Browser Homogeneity

Earlier today, Opera Software, the developers of the Opera web browser for desktop and mobile platforms, announced a switch from their in-house Presto engine to the open source WebKit. This switch will result in the layoff of approximately 90 employees currently employed in the web engine development team. Opera now joins Apple and Google in using WebKit to power their browsers.

This switch could mark the beginnings of a homogenous browser culture. Chrome, the world's leading desktop web browser, is based on WebKit, as are the native browsers of both Android and iOS, the two dominant mobile platforms. Apple's Safari browser is also based on WebKit. With the move, WebKit will now be used on approximately 54.5% (48.4% Chrome, 4.2% Safari, 1.9% Opera) of all desktop machines, based on the WC3's latest browser market share numbers from January 2013. And with Android and iOS accounting for approximately 89% (53.7% Android, 35% iOS) of the mobile market share, that means all those devices will have WebKit too.

While most users wouldn't care either way what rendered their web browser uses, it's possible that eventually having a single web engine power all web browsers could result in developmental stagnation, similar to what happened with IE5 and IE6 in the early and mid-2000s when Microsoft's Internet Explorer was the dominant browser. Without the competition that Mozilla's Firefox provided, beginning in 2004, it's possible that web browser development could have stalled for many years. The growth of Firefox forced Microsoft to push development of Internet Explorer, which eventually resulted in a vastly improved IE8. No matter what you think of Firefox today, it was the competition between Mozilla's Gecko-engine-powered Firefox and Microsoft's Trident-engine-powered Internet Explorer in the mid-2000s that pushed web browser development for many years. A move to all WebKit-engine based browsers could result in slower development. Companies can still push out minor features that differentiate their products from each other, but the underlying engine remains the same, and the compliance to web standards (or lack thereof) remain the same under the hood.

I found this to be particularly intriguing due to the fact that this move could affect how the web looks to everyone, for better or for worse. If Firefox and Internet Explorer continue to lose market share, and the market becomes dominated by WebKit, the web will look the same for everyone, for better or for worse. Having dabbled in web development, I know what a pain it can be to have to code the same thing for multiple web browsers with slightly different standards support and can understand how an industry move to WebKit would simplify the web development process, but at the same time, as a user, I might prefer the look of one web page over another when it is rendered in two different engines. Text looks different; spacing is different; borders are different; and having the personal choice of using the best looking browser is a choice I don't want to have to give up. That choice is tied in directly with competition in what is essentially a free market for web browsers. Having no choice means having no say in what direction the industry takes.

As for next week's topic, I'm currently taking CS61C. Big data is, for the lack of a better word, a big focus of the course when it comes to warehouse scale computing. I know that a large part of the future of big data is going to be efficiency. With larger data centers serving larger amounts of data, electrical usage and overhead becomes a big concern for companies. I'd be interested in know what potential technologies are over the horizon that might help with efficiency.

Links:
CNET - Opera Cuts Staff
Tech Crunch - Pros and Cons of WebKit Monoculture
WC3 - Browser Stats Jan 2013
Comscore - Mobile Market Share Nov 2012