Oh and also, EdgeHTML might not have been the best engine but saying it "sucks shit" is a bit extreme.
And I think Microsoft did a genius move because Edge can be now the cool browser that rocks like Chrome but without the privacy issues it offers.
This is also the problem Mozilla confronts. Year after year they urged for open source and an open web and now that Microsoft opts for it, they feel betrayed.
Put another way: the rendering engine is a commodity while the intention you use it for is the real deal.
But either way, the platform is not really controlled by the community. Sure you can file issues and pull requests or even fork Chromium but ultimately, Google still controls what's merged into the global Chromium master, so it's not really decentralized power.
Also, you've missed the main point. The problem here isn't that we don't have enough free/open source browser engines, the problem is that we don't have enough _different_ browser engines. If there's only one dominant browser engine, then whoever maintains that engine can decide how the web works. And that's kinda scary.
My bet is that Microsoft will offer everything that google offers, AND some more extras that google probably won't want to offer to protect their business plan.
Also, my bet is that Microsoft will make kick-ass documentation for Chromium and kick-ass developer integration with the popular VSCode so web developers will reach for that first.
I'm not saying consumers shouldn't have choice. That isn't at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is: Chrome didn't arrive at its market share by some corporate scheme to enforce usage by vertical tying. Chrome arrived at that market share by making a great piece of software that most consumers like and are happy with.
And I take particular offense to a browser that is bundled with an operating system by default--as opposed to one a user has to go out of their way to download--as being some panacea to Google. Edge and Safari likely have meaningful market share for no reason beyond: they ship with Windows and macOS respectively.
Chrome certainly ships as the default on Chromebooks and Android, but you'd be remiss to ignore that Chrome is the most used browser on Windows, and second most common on macOS. Those are consumers making a choice. Yet so many people in programming and tech circles don't stop to ask themselves why consumers are opting for Chrome.
So maybe the final line in my post seems harsh, but here's the reality: Edge is only a thing because it ships with Windows. Beyond that I see no technical reason to favor it over Chrome or even Firefox. On Windows, consumers have already spoken: they like Chrome. Lastly, Edge is a pretty questionable argument in favor of "consumer choice", given it represents a choice no consumer actually made beyond "default browser in Windows."
The Chrome install base on Windows is not entirely due to user choice. Chrome is/was bundled and selected for installation by default with many other software products, including Adobe Reader, CCleaner, and Avast antivirus.
But I think your point stands.
I think this is a good case study of why some companies doesn't allow its employees to blog about their company or work without going through some sort of process.
Edit: It still reads to me as if you were the one who committed the div tag on youtube. I am not sure if I am the only one.
Safari is also a good browser. I don't need justifications here.
However, if everyone adapts a single solution (WebKit/V8) then the web will just gravitate towards that and neglect standards and other engines, making it harder for consumers to use those.
The quintessence here is: People shouldn't just look at the raw performace (or quality or whatever) of a product, they should also consider the implications of using it. If almost everyone's using one particular implementation of a standard, then the other implementations will be extinct and users of those other implementations will be forced to use that most prominent one, eliminating their choice.
I'd recommend you read up on "Windows Refund Day". It kinda fits here. Here's a good video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j9j-Ywjmbk
You should care. Part of the implicit criticism in the original post by the intern is that Google is so arrogant in its browser’s dominance that it breaks the web and doesn’t give a shit if anyone complains about it. The tone of your article is certainly doing nothing to help that impression.
This notion that some intern posts an unfounded assertion that attributes malicious behavior to Google, that has multiple other plausible explanations? That is rude--attributing malice where it is wholly unjustified.
So am I remorseful for my tone? Fuck no. My truth standards are such that I'm not about to settle for other people's BS if there isn't evidence to support it. Speculation isn't evidence.
Is there anything that a person who doesn't work at Google (like the author) can do to help that impression? Is there any reason why anybody who doesn't work at Google should even worry about helping that impression?