Categories: world

Google is not the company we should have handed over to the web

With Microsoft's decision to stop developing its own web browser engine and switching to Chromium, control over the Internet has functionally ceded to Google. It's a worrying event, given the company's past behavior. Chrome itself has about 72 percent of the desktop browser market. Edge has about 4 percent. Opera, based on Chromium, has another 2 percent. The abandoned, no longer updated Internet Explorer has 5 percent and Safari only available on macOS-about 5 percent. When Microsoft's transition is complete, we look at a world where Chrome and Chrome derivatives take about 80 percent of the market, with only Firefox, 9 percent, actively maintained and available platform. Mobile history has stronger representation from Safari, thanks to iPhone, but in total, a similar story tells. Chrome has 53 percent directly, plus another 6 percent from Samsung Internet, another 5 percent from Opera and another 2 percent from the Android browser. Safari has about 22 percent, with the Chinese UC browser being around 9 percent. It's two thirds of the mobile market that goes to Chrome and Chrome derivatives. In terms of radar percentages, Google will not have as much browser lock space as Microsoft did with Internet Explorer Internet Explorer 6 about 80 percent, and all versions of Internet Explorer together may have reached as high as 95 percent. However, Google's scope is much bigger: not only is the web a much more important place today than in the early 2000s, but there is also a brand new mobile web that…

 The word

With Microsoft’s decision to stop developing its own web browser engine and switching to Chromium, control over the Internet has functionally ceded to Google. It’s a worrying event, given the company’s past behavior.

Chrome itself has about 72 percent of the desktop browser market. Edge has about 4 percent. Opera, based on Chromium, has another 2 percent. The abandoned, no longer updated Internet Explorer has 5 percent and Safari only available on macOS-about 5 percent. When Microsoft’s transition is complete, we look at a world where Chrome and Chrome derivatives take about 80 percent of the market, with only Firefox, 9 percent, actively maintained and available platform.

Mobile history has stronger representation from Safari, thanks to iPhone, but in total, a similar story tells. Chrome has 53 percent directly, plus another 6 percent from Samsung Internet, another 5 percent from Opera and another 2 percent from the Android browser. Safari has about 22 percent, with the Chinese UC browser being around 9 percent. It’s two thirds of the mobile market that goes to Chrome and Chrome derivatives.

In terms of radar percentages, Google will not have as much browser lock space as Microsoft did with Internet Explorer Internet Explorer 6 about 80 percent, and all versions of Internet Explorer together may have reached as high as 95 percent. However, Google’s scope is much bigger: not only is the web a much more important place today than in the early 2000s, but there is also a brand new mobile web that works in addition to desktop web.

Embrace and expand, Mountain View style

Google is already a company that greatly influences web development development. By owning both the most popular browser, Chrome, and some of the most visited websites on the web (especially search engine search engine, YouTube and Gmail), Google has used a number of occasions to distribute proprietary technology and put the rest of the industry in place of to catch up.

Back 2009 introduced Google SPDY, a proprietary replacement for HTTP that identified what Google saw as some performance issues with existing HTTP / 1

.1. Google was not exactly wrong in its assessments, but SPDY was something of a one-sided action, with Google responsible for design and functionality. SPDY was adopted by other browsers and web servers in the next few years, and Google’s protocol became widespread.

SPDY was then used as the basis for HTTP / 2, an important review of the HTTP protocol developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the consortium that develops Internet protocols with members from across the industry. While SPDY initiated the HTTP / 2 work, the protocol that was finally delivered in 2015 was heavily changed from Google’s first offer.

The same story is repeated with HTTP / 3. In 2012, Google announced a new experiment protocol, QUIC, which is supposed to return to performance issues with existing HTTP / 1.1 and HTTP / 2. Google implemented QUIC, and Chrome would use QUIC when communicating with Google properties. Again, the QUIC became the basis for IETF’s HTTP development, and HTTP / 3 uses a derivative of QUIC that is modified from and incompatible with Google’s first work.

It’s not just HTTP that Google has repeatedly been working to replace. The Google AMP (“Accelerated Mobile Pages”) is a cut-down HTML combined with Google-delivered JavaScript designed to make mobile web content loaded faster. This year, Google said that it would try to build AMP with web standards and introduce a new management model that gave the project much broader industry monitoring.

Bad actor?

This is a company that has repeatedly tried to propagate the web to a Google controlled proprietary direction to improve the performance of Google’s online services when used with Google’s browser, consolidate Google’s market positioning and disadvantage everyone else. Every time pressures have come from broader society, and so far, the results so far have been industry standards that break control of Google’s hands. This action may already raise doubts about wisdom to provide effective control over the web’s direction to Google, but at least it may happen that in the end it became correct.

