Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Browser Choice
New submitter plawson writes "CNET offers an in-depth discussion of the browser's future, making the case that 'new mobile devices threaten to stifle the competitive vigor of the market for Web browsers on PCs.' Given the vertical integration of many mobile systems, the article predicts that 'the only opportunity you'll get to truly change browsers is when your two-year smartphone contract expires.' The trade-offs are security and performance. Web pages that rely on JavaScript and JIT will be big losers. How important is browser choice on a smartphone or tablet compared with a PC?"
My iPhone lets me choose from Safari and dozens of different skins of Safari
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Will no-one look to history to see what happens if you are tied into a single browser? Would we all be happy to have the equivalent of IE6 on our smartphones?
I know Microsoft is not keen on WebGL or Websockets, so imagine a world where they simply did not exist, or failed to gain traction because there was no incentive for the new monopoly to support it.
The only answer is consumer choice, and we all know 2 years is a lifetime in 'internet time'. Smartphone time is just as fast as that used to be.
Jailbreak and install whatever browser you want. Or better yet, stop shipping restricted computers that are dressed up to look like phones, and start shipping computers that respect user freedom and which happen to come in phone-form-factor with a cell phone module. Why is this so hard?
Palm trees and 8
>Google is a far more serious threat to open computer systems than any other company, including Apple, Microsoft and IBM.
Not to say that they wouldn't do it if they could, I doubt that, just because Chromebooks suck. They sold very few and they were a huge flop.
"In June 2011, Acer and Samsung launched their Chromebooks ahead of other PC brand vendors, but by the end of July, Acer had reportedly only sold 5,000 units and Samsung was said to have had even lower sales than Acer, according to sources from the PC industry
No wonder Firefox is more worried about Windows RT. They think that the Microsoft tablets are going to sell in good numbers.
This space for rent.
So you would expect a chrome book to run... IE? Firefox? Would it still be called a chrome book in that case?
The consumer _DOES_ have a choice here. By buying a chrome book they are choosing... duh... chrome. Not only that but Chrome books actually has a trivial way for you to "hack" the device itself (you open the battery and flip a switch) which would allow you to install whatever you want on it. Can you even imagine Apple or Microsoft providing consumers with that same option for any device they sell? No.
The problem that existed in windows was that there was no real alternative to Windows in consumer market at the time of Microsoft anti-trust hearings.
You most certainly do have a choice... simply don't use the OS. Buy a PC with another OS.
I don't think you understand what Chrome OS is supposed to be... a MINIMAL OS where the browser is the ONLY application, and system updates consist of downloading a full image that is mounted read-only and checksummed to ensure it is not tampered with by malware. Traditional OSs are made to run third party applications. Even "walled garden" smartphone OSs are designed to run at least a subset of third party apps. Chrome OS is not.
It's not designed for people who aren't willing to use the web for everything.
And for the record, there is a documented method to disable the safety checks on the partition checksums and install other OSs, as well as gain root terminal access under Chrome OS to mess around with whatever you want there, too. Google has made it clear they support user choice. I installed Ubuntu on my Cr-48 Chromebook and I have Chrome and Firefox on it, and I can dual boot between that and Chrome OS, if it makes you feel better.
Or a secure platform with lots of choice that requires a bit of savvy to use. It's amazing what people will put up with to avoid using their brains.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Just 2 weeks ago I asked with you guys what degree I should get for a late-ish career boost (BTW: Once again thanks for all the feedback, it's been a great help!).
It is because of this entire development that I actually am starting to move away from web stuff. It may seem that the web has won, and with Ajax and regular HTML 5 that may be the case, but it also is true that a few years ago we had a well-ordered world with 3 platforms at most and now with the mobile revolution we pratically are back in the 80ies with a bazillion proprietary platforms none of which are really compatible to one another. ... Even the usage paradigms aren't as clear as they were in 2005 with only Win, Mac and *nix desktops to choose from.
As for the dangers of stagnation and lock-in - even with HTML5/CSS3 and Ajax - due to extreme verticalisation of markets, I'd say the GP and the related article are spot on. That's why I'm moving away from rich-client and web stuff, at least for the programming that's supposed to earn me stable money in the long term. The 2k years were a great time with lots of fun and opportunities in the web, but those are dimishing as we speak. At least for me it's time to move on.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Sure are a lot of options out there if you don't want to be tied to a contract. I got a new LG Alley phone for about $100 bucks on ebay, and signed up with page plus celluar. Cheap pay as you service, uses all the Verizon toweras, and I can do anything and load any browser I want.
Be flexible, but stand up to the man.
Kurt
>Not only that but Chrome books actually has a trivial way for you to "hack" the device itself (you open the battery and flip a switch) which would allow you to install whatever you want on it.
Flipping that switch does not allow you to install native programs on you Chrome OS, it just allows you to load a different OS.
From their docs:
Show a scary warning that its software cannot be trusted, since a command line shell is enabled (press Ctrl-D or wait 30 seconds to dismiss).
Erase all personal data on the "stateful partition" (i.e., user accounts and settings - no worries, though, since all data is in the cloud!).
