Yeah, let’s hope that it’s IE6-sized, but not IE6-speed. Although I’m not ruling out a lost decade of web tech happening again.

Why does an alternative have to be widely adopted to be seen as good? Tech has an obsession with "popular or bust" and that's the ultimate cause of the lack of choices IMO.

Firefox is already here.

Since Firefox is already dependent on Google for a great deal of their funding, I’d say the next phase in Google’s strategy will be scaling that back.

They still need to keep Firefox alive, because it allows them to control market concentration and avoid the antitrust issues that MS had to fight.

Betting protection from antitrust issues on getting cozy with a political party is a risky strategy; political landscape shifts on quite regular basis. It's safer to keep a competitor alive so that if and when the power goes to people who don't like you, it won't be easy for them to go after you.

That would be why they're (allegedly -- I haven't checked) buying up those lovely Republicans.

I think it's likely to be a while before any political party other than the Democrats and the Republicans holds a lot of power in the US.

It’s been ongoing since Trump’s win. I can’t find the link right now, but they’ve also been bankrolling and having speakers at those weird, right wing DC conferences. And they’ve been supporting ALEC for years.

https://fortune.com/2016/12/14/google-conservative-outreach-...

The US isn't the only country in the world, and I'm surprised the EU wasn't your first thought here given what they did to Microsoft and IE.

And other projects will apear, all the people that visit sites like this one here, will switch, and slowly transition their families. Majority will conitniue "suffering" since they already don't have adblocks installed.

That doesn't make any sense. Firefox already is open source and forked already. New features can easily be cherrypicked even.

Firefox is a great alternative for many. But it is not great for everybody.