I don't like Google, but Chrome is a better browser - especially if you're frontend dev. I'd love for Firefox to be better but it's way slower and its developer console is no match for Chrome's.
Strictly from a frontend dev perspective, sure, also just because popularity alone - but why would you not have a separate personal and development browser? I definitely wouldn't want to mix the two - various comfort extensions mingle with DOM and rendering, and reverse I also don't need analytics/dev extensions clutter/slow down non-dev reading experience.
I vouched for you as I don't think you should be down voted for having an option as a developer.
I don't know why others are disagreeing (I assume this is why they down vote), but I am not fond of your statement because it hits a sore spot for me with web devs and users: you like it because it's convenient for you as a web dev. Chrome is anything but better for me as a user.
I've written something like this before but my frustration with web dev and websites in general is that my understanding is that web devs have an unrealistic expectation for how users use their sites and optimize for a use pattern that doesn't match reality.
I might spend a few minutes on any sight for any given day; typically I'm on a Mac so of course I want safari for the battery life benefits. When I encounter a site that is using some chrome only API or tooling and no longer works, I have a decision to make: do I really want to install another browser to view something I might not even look at more than a few minutes just because the site uses a call only chrome supports? Or do I just want to skip it?
So far, the second option has been my choice every time as I just have not found a site that warrants a dedicated browser to view.
For devs the decision is for their convenience, and because web dev doesn't explain its decision, I just have to live with the consequences. This means that a site that works perfectly fine one day,even sometimes a few minutes ago, suddenly stops working because of a behind the scenes change and I have no idea what the issue is, why a change was made, and for who's benefit.
I am not aiming this post at you specifically, it's just such a perspective I find is unique to web dev and to software with rolling updates, but even the latter has release notes. Web dev is weirdly accountable to none of it's audience, and even worse, many web devs choose to argue against the users choice in browser instead of responding and fixing the issues with specific browsers. I'm not even talking about Fringe browsers, just the major ones (FF, safari,Chrome). Even mobile FF gets broken on some sites that try to use chrome only optimizations
Chrome for users is NOT a guaranteed best option. It lacks battery optimizations on most machines, it doesn't support ublock origin, it is incredibly invasive.
The main frustration i have is that if a site does optimize for chrome, it forces a decision that for me is always the same result: will I install chrome just for this site and give up the benefits of other browsers/pay the Google privacy price?
For me that answer is "No", with gusto.
Again this isn't targeted at you, but I really want to ensure web devs see the user side here and the choice they're asking users to make when they optimize for chrome without considering the experience of other browsers.
I agree with you on everything you wrote, thanks for taking time to explain it.
The situation is not great, it's true that for regular users Chrome is basically spyware and battery drain.
I've been waiting for Mozilla to create a better webdev console (or even copy Chrome's) and I'd move instantly.
I do use more than just Chrome (ungoogled Chromium, Edge, Firefox) and I also experience the "regular user" problem when a site is fine in Chrome but not in Firefox so I'm split between two worlds as well, and believe me - I feel your frustration.
Not only is it painfully slow compared to Chromium, but it sometimes will break on "phantom" breakpoints which cannot be seen or removed, which completely roadblock further work until the browser is restarted.
poisonborz|4 years ago
csydas|4 years ago
I don't know why others are disagreeing (I assume this is why they down vote), but I am not fond of your statement because it hits a sore spot for me with web devs and users: you like it because it's convenient for you as a web dev. Chrome is anything but better for me as a user.
I've written something like this before but my frustration with web dev and websites in general is that my understanding is that web devs have an unrealistic expectation for how users use their sites and optimize for a use pattern that doesn't match reality.
I might spend a few minutes on any sight for any given day; typically I'm on a Mac so of course I want safari for the battery life benefits. When I encounter a site that is using some chrome only API or tooling and no longer works, I have a decision to make: do I really want to install another browser to view something I might not even look at more than a few minutes just because the site uses a call only chrome supports? Or do I just want to skip it?
So far, the second option has been my choice every time as I just have not found a site that warrants a dedicated browser to view.
For devs the decision is for their convenience, and because web dev doesn't explain its decision, I just have to live with the consequences. This means that a site that works perfectly fine one day,even sometimes a few minutes ago, suddenly stops working because of a behind the scenes change and I have no idea what the issue is, why a change was made, and for who's benefit.
I am not aiming this post at you specifically, it's just such a perspective I find is unique to web dev and to software with rolling updates, but even the latter has release notes. Web dev is weirdly accountable to none of it's audience, and even worse, many web devs choose to argue against the users choice in browser instead of responding and fixing the issues with specific browsers. I'm not even talking about Fringe browsers, just the major ones (FF, safari,Chrome). Even mobile FF gets broken on some sites that try to use chrome only optimizations
Chrome for users is NOT a guaranteed best option. It lacks battery optimizations on most machines, it doesn't support ublock origin, it is incredibly invasive.
The main frustration i have is that if a site does optimize for chrome, it forces a decision that for me is always the same result: will I install chrome just for this site and give up the benefits of other browsers/pay the Google privacy price?
For me that answer is "No", with gusto.
Again this isn't targeted at you, but I really want to ensure web devs see the user side here and the choice they're asking users to make when they optimize for chrome without considering the experience of other browsers.
LAC-Tech|4 years ago
As a web developer, I feel like there aren't that many chrome only APIs, but there are a lot of web standards safari doesn't support.
I wonder if our two categorisations have a large intersection.
fraktl|4 years ago
The situation is not great, it's true that for regular users Chrome is basically spyware and battery drain.
I've been waiting for Mozilla to create a better webdev console (or even copy Chrome's) and I'd move instantly.
I do use more than just Chrome (ungoogled Chromium, Edge, Firefox) and I also experience the "regular user" problem when a site is fine in Chrome but not in Firefox so I'm split between two worlds as well, and believe me - I feel your frustration.
paulryanrogers|4 years ago
adhesive_wombat|4 years ago
Not only is it painfully slow compared to Chromium, but it sometimes will break on "phantom" breakpoints which cannot be seen or removed, which completely roadblock further work until the browser is restarted.
jrib|4 years ago