This is weird to say the least. All the major browser innovation that has happened during the last decade is because of the funding from Google towards Chromium.
Browsers used to be one of the most critical and insecure software. All the major security enhancement in terms of isolation, sandboxing, privilege separation happened IMHO due to a Google backed browser security research. This benefitted the community because other browsers either adopted Chromium as the base or implemented similar security improvements.
I think it’s not just the browser anymore, the core building blocks like v8, blink etc. forms the foundation of modern web. It will be interesting to see the benefits of anti-monopoly laws when it comes at the cost of destabilising something foundational like Chromium.
> All the major browser innovation that has happened during the last decade is because of the funding from Google towards Chromium.
And what was Chromium based on? WebKit. And what was WebKit based on? KHTML.
Chromium was simply a continuation of innovation that had started before Google even existed.
But in parallel it was Firefox that broke the Internet Explorer monopoly that made 3rd party browsers technically possible in the first place.
But all of that would have been irrelevant if it wasn’t from anti trust actions that prevented MS from doing the stuff they’re doing now (now that the antitrust probationary period is over) such as forcing their browser to be the default browser.
If it wasn’t for antitrust action against MS they would have taken these actions when they were much stronger and the other browsers were not as advanced and Chrome would likely have been nowhere to be seen.
Anyways, you’re wrong even with the idea that chromium has innovated the most. Most of the ideas that Chrome has today were implemented in other smaller browsers such as Opera well before Chrome ever integrated them.
I suspect if Chrome were to disappear tomorrow, browser technology would be far more innovative 2 years from now than it will be with Chrome as the dominant browser.
> And what was Chromium based on? WebKit. And what was WebKit based on? KHTML.
And if KHTML was as good as either WebKit or Blink, it would still be a major player in the browser engine race today. Except it isn't, because the corporate sponsors moved on and the team behind KHTML wasn't big enough to actually compete with post 2012 browsers. KHTML died, like Opera's browser engine did.
Browsers as they exist today, exist because it was in Google's interest to make the web more capable. We're about to lose that. In its place, I expect a surge in apps instead.
This is so important to look at, when we talk about this topic. I was there, 3000 years ago, when browser where kind of simple software. We could go back to that state and would loose almost nothing. All the complexity that is now in browsers was in the operating systems at that time. The millions of fronted-devs of today would just be "normal" devs three decades ago.
I know, that that will not happen. But it helps looking through all the bullshit that Google has created, where they've build and control the platform (the web with chromium), that Microsoft and Apple used to control (their oses).
FWIW i have a feeling (and it is just a feeling, not something i can confirm) that the entirety of Windows 95 was simpler than Firefox or Chrome today :-P.
By LOC: Windows 95 is estimated to have 10-15 million LOC, Chrome 30-40 million.
By binary size: Windows 95 took about 50 MB, Chrome 200-300 MB.
By architecture design: the codebase of Windows 95 is fairly shallow and monolithic, while Chrome is very modular (think V8, Blink, WASM, sandboxes...) and uses other dependencies.
I think you should appreciate more how much the tens of billions of dollars Google has invested in Chrome has benefited the web and open source in general. Some examples:
Webrtc. Google’s implementation is super widely used in all sorts of communications software.
V8. Lots of innovation on the interpreter and JIT has made JS pretty fast and is reused in lots of other software like nodejs, electron etc.
Sandboxing. Chrome did a lot of new things here like site isolation and Firefox took a while to catch up.
Codecs. VP8/9 and AV1 broke the mpeg alliance monopoly and made non patented state of the art video compression possible.
SPDY/QUIC. Thanks to Google we have zero RTT TLS handshakes and no head of line blocking HTTP with header compression, etc now and H3 has mandatory encryption.
> Codecs. VP8/9 and AV1 broke the mpeg alliance monopoly and made non patented state of the art video compression possible.
Not really. That was done more by the greed of the MPEG alliance.
Back in the days when <video> was first proposed, VP8 was required to be supported as a codec by all browsers. This was removed as a requirement after Apple stated they were never going to support it, but the other browsers still implemented VP8 because it was codec free. Then Google implemented H.264 in Chrome. Mozilla only implemented H.264 in Firefox after it became clear that Google's announcement that they were going to rip H.264 out of Chrome was a bald-faced lie, making H.264 a de facto codec requirement for web browsers.
Having won, then the MPEG Alliance got greedy with their next version. H.265 upped the prices on its license agreement, and additionally demanded a cut of all streaming revenue. It got worse--the alliance fragment, and so you had to pay multiple consortia the royalties for the codec (although only one of them had the per-video demand).
