Really? I mean, pick one of a hundred. They are deprecating APIs that would block the interception and are ignoring community pushback.

But since you asked...

https://bgr.com/2019/05/31/google-chrome-update-ad-blockers-...

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evy53j/google-struggles-t...

https://9to5google.com/2019/05/29/chrome-ad-blocking-enterpr...

But I mean, that was a 2 second search. Citations are indeed hard to come by...

Good reason for about 5-10% of the internet users with adblockers to switch to Firefox. Which kind of hurts the monopoly argument. Not that I support google being more and more monopolistic these days.

I still don’t think the browser market is a good example right now.

There’s far better examples than this.

i'm sure a lot of people that would otherwise have been making browsers decided chrome is "good enough" and assumed google wasn't likely to do anything to scummy like this. monopoly is maybe not the best word choice but its overwhelming popularity and use has given it a lot of inertia and influence over the direction of the web

Prediction: In a year, adblocking extensions on Chrome will still block the same percentage of ads from Google's networks as they do on Firefox. Care to make a bet?

Err, is there another reason for chrome to exist? Google is no philanthropist.

To compete with Microsoft, who used to try to leverage their power in similar ways.

Yes, because before Chrome existed most people used IE which is very slow to create or adopt new web standards and is full of bugs. That makes developing complex websites really difficult.

What company do we know that makes some the most complex web sites out there and would really benefit if the web had... I dunno WebGL so they could make a smooth mapping site, maybe with a 3D mode. Or a new version of HTTP so their sites load faster. Or a new version of TCP that works better on mobile. Or native web components that makes their web framework faster. Or HTML video so their video streaming site is more reliable.

I'll give you a hint - it starts with "Googl".

They created Chrome because IE was holding them back. Not to kill as blockers (did IE ever even support as blockers). Some people here don't use their brains...

Reality was a bit different from what you describe. Firefox was a thing. Its market share was rising slowly but steadily. Google paid leading Firefox engineers such as Ben Goodger and Darin Fisher. It could have doubled down, improved Firefox's performance, marketed it aggressively, and then your narrative would make sense. Instead they pulled the engineers to create Chrome. There was no need at all for that except that Google wanted more direct control over the Internet which the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation ultimately wouldn't give them.

Why pay to develop some other company's product when you can just develop it yourself? Nobody would do that.

Also when Chrome was released IE still had a 60% market share. You can't ignore that.

That nobody would do that is contradicted by the fact that Google did it for years, for instance. But Google ended up doing what most for-profit corporations would do. I'm not saying it's particularly immoral. It's pretty normal, for better or worse. What I am saying is that the narrative that Google created Chrome only to further the Web does not add up.

Also, I was not ignoring that IE had 60% market share. That's perfectly in line with what I said, as that market share was in fact shrinking without Chrome.

So, to be clear, you are saying they were being altruistic and purely motivated by the desire to push forward web standards, and that this is entirely unrelated to the business they run?

No, I'm saying they were pushing web standards because it helped the business they run. It happened to help the rest of the web too which is nice.