[sangupta]

Just thinking: So, Google makes life easier for users by creating Chrome and getting us respite from IE. When they moved the web really forward and way faster than others (Edge/Opera switched to Chromium too) - the DOJ wants them to give it away. It's like raising an exceptional child only to be asked to be adopted when they grow to be an adult.

[chomp]

Your analogy isn’t accurate because the child wasn’t exceptional, it only exists a vehicle for maintaining Google’s ad dominance.

It’s like raising an exceptional child who is a criminal and having people come out of the woodwork saying “he was so good, he didn’t do anything wrong”

[sangupta]

Agreed that it brings search dominance. But, it's like siblings helping each other out in life. A child excelled in a field where other failed. Now this child also helps promote his/her sibling's business.

Many Apple products only connect with other Apple products. Microsoft keeps poking/pushing to use Edge on Microsoft. Brave browser did eat into share and made a mark.

What is stopping from other kids in the field (FF, Edge, Opera etc) to be better, beat Chrome and also blocks ads?

[orev]

The removal of Manifest v2 support clearly shows there’s a conflict of interest there. The best thing for users is to allow ad blocking, but the best thing for Google is to not allow it. Since they’re choosing to impede/reduce those capabilities, we can clearly see who’s getting the benefit.

I know there are other arguments against Manifest v2, but they seem like parallel construction to justify the “real” reason.