It was in response to this greed that the Alliance for Open Media was created, which brought us AV1. I don't know how important Google is to the AOM, but I will note that, at launch, it did contain everybody important to the web video space except for Apple (which, as noted earlier, is the entity that previously torpedoed the attempt to mandate royalty-free codecs for web video).
The finer point is where these tens of billions came from.
All of it was ad money, and a lot of these innovations were also targeted at better dealing with ads (Flash died because of how taxing it was, mobile browsers just couldn't do it. JavaScript perf allowed these ads to come back full force)
The net balance of how much web technology advanced vs how much ad ecosystems developed is pretty near 0 to me, if not slightly negative.
Isn't webrtc broken in Chrome? Or did they finally fix that? It used to be that everyone supported Chrome's broken implementation, leaving Firefox users with the correct implementation out in the cold.
If you are referring to the standards-based "Unified Plan" vs. the Google proprietary "Plan B" for handling multiple media tracks in SDP, I believe that "Plan B" was finally phased out in 2022.
No, there isn't a need for appreciation. We all cheered at that time where Google was building a great JavaScript engine and a browser around that. But in hindsight it is clear, that Google was just running the old embrace, expand, extinguish playbook on a scale that we where unable to comprehend. We would've be just fine with Firefox, webkit and maybe Microsoft would have made Internet explorer somehow not total shit. Google captured the whole web as a market and we used the opportunity to build endless JS frameworks in top and went wild with all the VC and advertising money.
> Webrtc. Google’s implementation is super widely used in all sorts of communications software.
Webrtc uses the user's bandwidth without permission or notification and it used to prevent system sleep on macs without any user visible indication.
> V8. Lots of innovation on the interpreter and JIT has made JS pretty fast and is reused in lots of other software like nodejs, electron etc.
No matter how efficient they made it, javascript "applications" are still bloatware that needlessly waste the user's resources compared to native code.
> Sandboxing. Chrome did a lot of new things here like site isolation and Firefox took a while to catch up.
That's useful but only because the bloatware above. If you didn't give code running in the browser that much power you wouldn't need sandboxing.
> Codecs. VP8/9 and AV1 broke the mpeg alliance monopoly and made non patented state of the art video compression possible.
Could agree. Not sure of Google's real contribution to those.
> SPDY/QUIC. Thanks to Google we have zero RTT TLS handshakes and no head of line blocking HTTP with header compression, etc now and H3 has mandatory encryption.
It's also a binary protocol that cannot be debugged/tested via plain telnet, which places a barrier to entry for development. Perhaps enhances Google's market domination by requiring their libraries and via their control of the standard.
> > Codecs. VP8/9 and AV1 broke the mpeg alliance monopoly and made non patented state of the art video compression possible.
> Could agree. Not sure of Google's real contribution to those.
They were not the only contributor (I was the technical lead for Mozilla's efforts in this space), but they were by far the largest contributor, in both dollars and engineering hours.
> No matter how efficient they made it, javascript "applications" are still bloatware that needlessly waste the user's resources compared to native code.
Well that's just biased. Saying application is bloated (which is often not true) is the result of an entire ecosystem, has something to do with an interpreter, is ridiculous. Any qualified software engineer can see the fault in such a comment. You probably know that as well.
Is have to agree to be honest. Whoever decided to run JavaScript in the backend should be committed to a mental institution. JavaScript is a nightmare. But you can't tell a man something his paycheck depends on him not knowing.
>Webrtc uses the user's bandwidth without permission or notification and it used to prevent system sleep on macs without any user visible indication.
>No matter how efficient they made it, javascript "applications" are still bloatware that needlessly waste the user's resources compared to native code.
>No matter how efficient they made it, javascript "applications" are still bloatware that needlessly waste the user's resources compared to native code.
So should we not deliver advanced sandboxed cross platform applications for any platform, and instead deliver unsandboxed native code for all possible platforms? ActiveX called, it wants to say thanks for the endorsement and that it told you so.
And no more zoom meetings because somebody's Mac might not go to sleep? I'm with you on that one, brother!
>There actions back then fitted the Don‘t be evil motto.
Disagree with that. All the privacy issues people have problem with now were already a problem in 2007. But being the media darling along with Submarine PR Google didn't get much bad press.
There were lots of other things too, including their site breaking Firefox as well as Chrome, their promise not to make another browser.
Of all the things you've mentioned, the only one that genuinely stands out to me as a positive contribution from Google—something that wouldn’t have happened had Chrome never existed—is the codec situation.
