No one is stopping another company from disrupting Chrome and making their own vision of the web by building a better browser. It's not going to be easy, but neither was it for Google. Many new web technologies like PWAs originated with Chrome and are slowly diffused to the other browsers. Apple, on their own, would never have pushed for PWAs and even now, their support for them are lackluster.

There are so many web apps that fail ungracefully on Safari and Firefox that work perfectly fine on Chrome. Or apps that have significantly better performance on Chrome, including Google's own products like Gmail and Youtube. As a tech enthusiast I know that the reason is because Google makes it work that way, but for a typical user they'll likely blame the browser that is being shoved on them by their tech-literate family member and run back to Chrome because it "just works."

The only check against Google's hegemony of the web is Apple not allowing anything but webkit be the renderer on iPhones. It's the only platform that is large enough and important enough that Google doesn't have completely unfettered access to implementation of features that advance their ad-tech needs.

There's a difference between being disruptive and destructive. Google's a destructive force to the web.

But this is a critique of open source as a whole. The maintainer (or the team) will have final say and control about the product they built. If the product is extensively used, then that team will have heavy influence.

These new APIs will be used by early adopters and if they provide actual value, they should be added to the other browsers. One would think most production apps will not use Chrome only APIs until they are supported by all major browsers. But at least the ball is rolling in the right direction.

Apple and Microsoft had a chance to compete with Chrome early on but brushed it aside. When Chrome added search in the URL bar, it was innovative. When they add new APIs now, it's too much?

It's not, really. Yeah, maintainers of large projects have large influence over that particular project but much of open source is insulated from the real world through various abstractions, including the web.

Developers of React might have a lot of influence over how programmers approach web development but that's not something visible to end users. When Google pushes something like WebP to the web, it becomes a standard simply because it's supported by Chrome and not because of any process of standardization outside of Google. Safari only just added support for WebP last year but if a website used WebP without a fallback to jpeg/png then the website becomes functionally worse and is visibly broken to consumers.

> These new APIs will be used by early adopters and if they provide actual value, they should be added to the other browsers. One would think most production apps will not use Chrome only APIs until they are supported by all major browsers.

There are many many cases online of websites that simply do not function at all correctly on Safari and/or Firefox because they do use chrome-only APIs or they only test their web apps on Chrome. There are large corporations whose web apps (like their online shops) don't even work correctly on iOS' browsers. One would think, but reality doesn't match your expectations.

> Apple and Microsoft had a chance to compete with Chrome early on but brushed it aside. When Chrome added search in the URL bar, it was innovative. When they add new APIs now, it's too much?

Improvements made to user chrome has no implications on the web as a whole. Adding search to the address bar doesn't make Youtube or Gmail function worse on other web browsers.

I think it's important that browsers are able to improve the web. I'm not against the idea of Google proposing adding new functionality through new APIs. The problem is that they can do that without any oversight from anyone else. They create a new technology that is controlled by them and introduce it to the web where they already have massive influence (#1 search, #1 video website, #1 email, etc) and expect everyone else to simply fall in line. Companies like Mozilla don't have any recourse here. No single company should have that much influence over the web.

Yet here we are where one company has control over some of the biggest websites on the web while having influence over how visible any other website is due to being the biggest search engine on the web while also controlling the browser that everyone is using while also controlling the operating system that is the most used in the world all while being a company that their primary business is harvesting people's information to serve targeted advertisements.

I think that rewrites history a bit. They started with a Free Software browser - Konqueror/KHTML - and were required to release changes under a compatible license.

We should be thankful that Konqueror/KHTML was released under a Free Software license, rather than a permissive open source license that would have allowed Google to deny us the rights that they had been granted by their upstream.

Your wording suggests that permissive licenses are not “Free Software” licenses, which is incorrect. Even the FSF acknowledges that permissive licenses like BSD, ISC, MIT, and Apache are free.

It's is almost impossible for anyone to create a new browser. Even for a corporation with near-unlimited resources it would be a daunting task. Hell, Microsoft gave up, and they are definitely not short on resources.

At the time of this writing Chrome ships 7600 web apis [1]. Firefox and Safari ship 6500 and 6300 respectively. Chrome will happily ram its own internal APIs through standards committees with nothing but a lip-service to the other implementors because this only assures Chrome's dominance. This also assures that no other browser will ever appear.

> Many new web technologies like PWAs originated with Chrome. Apple, on their own, would never have pushed for PWAs and even now, their support for them are lackluster.

Ah yes. The bad-bad Apple. How can Apple not be bad when we have the great saviour of the web, the Saint Disruptor Chrome.

Meanwhile, both Apple and Mozilla are increasingly on the same side with regards to the non-standards that Chrome rams through: they are vocally opposed.

A very-very non-exhaustive list: https://webapicontroversy.com These "disruptions" are so badly specified (read: are so Chrome-only) that sometimes the devs from competing browsers can't even understand them: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459#is...

And yet, Chrome will have you believe that these standards are not only there, but that they are complete (so many of them are just drafts that have been cobbled together by some googlers), and that they are immediately available and can be used (they can only be used in Chrome).

[1] https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence

Edit: grammar and typos

What the hell are you talking about? Safari and Firefox were building a better web long before Chrome even came onto the scene.

Safari precedes Chrome by 5 years.

Firefox precedes Chrome by 6 years.

They were both making the web better when IE6 held something like 99% of the market.

> Mozilla seems against these due to security risk, but then why not work on a protocol that is safe?

What the hell are you talking about? You want Mozilla to implement a new safe protocol to replace USB?

> but if Mozilla is so against it, the best response is a better product.

Yes, and both Mozilla and Safari are against WebUSB for one simple reason: they want a better product that doesn't compromise user security. But sure, why they don't just build one, right?

Chrome doesn't care and ships it anyway, and for some reason you're saying it's Google who are building a better product. No. They are building a product that's better for Google, first and foremost, and everyone else (including security, privacy, long-term health and sustainability of the web) be damned.