Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Is Chrome the New IE? (2023)

    (www.magiclasso.co)
    281 points bentocorp | 15 comments | 17 Nov 24 22:05 UTC | HN request time: 0.86s | source | bottom
    Show context
    fellowniusmonk ◴[18 Nov 24 19:10 UTC] No.42175790[source]▶
    No not even close by every single possible measure.

    I was there, I suffered through it, Google would have to make TONS of hostile moves for that fact to change.

    I have no interest in the arguments of a closed source subscription service that wants me to switch to the bundled browser of the wealthiest company on earth's most popular consumer OS, lecturing me about using the 4th wealthiest company on earth's browser that I freely installed.

    The most important one from an anti-trust perspective, every device I've ever had Chrome on I've had to seek out and install/make default Chrome, that includes my mobile devices which used the manufactures browser by default.

    If I want to use chromium I can, Safari has been VERY late in implementing certain industry spec standards (SSE's, web sockets, IndexedDB API, animations, relative color syntax, container queries, a bunch of <video> stuff, flexbox, the list goes on and on.)

    replies(14): >>42175858 #>>42176769 #>>42176917 #>>42177125 #>>42177454 #>>42177682 #>>42177816 #>>42178643 #>>42179301 #>>42180131 #>>42180233 #>>42180546 #>>42180727 #>>42191018 #
    pjmlp ◴[18 Nov 24 20:56 UTC] No.42176917[source]▶
    It definitely is, I was also there, just like everyone was doing IE only sites, not only plenty of people do the same with ChromeOS vision of the Web, they ship Chrome alongside Electron crap.

    Safari is the last man standing before a ChromeOS world.

    replies(2): >>42177223 #>>42178828 #
    onion2k ◴[18 Nov 24 21:24 UTC] No.42177223[source]▶
    Safari is the last man standing before a ChromeOS world.

    Except it isn't. Maybe I'm being slightly obtuse here, but the world is not "Chrome Vs Safari". It's "Chrome Vs Safari Vs native apps". If Safari dies we'll be in a world of "Chrome Vs native apps", and that is what Apple wants. Browsers represent a way to deliver software to users that's outside of Apple's revenue mechanisms.

    Apple have every incentive to keep Safari being good-not-great at running web apps, so users prefer the native version (even though most of the time that'll be Electron.)

    replies(5): >>42177436 #>>42177586 #>>42178396 #>>42180304 #>>42180785 #
    1. bloppe ◴[18 Nov 24 21:44 UTC] No.42177436[source]▶
    Am I the only one left happily using Firefox? You know, the only "major" browser that doesn't seem to have these conflicts of interest?
    replies(5): >>42177448 #>>42177692 #>>42178672 #>>42178852 #>>42179226 #
    2. gray_-_wolf ◴[18 Nov 24 21:45 UTC] No.42177448[source]▶
    Also happy Firefox user here. Do not worry, there are dozens of us. Dozens!
    replies(1): >>42178552 #
    3. dudhejffj ◴[18 Nov 24 22:13 UTC] No.42177692[source]▶
    I use Firefox Mobile but have long abandoned the desktop offering. The only thing I feel like I get from the desktop version lately is a spiritual victory whereas the mobile browser actually has tangible features I prefer like add-ons and the search bar at the bottom.
    replies(1): >>42178898 #
    4. mr_sturd ◴[18 Nov 24 23:48 UTC] No.42178552[source]▶
    It's always nice to meet a fellow neverChrome.
    5. xcf_seetan ◴[19 Nov 24 00:04 UTC] No.42178672[source]▶
    Another happy Firefox user. On desktop and mobile. I always have used Netscape/Firefox.
    6. lmm ◴[19 Nov 24 00:26 UTC] No.42178852[source]▶
    The Firefox that gets the vast majority of its revenue from Google, that Firefox?

    I think the only full-featured browser with a prosocial funding model is Konqueror, where what little money there is mostly comes from EU grants. Not coincidental that its code quality was so much better that everyone else based on its rendering engine.

    replies(3): >>42179175 #>>42179563 #>>42201162 #
    7. tapland ◴[19 Nov 24 00:32 UTC] No.42178898[source]▶
    On iOS it’s still safari backend though?
    replies(1): >>42179636 #
    8. eMPee584 ◴[19 Nov 24 01:15 UTC] No.42179175[source]▶
    and until recently, the only browser that allows to split the view into independent sub-windows..
    replies(1): >>42188204 #
    9. firen777 ◴[19 Nov 24 01:23 UTC] No.42179226[source]▶
    Being the only Android browser (that I know of) that support extensions, namely UBlock Origin, means that Firefox is the only logical choice for me.

    Chrome's Manifest v3 forcing UBO into becoming UBO Lite only strengthen my original decision.

    Hopefully this move by google would push more people toward Firefox. Although considering the amount of people who happily surf the web with zero adblockers (including every single of my IT colleagues), I'm not holding my breathe.

    replies(1): >>42180324 #
    10. j16sdiz ◴[19 Nov 24 02:29 UTC] No.42179563[source]▶
    Konqueror is underfunded and can't catch up with the standards
    11. dcow ◴[19 Nov 24 02:44 UTC] No.42179636{3}[source]▶
    Yes.
    12. extraduder_ire ◴[19 Nov 24 05:29 UTC] No.42180324[source]▶
    Kiwi browser (chromium fork) on android supports extensions from the chrome store. Not that it'll help for much longer.
    13. jetofff ◴[19 Nov 24 21:20 UTC] No.42188204{3}[source]▶
    wait how'd you do this
    replies(1): >>42189563 #
    14. lmm ◴[20 Nov 24 00:23 UTC] No.42189563{4}[source]▶
    It's in the right click menu, or there's a key command for it.
    15. zero_bias ◴[21 Nov 24 04:35 UTC] No.42201162[source]▶
    Konqueror no longer uses its unique KHTML engine and has switched to working on top of WebKit/Safari, making it just a wrapper, similar to Brave. It’s a pity that the last truly independent player in the browser engine market is gone, but such are the realities.