> Whatever your opinion of Chrome's break from standards might be, Google simply are not trying to lock people into Chrome on Android / ChromeOS.

That assertion is laughable on it's face. Of course Google does brand lock-in, the fact that their brand is further reaching across more markets than Windows/IE were doesn't negate that they attempt brand lock-in at every opportunity they can. In fact Chrome largely was started because Google wanted to control the browser aspect of the experience, otherwise why would they make it?

Because it's an obvious way to get more people to default to Google Search. Just like how IE defaults to Bing. Until recently Google was the biggest contributor to the Mozilla Foundation due to their deal to enable Google as Firefox's default search engine.

There isn't any benefit in Google locking users into their free software if it means users on other platforms can no longer use Google's revenue generating services.

Your point about brand awareness is valid but not really the same as what I was originally discussing (software lock ins). Eg Google's products work fine on other browsers so there's no actual technical lock in however users are encouraged towards Google because of brand familiarity and browser defaults for search and home page.

The more people use the web, the more Google gains. It's really as simple as that. People switching their media consumption from traditional media (TV and dead tree) to the web is what makes Google more money.

How? Advertising budgets follow those eyes. Google is a nobody in TV ads, so doesn't get any part from the (big) money advertisers are currently spending there. If these would switch to targeting the web (where Google is the dominant actor), chances are that huge chunks of those ad budgets will be inserted into Google's giant ad placement machine.

If we don’t want to repeat the 90’s we have to complain a lot sooner.

If your litmus test is “as bad as Microsoft” then that’s exactly what we will get.

> If we don’t want to repeat the 90’s we have to complain a lot sooner.

Complaining wouldn't change anything. Corporations don't change their policies because a few nerds moan on a few message boards.

> If your litmus test is “as bad as Microsoft” then that’s exactly what we will get.

It wasn't my litmus test. I feel you're missing my point because others are making that comparison and I'm saying the two don't compare. In Microsoft's case they broke from standards to lock people into their paid platforms. Clearly that's bad. But in Google's case the platforms are free and the break from standards doesn't lock users into any platforms. You can make arguments against Google break from standards if you want but comparing the two because they involve a web browser is just clutching at straws.

Now, if you wanted to argue about Google corrupting the web then AMP is a far better example. There are far more similarities between MS+IE and AMP even though AMP isn't a web browser:

• both are a free product that locks users into the company's revenue stream (ads in AMP for Google, Windows for MS)

• both push their product through their massive market shares (Google promoting their AMP CDN on Google Search above the search results, Windows shipping IE)

• both onboarded developers with promises to better user experience while locking them into a non-standard platform.

I could go on, but in short AMP is where you guys need to be worried about with regards to Google shifting the web landscape. Not whether Chrome follows spec on a small handful of specific tag properties. That's a whole lot of hysteria over nothing.

FWIW, only the second bullet point applies here

> both are a free product that locks users into the company's revenue stream (ads in AMP for Google, Windows for MS)

Ads on AMP sites don't have to be from google

> both onboarded developers with promises to better user experience while locking them into a non-standard platform.

AMP, while a particular subset of HTML/JS, is still just a subset, aka part of the standard platform and can run in any browser. Calling it non-standard would be like calling it non-standard to use React. It's just a library/framework.

> Ads on AMP sites don't have to be from google

AFAIK they do if you want to be on the carousel above the search results on Google Search. It's part and parcel of using the Google AMP CDN. Sure you can use other CDNs (even roll your own) but then you do not appear on the AMP carousel above Google search results (which is highly valuable real estate).

> AMP, while a particular subset of HTML/JS, is still just a subset, aka part of the standard platform and can run in any browser. Calling it non-standard would be like calling it non-standard to use React. It's just a library/framework.

The fact it's a subset makes it non-standard because you cannot then write standard HTML / JS.

To flip the argument, this debate started because Chrome was accused of not following standards because it ignores some HTML properties (eg autocomplete). You could argue the same as you were for AMP that Chrome is following a subset.

Personally I find it a stretch to argue that x being a subset of the standard means x is a standard.

> [google] intent is very different from Microsoft in the 90s with Internet Explorer as Google are not trying to control the web

How very wrong you are on this one point, your argument was going on the right line but here it took an unexpected turn. Microsoft was the one truly not trying to control the web. The web was a causality for something else (killing java). Now, Google. Google is the one that must control the web. Chrome and android and AMP serve the exactly same goal!

I was there at the time, the whole IE Vs Netscape thing started long before Java became a threat (though you are right about how Microsoft also fought that war as well). Plus Bill Gates has said in interviews since that he was trying to lock the web into Microsofts ecosystem because he saw the threat very early on about how it could be platform agnostic.

While you can argue that Chrome and AMP serve the same goal, they're approaches are very different. One helps diversify a market place and doesn't lock developers onto its ecosystem nor users into its product via anti competitive practices; while the other seeks to create a "second web" who is controlled by Google by locking companies into their promise of reduced bandwidth and users into their hosts and advertising via leveraging their massive market share in search as an effective sweetener/bribe (use us and be placed before the search results).

You can complain about Chrome all you like but overall have more browsers on the market is better and Chrome doesn't lock people into anything aside brand loyalty. Where as AMP is a very different beast.

you have good points. but what I belive gates was refering to at the time was what he was seeing as a threat to windows. if you ever have the chance, buy a used SGI workstation from ebay and play with the system. SGI had an affordable business workstations (pizza boxes) that shipped with irix5. the mais thing for irix 5 was that most of the in house applications (e.g. settings pannel, doc library, etc) were mozilla XUL+js applications! I kid you not. that was 1994 and the electron concept was alive and strong with mozilla 2. iriz 5.3 or 6 (i am sure i am getting the versions all wrong from memory) even had the first CSS implementation! and it was mostly to ease the transition from the motif gui framework to XUL.

this is what gates calles the figth for the web. saving windows. thats why they integrated IE so heavily on explorer. ...again, they did hit very hard in the actual internet ecosystem, but that was a side effect. and they would be silly not to try to take some advantage of that too since they were getting this for "free" while fighting for windows dominance.

Yeah I've played on a few different SGI systems (and other UNIX systems that are now a historical curiosity). It never ceases to amaze me how we ended up on Windows. Well, not me specifically as I switched away around 20 years ago but "we" in the broader sense.