But other situations have had less satisfactory resolutions. YouTube has been a special source of problems. Google controls a large part of the streaming video of the web, and the company has repeatedly made changes to YouTube that make it worse in Edge and / or Firefox. Sometimes these changes have improved the Chrome web site experience, but that’s not always the case.

A person claiming to be a former Edge developer has described such a measure today. For no apparent reason, Google has changed YouTube to add a hidden blank HTML element that superimposed each video. This item disabled Ede’s fastest and most efficient hardware accelerated video decoding. The damaged edge’s battery life and took it under Chrome. The change did not improve Chromes performance and did not appear to be a real intention. It only damages Edge, which allows Google to claim that Chromes battery life was superior to Edge. Microsoft asked Google if the company could remove the item, to no avail.

The latest version of Edge addresses the YouTube issue and restored Edge’s performance. But when the company talks about having to do extra work to ensure that EdgeHTML is compatible with the web, this kind of thing Microsoft has been forced to do.

As another example, YouTube uses a feature called HTML Import to load scripts. HTML import has not been adopted generally, either by developers or browsers, and ECMAScript modules are expected to serve the same role. But they are available in Chrome and used by YouTube. For Firefox and Edge, YouTube sends a HTML implementation of HTML Import which has significant performance costs. The result? YouTube pages loaded for a second in Chrome take many seconds to load in other browsers.

These actions may not be intentional by Google. It’s possible that the company simply does not care about other browsers, rather than actively trying to prevent them. But even an attitude of “Google First, who cares about the rest”? It’s not the kind of thing we would like from a company that trusts so much control over the web.

The strong becomes stronger; the weak gets weaker

Microsoft’s decision gives Google both an ever-increasing bit of circle and weakens Microsoft’s position as an opposing voice. Although Edge and Internet Explorer have a reduced share of the market, Microsoft has kept a certain turn. The IIS web server communicates significant web accessibility and there is still the value of having new protocols built into Windows, as it increases the accessibility of software developers.

But now Microsoft is committed to sending and supporting any proprietary tech that Google wants to develop if Microsoft likes it or not. Microsoft has been very clear that its adoption of Chrom is to ensure maximum Chrome compatibility and the company says it develops new design processes to ensure it can quickly integrate, test and distribute upstream changes to be able to significantly weaken Google browser.

However, this commitment connects Microsoft’s hands: it means that the company can never ever meaningfully fork chrome and deviate from its development path to compromise its compatibility and increase the cost and complexity of integrating Google’s changes. This means that even if Google takes Chromium in a direction that Microsoft does not agree or oppose, Microsoft will have some options without adhering to independence.

Web developers have historically only bothered with such trivia as standard compatibility and as a way to test their pages in multiple browsers when the market landscape has forced them to. This made Firefox’s early years so painful: most developers were tested in Internet Explorer and nothing else, which gives Firefox compatibility to chance. Like Firefox, and later Chrome, rose to challenge Internet Explorer dominance, browser testing became crucial, and compliance with standards became more valuable.

Two cost more than three or four

When developers test and design in only one browser, add a second in the mix can be relatively expensive and complicated; The other browser will usually reveal unintentional dependence on the first browser’s particular behavior, which requires many changes to stay more in line with the standards. But adding a third tends to be cheaper, and a fourth cheaper still. Moving from one browser to two already means that the worst of the non-standard code and dependence on implementation issues must be addressed.

With Chrome, Firefox and Edge all concerned with concerns imposed a lot of web site developer discipline. But with Edge removed and Chrome takes a large majority of the market, efforts to support Firefox are getting more expensive.

Mozilla CEO Chris Beard is afraid that this consolidation can make things harder for Mozilla – an organization that exists to ensure that Webb is a competitive landscape that offers meaningful alternatives and is not the subject of any corporate control. Mozilla’s position is already tricky, depending on Google’s funding. But Mozilla makes important, desirable work – Firefox has improved with leaps during the past year, and the development of Rust language – which hopes to marry built-in code performance with secure memory management – continues to show promise.

Microsoft has just made it so harder to justify that websites work in Firefox. The company has designed for Chrome and ignores everything else a bit more tasty, and Mozilla’s continued existence is now a bit more marginal. Microsoft’s move gives Google responsibility for web development development. Google’s record shows that it should not trust such a position.

Share
Published by
Faela