This is actually very true. Having Chrome/V8 out there has definitely improved the state of browsers as far as performance; especially in regards to JavaScript. But now we face a situation where Google is getting such a market share with Chrome and their other web properties where lock in is a very real possibility, and the only way to keep an open, standardized web is to make sure there are still other browsers with major market share.
I once switched from Firefox to Chrome as Firefox became bloated and drifted away from its original mission to be a light weight branch from Mozilla (the browser). Now it is much better, but I still end up using Chrome when doing front end development as the developer tools on Chrome are fantastic. I do notice lately though that Firefox is putting new emphasis on devtools.
Lock-in has already begun on Chrome. Now you can't install Chrome extensions from anywhere else but the Chrome store (which means only stuff Google agrees with). Chrome is as closed-down as iOS and WP8 right now (For shame, Google!). It's actually the main reasons I'm waiting to switch from it soon. But not until Firefox gets a security sandbox.
This is not lock in (not for the purpose of lock-in anyway)
- it's for security reasons and it is in fact exclusive to Windows. Chrome was getting abused by thousands of extra-crapware installers which would install extra extensions etc. They have taken a gradual response to the issue but it always came down to ">99% of outside extensions installed on windows are crapware. This is exclusive to Windows due to its permission model. This gives users a very bad impression of chrome. Now what?"
I get it, honestly. But hey, if you don't want lock in, the hell are you doing on Windows?
Chrome was getting abused by thousands of extra-crapware installers which would install extra extensions etc.
Chrome is a prime offender in the "installing unwanted add-ons" game. I'm using Firefox right now, and it has a "Google Update" extension installed that I certainly didn't put there. My system has a silent Google Update process that runs in the background as well. Neither of these, to my knowledge, gave me any choice about installing or even actively announced their presence or what they're doing.
Chrome is a prime offender in the "undermining the system security model" game as well. Just look at how Chrome is installed and handles auto-updates on Windows. It actively circumvents the normal user access control system and pollutes a data directory with executable code, with all the negative consequences that come from that.
Maybe Google should clean up their own yard before they spend too much time criticizing everyone else's?
1. They are not criticizing, they are preventing.
2. You are full of it. Everything you are talking about is part of the Google Updater. An open source program which keeps Chrome (and various other google products if installed) up to date. Needless to say, these updaters don't even exist on Linux and are only there on Windows because of the latter's absolutely moronic handling of updates.
As for Chrome undermining the system security model: [citation needed]
additionally, on the google help page explaining all of that, it also has a guide explaining how to get around the restriction (which is easy as, drag from the download bar onto the extensions page (last time I used it at least))
It's possible to install extensions manually without having to go to the Chrome store. That's what I do. The only "inconvenience" (which is actually a convenience to some) is that you have to update the extension manually.
I think the developer tools in the latest Firefox are absolutely fantastic. I don't think Chrome offers anything substantially better currently for frontend development.
Agreed, and each release they just get better and better. For example, the updated scratchpad in FF32+ is pretty neat with it's code hinting and completion.
And the integrated app-manager for FirefoxOS apps and devices is just icing on the cake. I say Mozilla is doing a good job here, improving integration on multiple fronts and giving developers something that works right away. I am impressed at how well it works.
I was in the same boat as you, switching to Chrome when Firefox went in a direction I didn't agree with. I never really liked the uncustomizable Chrome but I tend to vote with my feet if I can.
Months (years?) later of chrome-only usage I still disliked Chrome and decided Firefox was superior after all (just can't get used to some Chrome things), especially now that I no longer needed Firebug (everything is now available in Firefox itself). So I switched back a while ago and have no thoughts of switching again if Firefox keeps this up.
> we face a situation where Google is getting such a market share with Chrome and their other web properties where lock in is a very real possibility
I agree that Chrome has a high market share among web developers. The statistics I've looked at for all users have never put Chrome above 50%.[1][2] I've even been seeing web developers saying "nobody uses Firefox" and "everyone uses Chrome now".
Firefox built in dev tools are clunky as anything, right down to not being able to resize bits so you can see the data in the panels. However firebug fixes that instantly.
I once switched from Firefox to Chrome as Firefox became bloated and drifted away from its original mission to be a light weight branch from Mozilla (the browser). Now it is much better, but I still end up using Chrome when doing front end development as the developer tools on Chrome are fantastic. I do notice lately though that Firefox is putting new emphasis on devtools.