Hacker News Reader

Comment by FussyZeus | Hacker News Reader

So aside of the fact that you agree with their decisions, how is this at all different from how Internet Explorer's dev team made arbitrary decisions on how things would work in their browser, and in so doing because of their market dominance, influenced how the web grew, looked and functioned for decades to come? And how much technical debt had to be tacked onto every project to address that need (and is to this day)?

I'm all for moving the web forward and addressing stuff like this is a critical part of that, but this is not moving the web forward, this is moving Chrome forward, and in so doing breaking thousands if not millions of sites, and placing the burden of their repair on their developers with no notice and no better solution, just a different hack than the hack they were using.

View on HN

It's not really comparable to IE. MS had a pretty explicit goal of destroying Netscape - to the extent that they were making deals with other companies to break compat with Netscape.

Chrome is breaking 'autofill=false' on webforms because its really bad to have autofill=false most of the time. For example, this was breaking password managers, forcing users to have a worse experience around something as security critical as entering a password. If the goal is to have the user never remember their passwords to avoid phishing, this is a really important thing.

I'm entirely, 100% in support of them ignoring 'autofill=false' because most of the time I see this as a security flaw on websites. This isn't anticompetitive - they aren't trying to break websites on Firefox, they aren't contacting websites to get them to do some Chrome specific thing. They're ignoring a really bad default that hurts users.

Was it breaking password managers? Because from what I understand, that isn't the case, and the bug linked earlier is specifically titled "autocomplete=off is ignored on non-login INPUT elements"

Also: "For most modern browsers (including Firefox 38+, Google Chrome 34+, IE 11+) setting the autocomplete attribute will not prevent a browser's password manager from asking the user if they want to store login fields (username and password), if the user permits the storage the browser will autofill the login the next time the user visits the page. See The autocomplete attribute and login fields."

(From: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/Fo...)

> It's not really comparable to IE. MS had a pretty explicit goal of destroying Netscape - to the extent that they were making deals with other companies to break compat with Netscape.

Netscape is irrelevant. The fact is Chrome is using it's market dominance to affect the implementation of standards and in doing so, is breaking numerous websites. That IE is famous for but because Chrome is made by Google, it gets a pass.

> Chrome is breaking 'autofill=false' on webforms because its really bad to have autofill=false most of the time.

That is not the Chrome web-teams decision to make. The point of standards is that the standards should be followed, regardless of your or anyone elses opinion. If you disagree with a standard, you work to change the standard, you don't just change your browser's implementation of the standard, break a ton of functionality all over the web, and then sit there saying "well that's how it should be."

> This isn't anticompetitive - they aren't trying to break websites on Firefox, they aren't contacting websites to get them to do some Chrome specific thing. They're ignoring a really bad default that hurts users.

I agree with this in principle, but then they should be working to see that the standard is changed, and do so in such a way that the other browsers can follow suit and allow the standard to be improved. I don't disagree with the stance Google is taking; I don't like that one company is allowed to make such a sweeping change, and all the people who would get all over Microsoft's or Apple's asses about it if it was done in IE/Edge or Safari, are just all cool with it because again, Google is the golden child.

> Netscape is irrelevant.

Netscape is entirely relevant. The question was raised about how different Google / Chrome are compared to Microsoft / IE and the answer is Netscape. Microsoft tried to tie the internet into their own platform, Windows + IE, due to them pushing non-standard rendering and ActiveX. Whatever your opinion of Chrome's break from standards might be, Google simply are not trying to lock people into Chrome on Android / ChromeOS. Remember that Google's revenue comes from ads, not software sales (as was the case with Microsoft). Chrome, Android, etc are just platforms to help leverage ads but they still make money from people running Firefox on Windows, Linux and OS X. So while you might dislike the standards Google are breaking in Chrome, the intent is very different from Microsoft in the 90s with Internet Explorer as Google are not trying to control the web (or at least not with the examples given in this discussion. I'm less convinced their intentions are honorable with AMP).

> Whatever your opinion of Chrome's break from standards might be, Google simply are not trying to lock people into Chrome on Android / ChromeOS.

That assertion is laughable on it's face. Of course Google does brand lock-in, the fact that their brand is further reaching across more markets than Windows/IE were doesn't negate that they attempt brand lock-in at every opportunity they can. In fact Chrome largely was started because Google wanted to control the browser aspect of the experience, otherwise why would they make it?

