Google doesn't like the web, either. They control it at both ends. Search and the browser. Every web site today is built to conform to Google's blackbox SEO cargo cult. And Google performs an update regularly to their algorithm. At which point all websites have to do an SEO dance and hope it rains again. Google does this to prevent people from focusing on other search engines. If you always have to update for Google, then there is no time to focus on Bing or other avenues. Chrome also keeps people on Google search.
We don't have an open web today. We have three platforms. We have the Microsoft Windows platform, the Apple App Store platform, and the Google Web Platform.
And Facebook basically learned the lessons AOL failed to, on how to operate a walled garden on the internet.
Now that sounds really far fetched. It's like claiming Apple's developer documentation is so terrible to make sure devs have no time left to develop for other platforms :)
What would you say if Google never changed its algorithm? Surely, that would be evidence of a stagnant monopolist no longer finding it necessary to invest in the product.
Somewhat related: I had the pleasure of attending a talk given by Fernando Pérez (Jupyter) a while back. He made a very similar point, saying "there are only 3 computers today: Azure, AWS, and GCP". I'm not quite cynical enough believe that Google or MS would ever do something to lock down their cloud services to only their consumer products, I think the scale of this oligopoly can't really be understated, and it seems that we're moving away from personal computers and back to the time-sharing systems from before.
"Google hasn't been a perfect ally to the Web, but Google's incentives do align far better than Apple's ongoing opposition.
Apple can be ruthless because the Web is a competing platform for them—versus Google's situation where the Web is critical to revenue. Both companies are just acting in their own business interests (even if Google's interests happen to align with what I view as "good").
That's why Safari spent a decade Grover Norquisting the Web. No one told them to—and I'd bet most of them even believe they're saving the Web. But Apple's incentives have long been against the Web, and that won't change unless the incentives change.
Of course, even if Google's incentives are more aligned, they're… messy… and certainly not perfect. So, it is smart to maintain informed suspicion of Google's influence over the Web. That stated, I do see Chromium itself as a very strong hedge."
I say this as someone who has historically been very anti-Microsoft, that used to do all my work in Linux. Modern Windows with VSCode, running WSL, is something the Microsoft of the IE6 era would never have produced.
I'm using Linux and/or BSD on all my private machines, but from an outsider's perspective Microsoft appears to have undergone some significant changes since Nadella took over. From what I know, if someone had suggested making the .Net runtime open source in, say, 2008, under Ballmer, they would have been treated like a heretic.
There's still plenty to complain about, it's gotten more nuanced.
Also, it's important to keep in mind that Microsoft - and surely many other companies of that size - are like a feudal system internally, with different teams/divisions doing things their own way, not necessarily playing nice with the others if it doesn't suit their own agenda.
At least Ballmer didn't try to milk me for my data.
I remember its first version and my first impression was "WTF". Nowadays it's pretty usable. IE of its era really wasn't. You can switch to anything else if you don't want to use VSCode. IE ... you either couldn't (on a company-issued computer) or you didn't know how (at home). Nadella's Microsoft is a far cry from Ballmer's.
Some would suggest that it's closer to open-core: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31605975