They leveraged their scale and influence for good in that instance.
That said, it’s not as if other browsers weren’t already making independent strides in optimisation and innovation.
In fact, I sometimes wonder whether Chrome has actually steered the browser ecosystem in the wrong direction, while simultaneously eroding a lot of the diversity that once existed.
> That said, it’s not as if other browsers weren’t already making independent strides in optimisation and innovation
Honestly I can't believe that anyone who was around when Chrome came out would say this. IE7 was around, and terrible. Firefox was trying hard, as was Opera, but web tech has become infinitely better with Chrome around, and Google funding it. Without Google funding Firefox as well, Firefox would be nowhere near what it is today.
That antitrust case is what made Microsoft stop developing their browser.
Chrome would still have won because it was force pushed by google.com, every google service, every google software nad large part of 3rd party software had it as bundled (checked by default) install.
I'm going to take a fairly contrarian stance here and say that I've noticed zero improvement this past decade. In fact, stuff seems to be worse.
Google crippled ad blockers on their platform and ads are getting through with increasing frequency.
Stuff that really should be working on my browser or did before is now getting blocked because I apparently should be using a webkit browser. One example is my credit card is getting rejected more and more often lately. But things work fine when I open up Chrome and make a payment.
What things do I want improved? Popups/popunders still happen sometimes. There's still no real solution to block those annoying mailing list popovers either. The dominance of Chrome seems to have frozen the internet in time around 10 years ago. Nothing has really changed between then and now, while before there always seemed to be a feature to look forward to. I guess the last big thing was web assembly, and even that was released nearly a decade ago.
In terms of enjoyment, I think that as a whole things were much better in the late 00s and early 10s. Proprietary crashy resource hog browser plugins had effectively been killed off and JS bloat was still relatively low, so with a few notable exceptions the web was fairly light and sites on average weren’t nearly as irritating or intrusive. Furthermore, devs hadn’t normalized feature chasing and so any modern browser worked correctly for the overwhelming majority of the web and adblock extensions generally didn’t break things.
I wonder if it's only downhill once you have reached your own point of enlightenment. For me, that wasn't late 00's, but more like late 90's and early 00's. Maybe that was my coming of age.
To me, it's been downhill pretty much before it got started. I'm always feeling "behind" having missed the fun at any stage.
In the late 90's, I attended a talk by Ted Nelson, the guy who coined the term Hypertext. To him, things started going downhill with HTML, and the URL. The gist of his complain is that he wanted links to be bi-directional.
In the 80's, telecom operators were complaining that TCP/IP and packet transmission was a regression over circuit commutation.
So it looks like the internet has progressed through perpetual regression.
The internet is 30-40 years old, and has brought an entirely new paradigm to the world. It has abolished distances, disproportionately increasing the reach of a few.
I'd love to share your optimism that things will keep improving in the long run, but I don't see what you're basing that off.
I like the late 00s/10s because it represents a particular level of refinement and balance of functionality in contrast to earlier eras. As much as I enjoyed the web of the 90s and early 00s, it was still quite nascent and in some ways a bit too basic for my taste.
90s web was fun in a wild west kind of way. Sites were small, but the net in general was slow.
00-10 had a lot of forums in which I remember being very fun. At the same time it brought in the age of popups and ads everywhere.
10+ brought in the age of large social media and the feeling everything was trying to scam you. A lot of the forums that felt special and interesting started disappearing for multiple reasons, but mostly their userbase had moved to FB or something else huge. Then those large sites started moderating anything interesting away.
> Furthermore, devs hadn’t normalized feature chasing and so any modern browser worked correctly
What you are saying seems much larger than the web itself. I don't think Chromium or for that matter "technology" is responsible for that. I think it has more to do with massive capital in funding technology startups building on every random idea which in turn led to the tremendous demand for platforms with the promise of "shipping fast" at the cost of short sighted technical decisions.
That’s definitely a consideration, but alongside the rise of Blink within the web dev sphere there’s also been a growing culture of sitting on the bleeding edge of new features regardless of how necessary doing so is, which influences both hobby and production projects alike.
On other platforms it’s still much more the norm to stick to proven tech for anything non-trivial and to only adopt new APIs when there’s high adoption and adequate justification for doing so.
You're speaking my language here. I think this is exactly what happens when a company has cornered the market. We have completely stagnated, as you say, for at least a decade, maybe more.
Lots of innovation has happened, don't get me wrong. And maybe the web browser as we know is "mature" and therefore lacking need to evolve.