The more people use the web, the more Google gains. It's really as simple as that. People switching their media consumption from traditional media (TV and dead tree) to the web is what makes Google more money.

How? Advertising budgets follow those eyes. Google is a nobody in TV ads, so doesn't get any part from the (big) money advertisers are currently spending there. If these would switch to targeting the web (where Google is the dominant actor), chances are that huge chunks of those ad budgets will be inserted into Google's giant ad placement machine.

Because it's an obvious way to get more people to default to Google Search. Just like how IE defaults to Bing. Until recently Google was the biggest contributor to the Mozilla Foundation due to their deal to enable Google as Firefox's default search engine.

There isn't any benefit in Google locking users into their free software if it means users on other platforms can no longer use Google's revenue generating services.

Your point about brand awareness is valid but not really the same as what I was originally discussing (software lock ins). Eg Google's products work fine on other browsers so there's no actual technical lock in however users are encouraged towards Google because of brand familiarity and browser defaults for search and home page.

If we don’t want to repeat the 90’s we have to complain a lot sooner.

If your litmus test is “as bad as Microsoft” then that’s exactly what we will get.

> If we don’t want to repeat the 90’s we have to complain a lot sooner.

Complaining wouldn't change anything. Corporations don't change their policies because a few nerds moan on a few message boards.

> If your litmus test is “as bad as Microsoft” then that’s exactly what we will get.

It wasn't my litmus test. I feel you're missing my point because others are making that comparison and I'm saying the two don't compare. In Microsoft's case they broke from standards to lock people into their paid platforms. Clearly that's bad. But in Google's case the platforms are free and the break from standards doesn't lock users into any platforms. You can make arguments against Google break from standards if you want but comparing the two because they involve a web browser is just clutching at straws.

Now, if you wanted to argue about Google corrupting the web then AMP is a far better example. There are far more similarities between MS+IE and AMP even though AMP isn't a web browser:

• both are a free product that locks users into the company's revenue stream (ads in AMP for Google, Windows for MS)

• both push their product through their massive market shares (Google promoting their AMP CDN on Google Search above the search results, Windows shipping IE)

• both onboarded developers with promises to better user experience while locking them into a non-standard platform.

I could go on, but in short AMP is where you guys need to be worried about with regards to Google shifting the web landscape. Not whether Chrome follows spec on a small handful of specific tag properties. That's a whole lot of hysteria over nothing.

FWIW, only the second bullet point applies here

> both are a free product that locks users into the company's revenue stream (ads in AMP for Google, Windows for MS)

Ads on AMP sites don't have to be from google

> both onboarded developers with promises to better user experience while locking them into a non-standard platform.

AMP, while a particular subset of HTML/JS, is still just a subset, aka part of the standard platform and can run in any browser. Calling it non-standard would be like calling it non-standard to use React. It's just a library/framework.

> Ads on AMP sites don't have to be from google

AFAIK they do if you want to be on the carousel above the search results on Google Search. It's part and parcel of using the Google AMP CDN. Sure you can use other CDNs (even roll your own) but then you do not appear on the AMP carousel above Google search results (which is highly valuable real estate).

> AMP, while a particular subset of HTML/JS, is still just a subset, aka part of the standard platform and can run in any browser. Calling it non-standard would be like calling it non-standard to use React. It's just a library/framework.

The fact it's a subset makes it non-standard because you cannot then write standard HTML / JS.

To flip the argument, this debate started because Chrome was accused of not following standards because it ignores some HTML properties (eg autocomplete). You could argue the same as you were for AMP that Chrome is following a subset.

Personally I find it a stretch to argue that x being a subset of the standard means x is a standard.

> [google] intent is very different from Microsoft in the 90s with Internet Explorer as Google are not trying to control the web

How very wrong you are on this one point, your argument was going on the right line but here it took an unexpected turn. Microsoft was the one truly not trying to control the web. The web was a causality for something else (killing java). Now, Google. Google is the one that must control the web. Chrome and android and AMP serve the exactly same goal!

I was there at the time, the whole IE Vs Netscape thing started long before Java became a threat (though you are right about how Microsoft also fought that war as well). Plus Bill Gates has said in interviews since that he was trying to lock the web into Microsofts ecosystem because he saw the threat very early on about how it could be platform agnostic.

