I do not mind the mono-browser at all. I think that there will still be diversity because everyone will have their flavor of Chromium and it is open source. Even though it is Google's product, a company like Brave can make its own privacy-focused version of it. Browser diversity has been a challenge for most web developers over the years and with the rendering and feature support being universal, a lot of that will be alleviated. It also will help us as users because big companies will contribute to Chromium and it will be even better. Microsoft has already made some great contributions and I'm looking forward to them continuing to work on it. If those vendors disagree with where Chromium is headed, they can change direction.
Chromium as open source is just a decoy. Google is killing diversity using their licensed DRM. Read more: blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/googl...
Wouldn't a mono browser weaken an open, standard-compliant, web?
Wouldn't the main developer of the mono-browser have too much control (think Google or Microsoft a while back.)
I think it could happen, but I don't think it will just yet. I think the fears may be based on historical reasons. I do not see any indication that Chromium is adding proprietary, non-standard features in its rendering engines or adding shady things to it (I haven't looked at the source, but I trust that I would see the uproar if that did happen). If Chromium departs from standards, everyone will see it happening because the source code is available. If Google neglects the upkeep of Chromium, there is a community to help. I'm not sure of the licensing for it, but I believe companies can also fork their own version of it and distribute it.
It is definitely good to think about though. From a historical standpoint, Internet Explorer was dominant and from a lot of people's perspectives, that ended up hurting the web. I do not believe it is fair to throw shade on Microsoft for that, they built a browser that shipped with the most popular operating system. There wasn't a great alternative until Firefox and Chrome came around.
Android is another open-source project by Google. Phone manufacturers have their own versions of it. Open-source communities have their own versions. I think Chromium can be similar in that way.
Do you think, for example, if that happen, Google will have to much power to control, let's say, the W3C or ECMA standards and the path those things should go?
Even not having current indications (some speculations only, like the one related to MS devs about Google intentionally adding things on Youtube to break Edge), this doesn't mean it will never happen.
So, to avoid that situation, would be better to avoid a monopoly on that area at all!
I hate conspiracy theories, as far as chromium is open source. It's fine. not near a mono-browser scenario, just a more (but not necessarily) consistent user experience on the web. Both for users and devs alike.
Yep, I completely agree with you on that point. We, devs and users, maybe, don't need a monobrowser environment, but we need a stable and reliable path to follow and grow consistently.
It's nice having different things and types of products, but it's necessary to grow in a solid base everyone agreed with.
And, of course, if you have a scenario to help create that kind of untrustness, it's completely normal that some conspiracy theories (or even facts) happen more often.
I can't see a scenario that isn't good to have options to choose, competitors to "fight".
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.