People do not seem to understand how important it is to Google they they achieve full control of the browser end of the WWW.
The blog post at the top of this thread talks about CVEs and other measures of resistance to 3rd party bad actors. It does not engage with the concept of Google themselves as a bad actor.
With full control of the rendering engine on all platforms, Google can stop engaging with standards bodies. Web rendering standards will become simply what Google says they are, even if it is to their benefit. Imagine AMP but on steroids. When Safari stops rendering mobile sites correctly, there will be lots of helpful friends and family (and ads) telling folks to "just switch to Chrome, it's a better browser anyway."
Google could also ship their own root certificate list and take control of Web PKI. Imagine Symantec but entirely at Google's option. Play ball or get security warnings. This would allow an end run around the democratization afforded by Let's Encrypt, for example. Controlling 90% of the client end of TLS confers just as much power as controlling the CA end.
Google also has no incentive to make Chrome secure or performant on iOS devices; they run the competing mobile OS platform. If Chrome/Blink is forced into iOS, it won't be long before complaints crop up and we start seeing "Android runs Chrome better than iPhone" ads.
The fundamental fight is not about browsers, it is about defining the platform: "commoditizing your complement." Google wants Chrome to be the platform, and commoditize the computer. This will let Google centralize profits to itself. This is why Android is free (as long as you ship Google's services too).
They will spend as much as they must to achieve this. It is existential.
Lots of folks in this thread talking about Firefox. In this context, Firefox is a strategic front-end for Google. Google is essentially paying for Firefox to continue existing, so that people will use Firefox as an ideological cudgel against Apple.
Also seeing some comments about antitrust. So the plan is to get the government to step in to quash the competition that exists, wait for all the predictable bad things to happen, and then get the government to step in again to re-establish competition.
Does anyone actually think this is a good idea? Or is "antitrust" just a convenient way to dismiss legitimate fears and objections.
Yeah I have a really hard time believing https://open-web-advocacy.org/ is not actually google but it is certainly aiming towards Google's benefit and, ironically, the end of any chance of an "open" web
It’s a consortium of developers, and the customer is ad-tech.
You could say this is less about Apple vs Google, and more about users vs advertisers.
> The fundamental fight is not about browsers, it is about defining the platform
The fundamental fight is always about eyeballs. Apple is holding the better cards because control over hardware gives you control over software which gives you control over eyeballs.
Self-own to spite Google. Apple should protect users by competing, not by guarding their monopoly power. Everybody loves Apple now, wait until they inevitably miss earnings and you're locked in their prison. It's a turnkey malevolent dictatorship.
“The guy with the one tank should compete fairly with the entire military force of a continent. If they’re in the right they will win.”
False analogy.
Apple's market cap is ~$2,300,000,000,000 and it's not a war.
Clearly money isn’t relevant, because Microsoft failed and Mozilla (which had plenty of money) is circling the drain.
I was going by market share.