In a perfect world, diversity is definitely great! We have a bunch of standards committees that guide the many browsers towards a common interface and API for the Web. If all of these browsers comply with all (or at least most) of the standards at the same pace, then diversity will truly bring the best out of competition. Firefox and Chrome, as you said, are a great example of two competing browsers that implement standards at around the same pace, and thus introducing good competition.
Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world. Google is a monster of a company who has a bunch of resources that can easily stump and outpace the other smaller browser vendors in implementing web standards (in such a world with a diverse ecosystem of browsers).
My point is not to say that a monopoly is entirely good or entirely bad. I'm simply worried for the web developers and teams who might have a harder time to support a diverse ecosystem of (small) browsers that each implement web standards at a different pace.
But again, if pacing is not a problem, then I'm definitely all for diversity. Competition is always a good thing (from a user standpoint at least 😅).
Well I'm saying that unregulated monopoly is all bad and especially if the company holding it is as big as Google is.
Suppose that someone tells you that you can have as many chocolate cakes as you want as long as you keep your balls in their vice. But hey they promise not to squeeze! Would you do it?
Abdicating on competition and letting Chrome win is exactly doing this. No later than last month Google announced that they would make some browser API paid.
Is that worthwhile to give so much power to Google in exchange of glitter down your throat just a few week in advance from the competition?
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.