Make you wait between 5 and 10 minutes while it erases the data.
>Can you even imagine Apple or Microsoft providing consumers with that same option for any device they sell? No.
Last I heard you could dual boot any PCs or Macbooks to Linux or Windows without having to erase your OS X/Windows data.
This space for rent.
Right, which is why there is no such thing as mobile version of Firefox or Opera?
(no, not posted from my N900, but it has Opera, which beats the built-in browser)
or at least one that's been asked a million times before.
the question is whether you want to use an appliance or a general-purpose device. an appliance is relatively fixed-format, and congruent with the concept of a walled garden, as well as revenue plans that make your vendors mbaciles happy. an appliance normally does not have user-serviceable parts, so the vendor is in control of the UX. appliances are fundamentally fixed-function devices, even if the vendor is able to update and even extend it, since they define what the fixed functions are.
being general-purpose is the opposite: it means that the owner really does own (control) the device, and can change its function, install software without regard to what the device vendor provides, approves or even knows about. PCs are fully general-purpose, since everything, from the roms to the OS to add-in cards can be replaced by the device owner.
so the question is really: to what extent is the vendor trying to draw a line across which the device owner cannot cross? no device is truely fixed-function, and even control-freak vendors like Apple provide _some_ affordances through which the device may be extended (hardware connectors, software app-stores). this has always been controversial, since any vendor restriction is at odds with our natural understanding of what "ownership" means (and even companies like Apple tend to show some variance in how locked-down and fixed-function their devices are - I can install Linux on an Apple laptop/desktop without much trouble, but they put a lot of effort into making it hard to root any of the smaller devices.)
I think it's time we get back to basics: when I buy a device, I should completely control it. any anti-rooting mechanisms should be illegal - the same way it would be illegal for a car vendor to specifically detect and sabotage my car if I put on third-party wheels. sure, make me click through a license-revoking agreement. but if you sell me something, and then take control of it out of my hands, you've committed fraud.
we should not allow this issue to become an opportunity for vendors to segment their market by selling a version for tinkerers and another for grandma. mostly, vendors have this impulse because their mbaciles want to lock in customers. instead of just selling devices, the popularity of which is subject to whim, the mbacilic approach is to sell service contracts as well, preferably multi-year, to ensure that customers can't get away without paying, even if the vendor's quality degrades. fixed-function devices are inherently like long-term contracts, since customers want upgrades and new apps, and since they're locked in, you can shove profitable advertising down their digital throats, or at least mine their usage/search behaviors.
It wouldn't matter that much to me because unless the content served up on my iPhone is designed for a mobile platform, it is almost impossible tor read, so I prefer the APP to the browser. as long as it is free, that is.
occasionally i do need to go to a website, and it is kind of a hellish experience because the sites I need to go to (local store's hours, phone #) are written for a desktop browser.
so unless the browser can magically convert a poorly designed website into something readable in a mobile format, it won't make a difference. (i'm also assuming mom&pop shops on the interwebz won't shell out cash for two platform designs, since they are still using flashing fonts and high-contrast tiled gif backgrounds.. ugh)
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
I could just say, LMGTFY, but how about a direct link instead.
Just a rumor for now but since you can't replace the default system browser I could see Apple allowing it. Over time they are generally more permissive.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Funny how the business world disagrees with you.
I see a LOT of companies drooling all over the chromebook for use in business. Copuled with Google Business services you can eliminate thousands of dollars of IT costs per year per user.
A couple of our clients here are completely ditching the MSFT train and ringing deep in the Google Cool-aid. For their sales people, Google's flavor is working perfectly for them and Microsoft cant even hope to compete right now.
Granted, you cant do this for the Engineers and other power users, but the entire sales force and managers? you bet they can be moved to chromebooks.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And I'm sure there are car geeks simply appalled with the car you own, food geeks who would vomit in horror at what you eat, beer/wine geeks who would rather die of thirst than drink whatever it is you like, music geeks who would pierce their eardrums rather than listen to your music collection, etc.
Basically, not everybody in this world actually cares about the same stuff you do, at the same level of intensity.
Yes. You can install other browsers on Android without even rooting. So maybe this browser lock in is only a phenomena on closed platforms.
- - - -
All that is necessary for Apple to triumph is for Google men to do nothing.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Or a platform with only one browser engine with a security vulnerability (like the one that allowed to rootkit your phone after opening a web page) and you need to wait weeks for a fix, and not being able to use other browser engine in that time. Or other platform thatallows you to install another "real" browser meanwhile the embeeded one is fixed. Choice is always good, nobody is forcing the user to use another one, but the option must exist
If spending extra time learning how to drive enabled me to drive a special vehicle that worked a lot better than regular vehicles, you might have a point. But it doesn't.
For instance, if driving a manual transmission meant that I'd get twice the gas milage and break down only 1/10th as often, then you'd have to be stupid not to drive a manual transmission. As it actually happens, manual tramsissions only provide a marginal benefit, so whatever you prefer works.
Basically, not everybody in this world actually cares about the same stuff you do, at the same level of intensity.
It's not about what I care about, it's about what you care about and the best way to accomplish that. If you don't care about computer security or speed, by all means use whatever you like best. If you actually want security or speed, then there is a right answer.
