on other platforms to limit developer costs, resulting in a captured ecosystem by google or are so tiny they’ll never bootstrap effectively (i.e. ladybird). Mozilla has the only non-corporate / user focused implementation of a web browser that is funded.
The point was that the final say on what those projects will do is a decision those projects can make, not Google.
which is completely immaterial when they don’t develop/add new features for the web.
look your argument is ‘other browsers besides firefox exist so its fine if firefox dies’ and mine is ‘they dont provide any real value for the growth of the ecosystem so they’re immaterial when considering the market effects of the only well funded one with a open code base and user focus’
now we can sit here continuing to talk nonsense at each other or just move on. I recommend just moving on. I grew bored with this conversation about 15 posts ago and im basically just responding to you on autopilot.
Im not particularly interested in this conversation btw so ill leave you with this:
I put all the chrome based browsers in the same bucket because google has final say in what web standards are basically adopted for chrome and without firefox being entirely independent codebase that alternative is lost.
Thats the important bit. The data collection isnt my worry, its just the main benefit google gets from building the browser and why they did it in the first place.
The judges revenue sharing idea might also mean more money for Firefox since who’s revenue are you sharing? If its the value an individual using firefox brings to google then suddenly thats significantly higher than a flat fee.
Google has the final say on what goes into Chromium. However, they don’t have the final say on what each individual Chromium-based browser decides to do. Google definitely influences the decision, but they can’t dictate it. This is made apparent in the responses of Chromium-based browsers to the changes that are perceived as counter-productive.
The one with that final say is the one in the final end of the chain producing the browser. The one who ultimately decides whether to update/rebase to the new version of chromium or not; or abandon chromium entirely and maybe use something else, like Webkit, that many other Linux browsers are using; or coordinate together to maintain a version with certain features removed; or maybe just simply abandon the project and contribute this way to the death of the Chromium ecosystem. Google has no say in who decides to raise their voice and publicly expose Google practices in blog posts that have been linked already in this thread.
Plus, the second most used browser is not Firefox… it’s Safari, another non-Chromium based browser independent of Chrome’s current codebase, and that has also opposed to those changes. It’s engine is used in products from many other companies independent from Google that are no small fries (Amazon, Sony Playstation, Nintendo, Valve, Samsung’s Tizen, etc.) and it no longer shares code specific to Chrome, Google’s influence over WebKit ended when they moved over to Blink.
it definitely dictates it when you’re talking about things like APIs exposed etc. no one is going to try and maintain core apis if google isnt going to play nice. sorry you’re just wrong on this one. its played out repeatedly in software for decades. same deal with webkit on apple hardware.
incorrect. very few browsers will go the extra mile for functionality that google is hostile to. firefox is basically the only one simply because they have their own engine. those that hook into blink almost never do anything more than cosmetic simply because the maintenance burden for doing so is too high.
I gave examples of the opposite in an earlier comment. Though it’s unclear what level of APIs you refer to here, specially given that you said “same deal with webkit” (which, again, is not under google). You might as well apply the same deal to gecko too.
This is a contradiction. If few browsers will do it, then my statement that it can happen is correct, and I included that just as one among a list of many other possible choices, including entirely killing their project and contributing to the death of Chromium’s ecosystem, making a scene about it and further sway public opinion towards alternatives… in fact, another option could be to have their team move over to contribute to one of the existing Webkit alternatives, or fork one of those with whichever cosmetic changes their userbase likes. The point was that the final say on what those projects will do is a decision those projects can make, not Google.
I do apply the same standard to gecko. and if it every becomes a larger market share I’ll be more critical of it than I already am. However those criticisms are immaterial to the decision this judge had to make.
its not a contradiction. the difference here is every browser you mentioned as ‘alternatives’ are not well funded dont actively add new functionality in the same way mozilla/google do. they dont actively trying to drive the feature set of the web. apple’s browser is just there to give apple control they dont care about it beyond that, which results in a captured ecosystem on macos. most/all 3rd party browsers use chrome under the hood on other platforms to limit developer costs, resulting in a captured ecosystem by google or are so tiny they’ll never bootstrap effectively (i.e. ladybird). Mozilla has the only non-corporate / user focused implementation of a web browser that is funded.
which is completely immaterial when they don’t develop/add new features for the web.
look your argument is ‘other browsers besides firefox exist so its fine if firefox dies’ and mine is ‘they dont provide any real value for the growth of the ecosystem so they’re immaterial when considering the market effects of the only well funded one with a open code base and user focus’
now we can sit here continuing to talk nonsense at each other or just move on. I recommend just moving on. I grew bored with this conversation about 15 posts ago and im basically just responding to you on autopilot.