> That's the way it has to be.

What? Why? I assure you that's not how Google thought of it when they were facing off against Firefox and IE. They were putting Chrome installers in every SourceForge download and telling you to install Chrome when you searched Google. Why should their competitors lie down and let Chrome roll over them?

For one, people still had the decision to download Chrome even if it was advertised heavily. Apple forces Safari on all their iOS users since all the browsers have to use WebKit.

> Apple forces Safari on all their iOS users…

Lots of people use non-Safari browsers on iOS (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Opera, Brave, DuckDuckGo), and iOS lets you choose your default browser. I know you know Safari <> WebKit, but 99.99% of users don't know or care about the plumbing.

All the real browsers have been banned. Ask any browser vendor. The rest are basically Safari skins.

Again, users don’t really care about the plumbing.

Chrome went from WebKit to Blink.

Safari spiritually went from KHTML to WebKit.

IE went from Trident to EdgeHTML to Blink.

Opera went from Presto to Blink.

The identity of the browser is the chrome, ba dum tiss.

By your own definition Edge is different from Chrome because it reskinned Chrome. So, all browsers on iOS are different browsers for the same reason

Apple was very similar in that regard as well. They were putting Safari installers in iTunes updates. People bought a new iPod and needed a new version of iTunes to sync with it? Magically they have now Safari installed.

And they were pushing it at a time when Safari for Windows was slower than Internet Explorer.

Did the Chrome installers install themselves? Besides, if users were already using other browsers, installing Chrome wouldn't have affected their existing browser's functionality. It was their choice to try out the new browser, and they could always go back to their old browser if they so desired.

Yes Chrome installers install themselves. Chrome is bundled with installers for unrelated products, and you have to deliberately uncheck it to not install it. Example:

https://www.reddit.com/r/antivirus/comments/on99mk/avg_antiv...

> The chips will fall as they will and we will all be left to deal with the aftermath

The aftermath could be the complete death of the open web. Unwinding that may be nearly impossible.

There needs to be a plan in place before Pandora’s box is opened.

The death of the open web as we currently know it could lead to an even better successor over time though. We just can't know if the current hill is worth dying on - it may be for future generations to solve.

Short term, it's decidedly not good, but long term? How can we know?

If the approach is so inherently flawed that this result is an inevitability, maybe it deserves to die and be replaced by something else.

> If the approach is so inherently flawed that this result is an inevitability, maybe it deserves to die and be replaced by something else.

These are all systems and projects created and run by human minds. Nothing is "inevitable" and nothing "deserves" to die. These are just outcomes of choices by users, vendors, and regulators. I think many people here are advocating for choices that would keep some kind of competition to Chrome alive. You seem to be advocating for the opposite. That's not necessarily wrong or bad, but Chrome becoming a total monopoly is not "inevitable" either.

Short term, the death of the open web will likely mean many real-world human deaths, because censorship by oppressive regimes becomes far simpler the fewer options people have (or are aware of) for methods to access the open web.

In my head the flowchart looks like this: Closed/censored web only -> People giving up hope/being caught trying to escape oppression -> increased human suffering and untimely death

I'll agree with what you're saying about long-term consequences, but you could argue the same thing about the death of nations/states, couldn't you? And how many times in history have nations collapsed without periods of wanton destruction and looting due to the power vacuum?

Anything COULD happen - I think it is pretty clear people here have an understanding of what would happen

> Short term, it's decidedly not good, but long term? How can we know?

History.

> If the approach is so inherently flawed that this result is an inevitability

Only an inevitability due to attitudes like yours. Please stop contributing/pushing for the end of the open web.

Man, I use Firefox for Christ sake. You don't have to be anti open web to know letting anti-competitive behaviour run rampant is even worse than having the open web that we have today.

Your perspective is as insane to me as mine is to you. Don't let a corporation make decisions about your computing freedom for you.

Anti-competitive behaviour from both sides is why we're in this situation (Apple/Safari/Chrome) to begin with.

Do you know why Safari and Chrome exist?

Safari was created so Apple wouldn’t be totally dependent on MS for a web browser. They’ve been in that situation many times before (and since). Apple is allergic to depending on someone else for something really important.

Why does Chrome exist? Same reason. Google didn’t want to depend on being at the whims of Microsoft. They wanted to ensure they would have a browser that would do what they needed.

Both existed to open the internet more from what was going on at the time.

Now people want to kill one to let the other become triumphant.

That’s what makes no sense to me.

What doesnt make sense to me are people thinking that Safari will die if Apple is forced to allow other browsers on iPhone.

Don't underestimate the inertia of defaults. Safari will still be the default browser.

A way more likely scenario is that Apple no longer will be able to drag their feet, holding the web back, but instead will actually have to keep Safari up to date and competetive with other browsers.

> The death of the open web as we currently know it could lead to an even better successor over time though.

I predict the App/Play Store duopoly will take over the web.

> The chips will fall as they will

This is how we end up with the death of uBlock origin (in a few months from now) on January 2023.

Firefox has resisted this thus far but I am pretty sure Google will eventually twist their arms enough to either kill it, or at the very least _severely_ handicap it.

Google is a threat to the open web, it needs to be heavily regulated and punished for all its despicable behaviors: from harvesting user data without consent to tracking our every move and selling it to anyone who wants it for pittance.

I am very well aware of the fact that many of the HNers are partaking in this and am not going to pretend that I wouldn't be tempted had I been in their shoes but I think it's time to for the smoke and mirrors to clear: Google is nothing more than a giant spyware and an adware company because their core business model _literally_ requires it. This is why they keep fighting against privacy regulations, lobby the governments, punish Adblock extensions and come up with clever ways to circumvent your privacy protections.

So no, I for one am glad that at least Apple exists to thwart this. They may not be doing this because of their "ethics" but given the choice, I'd rather side with Apple on this one.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Safari already does, and long has done, the thing that people are objecting to Chrome changing: not allowing extensions to just hook into and pre-block requests, instead only allowing limited patterns to be set and matched against. uBlock Origin hasn't been available on Safari since it made this change several years ago.

So I don't know that seeing Safari as a bulwark against Chrome really makes sense here.

But letting the chips fall where they may is what led to the current situation, with a browser market heavily distorted and made anti-competitive by two tech giants. What people are asking for is a regulator that steps in and redresses the imbalances so a healthy browser market can arise.

If the regulator does not step in they are choosing the status quo which by itself also is a deliberate choice. Inaction is always also a form of action.

> What people are asking for is a regulator that steps in and redresses the imbalances so a healthy browser market can arise.

That’s not what I see. I see people constantly calling for the ability to run other browsers (really Chrome) on iOS.

I almost never see people trying to get Google’s massive browser share reduced.

If you do one without the other I expect disaster.

That was the point of my comment. I want the “open web” people (in general, not just this org) to call for BOTH. But I don’t see that.

Open Web Advocacy does address anti-competitive practices from Google. See their submission to the Japanese regulator: https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)...

Section 3.1.7 - No Chrome Preferencing and section 3.1.8 - Website Transparency Obligations.

It's the regulators job. If they don't do their job, the users (not another anti-competitive company) will take matters into their own hands. There are alternative protocols that could be developed - the only reason they haven't taken off is because we are at stalemate.

Libertarianism as an absolutist ideology that proscribes courses of action for moral reasons and literally requires helplessness and passivity from everyone is not, I believe, the original flavor.