Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So you think they'd spend the time and money to make the engine better a goal of making the effort and cost advantageous? Talk about a straw man! Clearly the entire point of this is so they can leverage the advantages that can arise just as Apple leverages the advantages from forking KHTML and making their own ARM designs, and just as how Google has taken advantage by making V8 instead of using Nitro.
Those aren't the advantages I'm talking about. Apple didn't create Safari because it wanted to write a browser, they did it to insure that the Mac could provide users with a decent browser so they didn't end up 2nd class Internet citizens, which was a real danger at that moment in history.
Now, there seems not to be, nor has there ever been, any realistic threat that Google was going to be shut off any platform because web browsers would somehow lock them out. They might pay out a little less money to others if everyone used Chrome, but I don't see that as enough of a motivation to engage in this much effort. And, clearly, Chrome is not a public service project.
So, what exactly are their motivations here and what's their goal? (And no, GG, we aren't going to take their word for it. Google doesn't exactly have a record of honesty in its public statements.)
In every other sphere of activity, Google has followed a policy of using whatever strategy they can apply to make users more dependent on them to access information. Why exactly do you believe that Chrome/Blink/V8 are some exception from everything else Google does?
And as for why they haven't done any of this yet, because Chrome and V8 have been around for a while, there is clearly such a thing as a tipping point here. If Google acts before reaching that point, Chrome becomes marginalized, so they have to play nice. Once they reach that point, as IE did, they can do whatever they want, and there's no reason to believe they won't.