Definitely putting on my fireproof suit here, but consider it possible that
(a) The web is a failure
and
(b) Chrome monopoly is the best outcome for the web.
OK, obviously the web is great, I'm using it right now, and it hosts millions of useful websites, so why is it a failure?
Consider the simple act of buying something. To make a purchase on the web, I have to type in a 16 digit credit card number, 3 digit CRC number, expiry date, name and address. Every single time. After 30 years of the web, nobody has figured out a way to make this securer or simpler. Well, no, I'm sure many have figured out a way, but nobody has implemented it.
By contrast, on my phone, I can buy with a simple fingerprint check. Apple provides that service, I find it valuable, and the firms in Apple's walled garden of apps find it valuable too.
Why is payment easy on iPhone? Because Apple, as monopoly provider of that walled garden, makes a profit from making it easy.
Why is payment hard on the web? Because there is nobody to make a profit from making it easy.
In short, the web's infrastructure is a massive public good, and like many public goods, in the absence of government coercion it is underprovided.
Web payment is just one example, and I'm sure there are others, but it's an important one. The lack of a decent payment infrastructure leads to pathologies. When paying for content is a hassle, people give away free content and use alternative monetization strategies like advertising - so we get Facebook, "you are the product" and manipulation by algorithms. When paying for items is a hassle, it's easier to just use Amazon who have stored your credit card already - so we get a huge ecommerce monopoly.
If Google effectively owned the web, change would happen faster; users would be more satisfied; web development would get easier instead of being a mass of horrible hacks around 30 years of legacy standards.
There'd still be competition. Apple, Google and Facebook would compete as platforms. That's an oligopoly, but platforms are natural oligopolies - nobody wants 1000 different platforms.
Conclusion: Chrome's dominance is probably efficient.
> To make a purchase on the web, I have to type in a 16 digit credit card number, 3 digit CRC number, expiry date, name and address. Every single time.
When I make a purchase in my browser, either:
* I select a card from the autofill drop-down and validate with CVC or fingerprint
* I'm already logged in, and the site remembers previous cards
Is it possible you have a bad experience here because you've asked your browser not to remember credit cards?
FF user. I don't see any option related to credit card usage. I didn't find anything in about:config either, though the defaults mention credit cards in some places.
The subtler point is whether a website owner can put in place a simple payment system - and be sure it will work on all clients. This is what you can do with Apple Pay, right?
Umm they can? What is PayPal and the like if not exactly that? I don't enter my CC every single time I buy online with PayPal. I just login and choose the card/address I want. The only thing Apple Pay offers is the ability to login with TouchID/FaceID.
Paypal is one solution, yes. Unfortunately, though I have paypal, most of the places I buy at don't offer it. There's a two-sided market issue. Sellers want to be sure that many buyers use Paypal before they commit to integrating it. Buyers want to be sure that Paypal is ubiquitous before they commit to having an account. In fact, neither of these conditions holds for everyone. So Paypal makes things easier, yes, but only for a minority of my purchases.
Is that not true of Apple Pay too? Lots of places I can't use Apple Pay. Amazon, Steam, Epic Games, etc.
I'd argue PayPal is way more ubiquitous than Apple Pay.
Some sellers don't want to use a service like Apple Pay/PayPal because they don't want to give up the money from the associated fees like Amazon for example.
There are lots of places on the web where you can't use Apple Pay, but on iPhone apps it is fairly ubiquitous. Amazon is an exception, perhaps unsurprisingly.
> Consider the simple act of buying something. To make a purchase on the web, I have to type in a 16 digit credit card number, 3 digit CRC number, expiry date, name and address. Every single time. After 30 years of the web, nobody has figured out a way to make this securer or simpler. Well, no, I'm sure many have figured out a way, but nobody has implemented it.
> By contrast, on my phone, I can buy with a simple fingerprint check. Apple provides that service, I find it valuable, and the firms in Apple's walled garden of apps find it valuable too.
