←back to thread

Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

(www.cnbc.com)
858 points colesantiago | 9 comments | 02 Sep 25 20:26 UTC | HN request time: 0.232s | source | bottom
1. bergfest ◴[02 Sep 25 21:16 UTC] No.45109168[source]▶
They should be barred from shipping experimental or non-standardized features in Chrome to prevent them from abusing their monopoly and forcing others hands by creating de-facto standards without a fair discourse. Experimental features should be allowed in special Chrome builds targeted at developers only, and not be allowed to come preinstalled on any consumer device.
replies(2): >>45109191 #>>45109309 #
2. cma ◴[02 Sep 25 21:19 UTC] No.45109191[source]▶
Not sure about this, but if it was going to go in if the flag isn't turned on by default that seems fine without requiring a special developer build making most stuff even harder to get tested. The web broadly isn't going to rely on something that isn't default.

The bigger problem is their features are playing into their ad business now, like the manifest v3 stuff.

3. skybrian ◴[02 Sep 25 21:30 UTC] No.45109309[source]▶
Why? It seems like new API's should be tested with real users before becoming a web standard, and origin trials were a big improvement over what happened before with webkit specific CSS, etc.
replies(2): >>45109545 #>>45111238 #
4. anthem2025 ◴[02 Sep 25 21:48 UTC] No.45109545[source]▶
Because they have a history of abusing their monopoly on browsers to push new standards that only help them.
replies(1): >>45109786 #
5. skybrian ◴[02 Sep 25 22:11 UTC] No.45109786{3}[source]▶
What are some examples of that for web standards?
replies(1): >>45110116 #
6. LikesPwsh ◴[02 Sep 25 22:47 UTC] No.45110116{4}[source]▶
FLOC/Cohorts API, AMP, Manifest V3, Widevine, WEI.
replies(1): >>45110469 #
7. bitpush ◴[02 Sep 25 23:32 UTC] No.45110469{5}[source]▶
None of those are web standards. They are web technologies, but they arent standards unless other browsers agree to it.

So pray tell, what should the browser do? Just sit on their hands, like Firefox? That's a classic example of how a browser could be mismanaged.

replies(1): >>45115080 #
8. maxloh ◴[03 Sep 25 01:23 UTC] No.45111238[source]▶
This is actually the case for ECMAScript (JavaScript).

All proposals must first be implemented by some browser vendors at Stage 3:

> The proposal has been recommended for implementation.

Then, the proposal shall be included in the standard at Stage 4:

> Two compatible implementations which pass the Test262 acceptance tests

https://tc39.es/process-document/

9. lightedman ◴[03 Sep 25 12:48 UTC] No.45115080{6}[source]▶
Widevine is absolutely a web DRM standard. Literally every major streaming service uses it.