#Adblock for safari 5.1.7 free#

> I think you're giving them too much credit, bordering on a conspiracy theory. Surely they took advantage of their position eventually and managed both to create an ecosystem and to successfully lock people in, but that doesn't mean that they planned it since 2003. The ecosystem idea started much later, with the failed attempts to make social network and with the not-so-failed Google Now which is when they finally started bringing all the data they had together. If you remember, when most of these products started they looked nothing like each other, quite telling that there was no central plan to create an ecosystem. What I'm saying is that their initial plan with Gmail/maps/chrome was to gather more data and give themselves the competitive advantage in the ad selling business. I'm not saying they didn't want that and they are not happy to be in this position. There's no way they knew all of this would happen and that they would now be in the position to dictate the plug-ins we use.

I think you're giving them too much credit, bordering on a conspiracy theory. Why would a for-profit company develop a web browser more or less unprompted and give it away for free? To draw people into the system and get them comfortable with staying there. > Was it really just to become the world's most comprehensive search engine? Hell no, it was to get people into the ecosystem and to stay there, and be content with doing so. Lest we forget why these things play out the way they do. But let's not forget what funded them, or why they were developed in the first place.

To be sure, Google and Facebook have produced tremendous advances in science and technology. Similar arguments could be made about Facebook. Now that they have monopoly power, they can start tightening their grip with the good old embrace, extend, extinguish.

#Adblock for safari 5.1.7 free#

Just think how much money and manpower went into each of those free products we take for granted, not the least of which includes the Google search engine now think about how they make so much money off your attention that they can offer it free of charge, because sucking you into the ecosystem is just that profitable.Д¬hrome is the same thing. Why else do you think Google Maps is free? Gmail? Why did they drive around 1,000s of cities with cameras on a car taking photos for Street View? Was it really just to become the world's most comprehensive search engine? Hell no, it was to get people into the ecosystem and to stay there, and be content with doing so. Why do people act like this is all some great big accident, the result of eternal human fallibility? вЂњOnly works in Chrome,вЂќ is poor engineering for anything more than a prototype or proof of concept. Not for the web itself, but for one particular rendering engine. These need to be protected if we donвЂ™t want Google and the ad network to totally control the browsing experience.ДЄlthough, controversially, we as a web dev collective have learned nothing if we continue to only develop for a single browser. We still have WebKit and Firefox and (sooner or later), more of Servo at least. Like we never learned this lesson the first time.

ItвЂ™s frustrating that MS copped out and went Chromium. The web has empirically suffered through homogeneity and the lack of strong competitors in the browser space, not helped by the underlying HTML/JS spec becoming exponentially more convoluted to the point where building your own renderer is nigh impossible.ДЄnd since everyone is standardising on a Google, their decisions on ad blocking and supporting APIs are automatically going to flow down into every dependent product. We were still dealing with legacy IE6 (and IE 7/8 by that point also) in 2013! Almost a decade since we got Firefox and the first version of Chrome. Electron, various browsers that are just skins over the embedded framework. This is why itвЂ™s so unfortunate and frustrating that people are depending so much on Chromium/Blink.