While you can argue that Chrome and AMP serve the same goal, they're approaches are very different. One helps diversify a market place and doesn't lock developers onto its ecosystem nor users into its product via anti competitive practices; while the other seeks to create a "second web" who is controlled by Google by locking companies into their promise of reduced bandwidth and users into their hosts and advertising via leveraging their massive market share in search as an effective sweetener/bribe (use us and be placed before the search results).

You can complain about Chrome all you like but overall have more browsers on the market is better and Chrome doesn't lock people into anything aside brand loyalty. Where as AMP is a very different beast.

you have good points. but what I belive gates was refering to at the time was what he was seeing as a threat to windows. if you ever have the chance, buy a used SGI workstation from ebay and play with the system. SGI had an affordable business workstations (pizza boxes) that shipped with irix5. the mais thing for irix 5 was that most of the in house applications (e.g. settings pannel, doc library, etc) were mozilla XUL+js applications! I kid you not. that was 1994 and the electron concept was alive and strong with mozilla 2. iriz 5.3 or 6 (i am sure i am getting the versions all wrong from memory) even had the first CSS implementation! and it was mostly to ease the transition from the motif gui framework to XUL.

this is what gates calles the figth for the web. saving windows. thats why they integrated IE so heavily on explorer. ...again, they did hit very hard in the actual internet ecosystem, but that was a side effect. and they would be silly not to try to take some advantage of that too since they were getting this for "free" while fighting for windows dominance.

Yeah I've played on a few different SGI systems (and other UNIX systems that are now a historical curiosity). It never ceases to amaze me how we ended up on Windows. Well, not me specifically as I switched away around 20 years ago but "we" in the broader sense.

> That is not the Chrome web-teams decision to make. The point of standards is that the standards should be followed, regardless of your or anyone elses opinion. If you disagree with a standard, you work to change the standard, you don't just change your browser's implementation of the standard, break a ton of functionality all over the web, and then sit there saying "well that's how it should be."

You're exaggerating the point of standards, and/or confusing them with specifications. Standards have always been open to (ed: some amount of) interpretation with regards to how they are implemented.

Except that the Chrome behaviour isn't non-conforming. AFAICT, honoring autocomplete="off" is not required UA behaviour. It's a 'should', not a 'must'.

> It's not really comparable to IE. MS had a pretty explicit goal of destroying Netscape

While Chrome has the goal to destroy everything else.

Example 1: Google Chrome spam on youtube, gmail, every website on the internet. I can't count the amount of times my parents called and asked why Google asked them to "upgrade their browser" (hint: It wasn't a new Firefox-build).

Example 2: Sending email SPAM to all Google-users where they are advised to install Chrome if they ever sign in to their Google-account on a new machine using anything except Chrome.

Example 3: Installing Chrome unasked as drive-by installers when you install anything lots of freeware, because Google paid third-party developers to host Chrome as a spyware-like installation in their installer.

Google is using spyware techniques to deploy their fucking browser. Google is literally working on killing all other browsers.

And for the good of the web, this should be reason enough to instantly and permanently uninstall Chrome.

Had Microsoft done a fraction of this for anything they did, you'd seen social media and the EU causing a shit-storm. How come Google gets a free pass?

> Example 2: Sending email SPAM to all Google-users where they are advised to install Chrome if they ever sign in to their Google-account on a new machine using anything except Chrome.

Cite? I've never seen this, and I use Firefox regularly.

> Example 3: Installing Chrome unasked as drive-by installers when you install anything lots of freeware, because Google paid third-party developers to host Chrome as a spyware-like installation in their installer.

Again, cite? Because, again, I've never seen this.

> Example 2 cite

I don’t have articles to link to, but I’ve experienced this on numerous occasions.

Me working with manual testing where we regularly set up clean environments from scratch probably has helped me notice the problem more than a regular webdev.

Because this is absolutely a problem.

> Example 3 cite

I’d say Google it, but it really is a known and documented problem:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=google+chrome+bundled+installers&t...

Goggle is in no way playing fair.

Avast makes it hard not to install Chrome, and I think it's part of the Java installer as well.

Whether or not you think Chrome "wants" to destroy the other browsers, we can observe that:

Chrome is the most used web browser

Chrome is deciding how the web should work unilaterally.

These are the exact conditions that produced ActiveX and resulted in many websites with an IE6-only requirement. As much as developers dislike having to design around the various browser quirks, the situation will get much worse if any one browser becomes "important" enough that you can forget the others.