> Why is payment easy on iPhone? Because Apple, as monopoly provider of that walled garden, makes a profit from making it easy.
There are tons of competing companies out there that make a profit by making online payments easier for vendors and users. Vendors that support stripe allow you to make purchases within ~3 clicks.
Yup. If everyone used Stripe, I'm sure things would be better.
My point wasn't that there's no tech which makes payment easier. There is. My point is that there's no standard; as a result there are many different technologies and providers, none of which have dominance; as a result, I still have to fill in my cc details for the majority of websites where I purchase something. (Not for the majority of purchases - because I make most purchases on one website, Amazon. But then we're back to my point about pathologies.)
> To make a purchase on the web, I have to type in a 16 digit credit card number, 3 digit CRC number, expiry date, name and address. Every single time. After 30 years of the web, nobody has figured out a way to make this securer or simpler. Well, no, I'm sure many have figured out a way, but nobody has implemented it.
Is that really true? There are payment processors that fulfill the role Apple does when you pay on their device and, just like, Apple, make profit from those transactions.
Paypal may not be as dominant in the grand scheme of things (anymore?) making the market of transaction processing somewhat fragmented but you still don't need to enter credit card details every single time you buy from a new vendor. I certainly don't.
For a significant portion of the population (disclaimer: me included) this equals to going on amazon and pushing a few buttons. That’s on par with anything Apple provides.
I think your whole point about the web being complex is because you’re ok with that complexity so you engage with it. People who want to keep it simple naturally do so (we don’t gush over GAFA for no reason. A ton of users live their online life within these 5 companies).
"The lack of a decent payment infrastructure leads to pathologies.... When paying for items is a hassle, it's easier to just use Amazon who have stored your credit card already - so we get a huge ecommerce monopoly."
Sorry I didn’t address it directly; It’s a valid view in isolation, but you can’t complain about Amazon’s ecommerce monopoly and put forward Apple’s own restrictive solution as a counter to that. Both aim at keeping you captive in their ecosystem, neither are healthy by your standard.
That's fair, but these ecosystems are not the same. Many different shops have apps for iPhone, and Apple doesn't charge on purchases made from those shops. Amazon does, and it may choose to charge monopoly prices on certain items.
(a) The web is a failure
and
(b) Chrome monopoly is the best outcome for the web.
OK, obviously the web is great, I'm using it right now, and it hosts millions of useful websites, so why is it a failure?
Consider the simple act of buying something. To make a purchase on the web, I have to type in a 16 digit credit card number, 3 digit CRC number, expiry date, name and address. Every single time. After 30 years of the web, nobody has figured out a way to make this securer or simpler. Well, no, I'm sure many have figured out a way, but nobody has implemented it.
By contrast, on my phone, I can buy with a simple fingerprint check. Apple provides that service, I find it valuable, and the firms in Apple's walled garden of apps find it valuable too.
Why is payment easy on iPhone? Because Apple, as monopoly provider of that walled garden, makes a profit from making it easy.
Why is payment hard on the web? Because there is nobody to make a profit from making it easy.
In short, the web's infrastructure is a massive public good, and like many public goods, in the absence of government coercion it is underprovided.
Web payment is just one example, and I'm sure there are others, but it's an important one. The lack of a decent payment infrastructure leads to pathologies. When paying for content is a hassle, people give away free content and use alternative monetization strategies like advertising - so we get Facebook, "you are the product" and manipulation by algorithms. When paying for items is a hassle, it's easier to just use Amazon who have stored your credit card already - so we get a huge ecommerce monopoly.
If Google effectively owned the web, change would happen faster; users would be more satisfied; web development would get easier instead of being a mass of horrible hacks around 30 years of legacy standards.
There'd still be competition. Apple, Google and Facebook would compete as platforms. That's an oligopoly, but platforms are natural oligopolies - nobody wants 1000 different platforms.
Conclusion: Chrome's dominance is probably efficient.