But I'd argue (as I did in a sibling comment) that maybe this drying up of funds could pave the way for new innovation. The web, the creative parts of the web, and definitely the internet as well, didn't have monster budgets to drive its innovation originally. It had some (DARPA, et al), but not like today.
>Copy and Paste context menu entries are sometimes disabled when they should not be
they should never be disabled. If I want to copy the letters from the OK/Cancel buttons—which you also tried to eliminate—or the keyboard keycaps you are displaying, I should be able to; what's it to you what I want to do?
How much do you love it when you are using a PDF of a scanned ancient text or a cellphone snapshot you just took of a streetsign, and your device lets you copy the text? This is what computers are for, to be our servants, not to be Google's overseer.
On the surface, it's easy to agree with your opinion.
But then I think, what would it have been like without this investment. Maybe browsers would stay buggy and we'd have an internet with much more diversity in protocol. The internet of today is monotone and subservient to its web master.
I wonder if innovation stagnated because of the extensive (ab)use of the web. Granted, early on, Google's contributions have been more than just pioneering. Both on the backend and the frontend, we all owe them a pint.
But recently, it feels it's just been self-serving. And the monopolistic overtones plus the loss of "do no evil" has arguably hurt us in recent years.
That being said, if the web browser isn't funded so deeply, maybe this is a good thing? Maybe that will give birth to fresh cycles again. I kind of think like letting a corn field grow a new crop to let it regenerate. It could usher in new innovations.
I'm not so sure about that, I bet we'd probably still have Flash, Java Applets, Silverlight and ActiveX controls. The web was a mess before. The recent capture by big platforms is more about taking you out of the web, into their superapps.
edit: On a second thought, as a dev now, I look at React, Angular, all these mega frameworks... and wonder if we're just patching over problems big tech baked into the modern web. First point still stands tho.
Oh, that’s definitely revisionism. The iPhone killed Flash, and ActiveX (outside of South Korea / Silverlight) and applets were already dead at that point.
Yeah, true. I forgot that, even Steve's letter on why they wouldn't put flash on the iPhone.
That was the final blow, yup. But the web was still a clunky mess of plugins, broken standards, and browser-specific hacks.
Google pushed to make the web better. And through Chrome they helped bring WebKit to multiplatform: I still remember I couldn't even get rounded edges or nice typography support across platforms, only in Safari.
It wasn’t until Chrome took off that the rest started paying attention.
The iPhone was undoubtedly the deciding factor, I agree - but interestingly Netflix used to rely on Silverlight for DRM [1] until Google introduced video DRM to Chrome in ~2013 [2]. iPhone netflix users had to use an app.
The web browser is an ugly mongrel that in a “sane” world would never exist. The only reason it is a platform is due to the immense wealth funneled to ductaping and reinforcing it to hold.
It’s basically a statue of liberty made of ductape and chewing gum, then reinforced with formula-1 level engineering and novel materials research.
The building blocks and lessons learned could be used for something novel (nope not gonna happen it’s permanent now). WASM, json, Skia renderer, pretty awesome v8 virtual machine etc etc … all of that are pretty neat.
I guess the key thing is what is the value of browser now?
It’s the ui to bazillion networked business and government systems, productivity tools etc.
I would argue the sticky moat here is not the web interface, though, but the data and the familiar usage patterns. _Theoretically_ the ux is portable to any system with vector graphics renderer and the data itself should be (a long stretch right) independent of the client ui.
Sure, but back then people were used to downloading and running random exe files (even from really untrusted sources such as torrent sites, eMule, etc.)
We simply don't know how browsers would have developed in the past years if Google did not have a monopoly. However, we know that monopolies are almost never good for consumers. Therefore, there is a high chance that in an alternative timeline, where one of the biggest and most profitable companies in the world did not have a monopoly on browsers, we as consumers, would have been better off.
Exactly. It's like the arguments that are sometimes made to that credit Genghis Kahn with creating an integration of the Eurasian landmass and rolling out administrative reforms. It doesn't tell us what the world could have been like if it wasn't steered towards consolidation, and it doesn't even pretend to morally justify the domination. It's an inevitable consequence of domination that no one but you has the power to roll out reforms or advancements of any type. Organic progression that might have happened anyway becomes something that only could have ever happened through you.
The last major innovation as a product was PWA support starting in 2016.
Browsers used to try new ideas like RSS, widgets, shared and social browser sessions. Interfaces to facilitate low-friction integration with the rest of your life, and to multiplex data sources so that it's not a hassle to have many providers for [news, entertainment, social] experiences.
Likely no coincidence that this innovation languished once monopolies started pumping money into the ecosystem.
