Comment by crop_rotation
1 year ago
Manifest v3 is not even breaking any standards. This is like saying Google should not make any changes to their browser as any forks will not be able to maintain any divergence. All forks are free to keep manifest v2. Off course maintaining a browser is expensive, but that doesn't mean Google has to foot the bill for everyone and everything.
> All forks are free to keep manifest v2.
In theory, yes. In reality, the more diverged forks become from mainstream the more expensive they become to maintain, until eventually it becomes entirely unsustainable. With the sheer number of Chrome patches Google churns out, the level of divergence where maintainence becomes overwhelming is actually pretty low. It’s like trying to handle Niagara Falls with a Solo cup.
So in effect, what Google says goes.
By that logic google can not make any changes to their browser unless all forks agree to it, as the forks will definitely not be able to continue maintenance for long. By this logic it makes more and more sense to not open source anything and keep your product as tightly closed as possible (what Apple/MSFT have been doing).
It’s explicitly changes that are a net negative for users and privacy (e.g. manifest v3) or try to circumvent the web standards process (e.g. WebUSB) that are problematic and would be of interest to forks. Most changes are fine.
Of course, we should ask why the web is in a place where building a browser is so massively complex and expensive that Google and Apple are the only entities in the world who can afford to do it.
The standards google bullies us into?