"Development slows" is not necessarily a bad thing. E.g. quite a lot of people would love development to slow wrt Manifest v3. It would also mean that web standards are less of a moving target for browsers playing catch-up (like Firefox).

People can also pay for browsers. The only reason why this isn't feasible today is because it's hard to compete with the top-of-the-line stuff that megacorps offer for free - which they do precisely so they can maintain de facto control over web standards (or force the lack thereof in areas where this is advantageous). Lest we forget, many early web browsers were paid products (not just NN, but also Opera, for example), and Microsoft's original sin as a monopoly was offering IE for free, against which NN couldn't compete. But if Google is forced to ditch Chrome, and Microsoft is forced to ditch Edge...

The development that slows will not be parts that allow monetisation. They have a rationale. They will be things like security that have no immediate bottom line impact.

It's not like the open source engines won't be worked on. Or other companies who are not ad companies (apple, etc)

Browsers will not stop existing because google cannot make one. At worse google would donate to a non profit that keeps the engine and do the influencing under the rug.

This is such a 'first-world' comment. A majority of the folks logging on the web in the developing and emerging world will be unable to afford paying any kind of subscription for their web browser over and above what they pay their ISPs for internet access.

Then unfortunately the internet will remain a luxury for people who aren’t able to afford the cost. The internet is a product, not a charity or human right.

The UN disagrees

I know GP said internet, but browsers give access to the web, not internet. Does the UN consider internet a human right, or the web?

The internet, although I'm not convinced they can tell the difference. The web is of course part of the internet so both.

Internet access is already expensive and not available in some places. What kind of cost do you think browser will have 10usd/month subscription? Also there can be free versions of it anyway, google doesn’t have to be the company that does it

As someone from "the rest of the world" originally, don't worry about that. Piracy will take care of it, just as it does with all other non-free software.

> So what now? Safari is going to be the leading force moving the web forward?

Even Safari is massively subsidized by Google paying to be the default browser. If those billions go away, engineering investment will be cut.

In a scenario where Google no longer control Chrome, I doubt Safari's budget is at risk, the company had nearly $400B in revenue in 2024.

Courtroom testimony implied that part of the reason Apple value(s/d) the deal with Google was a "peace deal" to prevent Google from doing what Google does and forcing Safari users on Google properties, to switch to Chrome.

Of all the browsers that would be affected by the loss of Google funding, Safari is least likely to be affected.

The 400B in revenue is there to be paid out to shareholders not to pay for browser development when not needed.

Apple only has a browser team because they need to keep up with parity for their OS.

That logic could be applied to every app team at Apple, or indeed every other publicly traded software company

No, because people tend to invest in what generates revenue. If Apple no longer gets billions from Safari most people would stop investing that much in it, so that is likely what is going to happen.

Yep, and it works out that as well. Without competition, they stagnate and lag.

>moving the web forward

What constitutes "forward" to you

Wasm? It may seem like it’s still just a browser but I’m very grateful that bad ass people have been working on it

At least Safari has better privacy concern than Chrome. Let's see if Waterfox can substitute Firefox in the long run. I believe MS Edge will happily replace Chrome.

How can Waterfox substitute for Firefox when 99% of the work that goes into Waterfox is actually done by Firefox developers?

Almost the same argument applies to Edge and Chrome.

> Safari

This is a better answer than Waterfox or Edge. Like you said, at least Apple cares about privacy enough to defend it in court.

Waterfox is dependent on Mozilla, which admitted to selling its users’ data.

Edge is an answer just for Windows, and the primary benefit to MS is getting people to use Bing, to sell ads.

Web browsers are probably complex enough at this point. Putting them on maintenance and letting new architectures fight it out might not be a bad outcome.

Putting hopes in someone else making an entirely new standards and protocols based hypermedia sounds outlandish. Whose going to go on a decade long quest to build something amazing to give away, again?

I for one really tire of this spiritual vandalism masquerading as a hopeful pineing ask for a new beginning. The web rocks, is amazing. Sure there's some incidental complexity that's accrued, but the versatility & wide capability from a simple core are a glorious & powerful thing that I think only a fool wouldn't celebrate.

Silly, it’s already started. An obstacle would give impetus to new solutions,

I don't know specifically what you are referring to and I doubt many other folks have any idea other.

You say it's "outlandish" to consider alternatives, but new ones are starting all the time. Every advance of the post-FLOSS era has started just like this. Big players getting out of the way can only help evolution along.

Name 10 then. Name 3? Name any!

I don't think 98% of readers here have any possible candidates in mind. We don't have any idea what might be better, or why.

Gemini, ipfs. There are new browsers that could choose different designs re surveillance: servo, ladybird. There have been attempts at modernizing older protocols like gopher. Not the most inquisitive wunderkind, are we?

I think servo and ladybird are a testament to people believing in the web, not intent on throwing out the existing designs and beginning something new & different.

Gemini and gopher both seem semi competitive with the web in that they target users. (Ipfs is just a transport; there's value there of course but it leaves more questions than suggestions.) But I really doubt the web is going to be disrupted or even budged by efforts that are so explicitly ultra-minimal, so bare bones text.

Folks complain about the document model of the web being used for apps, which I personally feel is incredibly silly, that hypermedia being able to sing & dance like it does & having so many different framework styles validated the Extensible Web Manifesto https://github.com/extensibleweb/manifesto idea of HTML + platform APIs as a low level platform, putty we can forever reshape & mold to different architecture & use. If folks really want to get beyond the web though, the answer is definitely not just chopping off the capabilities, doing drastically less. We'd need a more bold encompassing media form, that's obviously better. I'm curious as hell to find out what that might look like but I see very few such bold ideas.

Its crazy to me that the only vision, the only rabble rousing of note seems to be to do vastly less. Maybe we could ask Flutter why they think they deserve to be the future, why the apps their are better than web, but I expect more revolting disgusting "it's better for devs" "pixel perfect" answers without any actual progress for the user, with a status quo of what software is, and no principles & or fundamental enablement or interconnection wins. Its not gonna weave something better than the www. Too many visions are inwards, retreating, and so few imagine better connecting, richer media forms, looking outward beyond the singular developer distilled down app experience that made the web the force that rewrote computing that it is, that makes the web so utterly unique & special (& something great wealth should be funding & cherishing).

> Someone buys Chrome and needs to turn a profit from Chrome

Who would this be and how would they turn a profit from it?

> Someone buys Chrome and needs to turn a profit from Chrome, rather than using it to indirectly profit from the web in general like Google does -> Chrome probably goes to shit and development massively slows

I kinda believe Chromium is already complete enough, and government can take over it, and keep in running in maintenance mode (security fixes through possible bounties) with minimum expenses, and it will be great product: reliable, performant, secure and without corp-crap-tech.