Wholeheartedly agree. Opera. Before it pivoted to Chrome and sold to Chinese investors I think was the apex example of this. I will never stop singing the praises of Opera Unite, which was a brilliant and potentially revolutionary way of leveraging the browser for something that could have been the basis of peer-to-peer web and social connection.
I wouldn't call turning browsers into application runtimes "major innovation". Let browsers be HTML document viewers, please. Treat JS like a macro language that doesn't need to be as close in performance to hand-written assembly as possible. Not doing any form JIT at all would be a major boon for security, for example.
>I wouldn't call turning browsers into application runtimes "major innovation".
I would call it one of the most important innovations of the last 20 years. Name another true write-once-run-anywhere universal VM that is installed in billions of consumer devices and costs nothing. It doesn't exist. The only way the entire modern software ecosystem is even possible is because of the web as a platform. Literally everything else is a non-portable closed proprietary stack.
> Name another true write-once-run-anywhere universal VM that is installed in billions of consumer devices and costs nothing. It doesn't exist.
Java certainly meets your criteria and exists. But much like the person you are replying to, I consider the "modern software ecosystem" to be utter garbage. Web browsers are just a terrible user experience for applications compared to the desktop. We have regressed greatly in user experience, not progressed.
Nor does anything about WASM. The sandbox is provided externally. The only difference is that Java standardizes functions for things like file access, while WASM doesn't standardize them (but WASI does!)
You don't need a VM for a "write once run anywhere" environment at all. That's the whole point of high level programming languages like C and Fortran. The innovation of having a VM to run everything in is to be able to compile once and run anywhere, which is only valuable to people wishing to hide the source code from the people running their software (malware authors).
I argue that such a thing as a "true write-once-run-anywhere universal VM that is installed in billions of consumer devices" is not needed in this form. It creates more problems than it solves.
Counterpoint: the majority of it is not really innovation, but is instead it's just a rat race.
The web doesn't need standards evolving at the speed of light, it's only happening because Google's strategy with Chrome has always been to set a pace that others can't follow, not about designing things right.
> it comes at the cost of destabilising something foundational like Chromium
the benefits have already been contributed to chrome, and is easily available even if funding is cut today.
However, google didn't give chrome and their money away altruistically. They wanted something back - control of the browser market, and ability to dictate certain aspects of the web. I do not believe they should have this ability. Taking away monopolistic practises with the browser market can help with this aspect.
Is that a big surprise though? If most economical resources are concentrated into the exclusive control of a few entities, where else could anything that requires some resources be conducted?
Just because an entity happen to output also some positive social impact doesn't mean its current global influence on society is overall extremely toxic. Pablo Escobar is classic example.
> All the major browser innovation that has happened during the last decade is because of the funding from Google towards Chromium.
Some people think innovation mostly happens in startups, but Big Corp monopolies have a unique and important role to play. Bell Labs and Xerox PARC did stuff no startup has the money for.
>major browser innovation that has happened during the last decade
Indeed. And since there has been nothing but bad changes to HTTP and HTML in the last decade, all centered around turning the web into just a means of transporting javascript applications, we know who to blame. I'm still upset that Google and Microsoft agents within the IETF managed to openwash and push QUIC/udp through as HTTP/3.
It's a status quo that definitely needs changing if we're going to have a web usable by human persons and not just corporate persons.
I'm quite certain Apple would have continued their browser engineering and security efforts with or without Google. In the first place, Chromium was a fork of WebKit (which itself is derived from the work of the KHTML team). Apple values the security of their iOS users a lot so they wouldn't have just sat around and watched them get exploited.
It's true that Google 'got there first' on a lot of stuff and that groups like Project Zero do incredible work but the idea that we'd be nowhere without Google is a bit silly.
That would be because they aren’t meaningfully competing here. They both profit tremendously by the status quo and so do not step on each other’s toes.
Agreed that Apple would have continued browser engineering and focused on security as well in response to attack techniques.
I am not suggesting that browsers would not evolve without Google. I am looking at the impact on web today. Perhaps new technologies will emerge, perhaps browser development will adopt different model or perhaps native apps will get a boost.
Browsers used to be one of the most critical and insecure software. All the major security enhancement in terms of isolation, sandboxing, privilege separation happened IMHO due to a Google backed browser security research. This benefitted the community because other browsers either adopted Chromium as the base or implemented similar security improvements.
I think it’s not just the browser anymore, the core building blocks like v8, blink etc. forms the foundation of modern web. It will be interesting to see the benefits of anti-monopoly laws when it comes at the cost of destabilising something foundational like Chromium.