And most people do want computer security and speed. I'm always listening to people complain about viruses, or how bogged down their computer is with crapware. If you care about those things, there's an easy solution. Think about what you're doing, and don't do it unless you understand the implications. That holds for every field, computers, cars, brewry or anything else.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Is there a reason slashdot is sticking with the "first comment made is the one at the top" still? They can't figure out how to sort threads by top rated contents?
From the summary:
Two things wrong with this statement:
1. A browser lacking JIT will still process JavaScript, just more slowly.
2. While a web page might lose a few impatient users, and thus become a secondary loser, the primary loser is the one who is the subject of the summary: the smartphone user who is locked in to a particular browser.
Taking these together, the statement "Users who rely on JIT will be losers" would be more accurate.
Until it does something unexpected and there are a million different non-working answers on Google. That's why I'm typing this on a Mac.
You're an idiot.
Posted from my Galaxy S2 using Firefox.
Okay -- I RTFM'd, and it seems like the author can't really see the forest for the trees.
Sure, UI is important, but if you're worried about us developing a browser monoculture, you need to look at the rendering engine, and not the UI and trademark that is slapped onto the result.
And as things currently stand, a monoculture is already forming around Webkit. On the PC side, KHTML, Konqueror, Safari, and Chrome all use Webkit (as well as numerous more minor browsers). On the mobile side, iOS, Chromebooks, Android, Symbian S60 browser, Blackberry browser (6.0+), HP's webOS, and Amazon's Silk all run on Webkit.
Looking at WikiMedia's stats for April 2012 (link), it appears from my rough calculations that nearly 36% of HTML page hits were from Webkit based browsers -- more than for any other browser engine. When looking at just mobile browsers, Webkit accounts for more than 80% of page hits from mobile devices.
Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing. While it was bad when Microsoft's Triton engine held near total dominance in browser engine use on the Internet (bad because it was tied to a single platform and vendor, and didn't conform to W3C standards well (and in some cases, not at all)), having an Open Source Webkit, which is collaborated on by a wide variety of browser vendors and which does an excellent (and I'd say the best) job of conforming to web standards hold dominance is a good thing. It means we have a single standard that web developers can focus their efforts against (W3C standards that is), while allowing anyone to improve upon it and implement it as they see fit, on a plethora of devices.
Looking at the graph in the article, if you instead break it down by rendering engine, you'll see that at least 80% of their mobile visitors in March were running Webkit based browsers.
So if he's worried about "one browser dominating them all", he's looking at the wrong equation. The concern now isn't that one browser will become dominant; however it appears that one rendering engine will become dominant. IMO it's a good thing in the case of Webkit, due to its standards compliance and open source nature. Sure, you may not have a lot of choice of browsers on your mobile device, but competition between device manufacturers and the fact that virtually all of them ship with browsers based on the same browser engine will ensure a base level of rendering support, good standards compliance, and in the case of features all of them want/need that such changes can be made (where logical) to Webkit itself, and then trickle down to all of the mobile browsers. Looks like a whole lot of win to me.
Which isn't to say that I think lack of choice is a good thing in and of itself -- merely that when your choice is between three different browsers running on the same rendering engine (and many of them the same Javascript engine), will most people even care?
Yaz
Going by what people are saying on how bad chrome books are selling, I think the market disagrees with you.
Like any of the "this is the greatest thing ever" devices. Some people claim that it will replace everything else. For example, the ipad and other tablets. Some people claim that they can do all of their computing needs. For some people this is true. For others it is an accessory to their computer. They still need the laptop/desktop to do most things. For others the tablet is just not going to cut it. The faster people stop buying the hype, and see as a device for what it is and how they can use it, the better.
I have seen too many people force the ipad into things that it is just not made to do. For example, They have a video conference system. Insteasd of using it, they use the ipad with skype. For a one on one call, no problem. For a room of 12 people having a conference with another room of 25 people? No, use the video conference system that is already in place. They propped up the ipad to show the room. We had a great view of the ceiling and the tops of a few people's heads. No faces. To top is off, they were showing slides. We did not see any of the slides. If they had used the video conference system, we would have seen everyone and seen the slides.
Some people have it in the head that is the answer to everything. They fail to see the device's shortcomings. This seems to be getting worse as time goes on. That or the hype is getting better.
That would require me to install the centralized control update which I have the choice not to install. Plus there's nothing stopping me putting Linux on here, I just have better things to do with my time than fight with incomplete software.
Well, I guess PC web browsers wil lack the kind of focus that
major market share provides....another page of history turns.
Film at eleven!
I love this comment and wish I had the mod points to spend. Maybe ACs start at 0, but I don't know. I don't have a hard time choosing. I don't really mind closed source (but I slowly loosing trust in closed source software, so maybe I'll agree with it one day). I make comments like this and get downmodded. It's insane to me. These people on slashdot think I'm crazy because I don't want google to harvest my information. I use startpage, NoScript and randomize my user agent on start of Firefox. And, I STILL think Google's probably got a dossier on me. But, we're the nuts I guess.