Chrome is at around 60% of desktop user agents, which is obviously significant but nothing on the scale of what IE was in the 90s. What's more, Chrome's market share plummets massively when you take other devices into account. So comparing Chrome to IE is a little premature when talking about browser monopolies.

Next lets look at the actual technology we're complaining about. ActiveX wasn't just an Internet Explorer-only feature, it was Windows only as well. Furthermore it wasn't the only feature in IE that wasn't supported on other browsers (VBScript, JScript, WebForms†, different support for HTML and CSS, etc). Where as Chrome doesn't diverge from other browsers all that significantly in comparison.

Chromes changes could be compared better to Internet Explorer with regards to how IE4 changed the way frames were used (inc the addition of iframes). This was really annoying as a developer but actually these changes were for the better - particularly the iframe - and eventually those features landed in other browsers. Including Netscape Communicator.

The W3C are pretty glacial at updating their specs so it's often required browsers taking things into their own hands, eg the browser CSS prefixes. Developers would moan about having to add lots of extra junk to their code just to get new features to work but it was the price to pay for having access to new features that hadn't landed in the various web specifications. So as much as they would moan about vendor prefixes, they'd welcome browsers extending the specification.

The above paragraph wasn't all that long ago and the difference between then and now was that Chrome, Firefox and Opera were all at it with IE still playing catch up with regards to compliance; but now the browser market has consolidated where Chrome (read: Blink) has absorbed Opera, IE has largely died off and Firefox is sadly slowly falling out of fashion. So people are paranoid Google might abuse their advantage. However I really cannot see that happen - or at least not with regards to Chrome. Not only is Chrome's market share small compared to IE in the 90s / early 00s but also the web is viewed from a multitude of different devices. As someone who has managed online shops, games and other popular web-based services I can testify that product owners do NOT want to lose business from portable devices. If just because some product owners are so technologically inept that their primary computing device outside of the office is an iPad and/or their business iPhone.

† I think it was called. But basically it was their 90s tech for writing apps that looked like Win Forms.

> Chrome is at around 60% of desktop user agents, which is obviously significant but nothing on the scale of what IE was in the 90s. What's more, Chrome's market share plummets massively when you take other devices into account.

Yeah. Where other devices are mostly Android phones running Google's fork of Webkit. I.e., Chrome

I don't think it's as clear cut as that. You'll have iOS devices and a few Windows Phones too. Plus on Android it's pretty common (albeit mostly among power users) to install custom browsers like mobile ports of Firefox. Then you have other devices like games consoles. Things get pretty fragmented pretty quickly once you start investigating the "other devices" rabbit hole.

However that all said, when it comes to product support, I've found product owners generally only care about Blink (Chrome / whatever) on Android and Safari on iOS. So there's usually little interest in all the other random browser + platform combinations seen in "other devices".

There are several other first-class browsers that you have a choice of if you don't like Chrome. The same was not true during IE's era of dominance.

Also, do you agree, in general terms, that sometimes changes can be good whereas other times changes can be bad?

Most of those are rebranded chromium.

The only big ones that are independent are Safari (since Google forked Webkit to create Blink), Firefox, and IE/Edge.

And the impression i have is that Safari is lagging, Mozilla is directionless and struggling to keep Firefox relevant, and MS is, well, MS.

Ever since Opera folded and made their browser a Chromium clone, only Mozilla have been carrying the banner for standard correctness. And even they seem more and more bow to Google's decrees (whole virtually cloning the Chrome look and feel with each Firefox update).

Mozilla is directionless and struggling? Huh? They just came out with Firefox Quantum, which is a huge step forward, and I believe might have taken the web performance crown.

If you step back and look at Mozilla's performance, it looks like they have been struggling.

https://www.w3counter.com/trends

Hopefully they are on the upswing recently because they have found more focus and direction.

Quantum is a great improvement to Firefox. I'm running 57.0b14 ATM (normally I'm quite conservative with anything except Emacs) and quite pleased. The performance improvements are quite noticable. Though I do wish they created a more user-extensible browser, a bit a la Emacs.

Strong-arming the spec is bad.

Are you advocating for a second coming of browser wars era because we now have more options?

Have we not been there yet? Can we agree that that is a place of endless pain for developers, project managers and users as well?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com