The blanket prohibition went away, but was replaced with a restriction that the interpreter not interpret anything it gets over the network.

Which means that a browser's JS engine is still not ok under the new policy, unless it limits itself to only running JS that came bundled with the browser.

Sure. You can install the Chrome beta. But the point is that it's not installed by default, install numbers are low, and ICS deployment is _also_ low.

All of which is to say that Chrome on Android is not a significant part of Chrome market share.

> Long time since I've seen that

Take a look at http://getcrackin.angrybirds.com/

If it were just "works best", that would be one thing, but the new trend is a real throwback to the days of "we just won't let you in if you're not using the one browser we approve of"

> Because the most-used browser is only just over
> half of the users

True on desktop. Not so much on mobile. And oddly enough sites that do UA sniffing and serve different content to "mobile" browsers have all sorts of WebKit-only stuff going on.

But even on desktop, people seem pretty happy to have it look broken in whatever browser they don't happen to be using.

And we're not talking just small sites. Google has had several instances recently where updates to things like Gmail got rolled out that were apparently not tested in any non-Chrome browsers or something, since they only worked in Chrome. At least Google considers that sort of thing a bug and fixes it quickly....

I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm providing you with information. You can choose what you want to do with it.

You can also choose to think that Google can do no evil, if you want. Nothing wrong with hope and all that.

The problem is that we're rapidly moving back to the "works best" bullshit, but now with "Chrome" or "WebKit" in place of "IE"...

1) The Android browser is not Chrome (different UA string, different JS engine, different WebKit version, etc).

2) Total smartphone internet usage is much much smaller than desktop usage, so numbers that measure usage as opposed to installs are still pretty desktop-dominated.

> but there is a big giant excluded middle between
> "preventing" and "encouraging"

Sure. I've encountered Google evangelists "encouraging" as well. No links, sadly: this was in-person conversation.

> Please provide evidence that other UA's require
> capability sniffing for branded demos

I've seen demos that were using UA sniffing taken down by other UA vendors before. It's hard to provide evidence that something has been removed, obviously...

> if there were strong demand for them, Open
> Source developers would have already
> implemented it.

Oh, it's implemented. It just can't be legally shipped.

> I would thank if you provided links.

I said "heard". As in, people talking, with their mouths. So no links, sadly, sorry.

> and it seems that PNaCl is well within the reach of
> Google and LLVM

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on how you define "within reach". And in particular, there is a good chance that by the time it's portable enough it'll be no faster than JavaScript in most cases.

> This will showcase the superiority of Chrome

Assuming you accept the proposition that Chrome is superior, of course.

> Microsoft wants to lock WIndows 8 to MSIE, which
> could be a disaster.

Sure. Just like Apple locking iPhone to Mobile Safari could be a disaster. But the latter hasn't happened yet, and the former is not necessarily going to happen.

Furthermore, having Windows 8 limited to "MSIE or Chrome" is just as much of a disaster as having it be just "MSIE", in my opinion.

And for what it's worth, for a lot my browsing on Windows (which is somewhat limited; I don't usually use Windows) IE9 is a much better browser than Chrome. So while I agree that old IE versions need to die, that has no bearing on Windows 8, which won't be running those old IE versions.

http://grouek.com/ctrlpaper/ is a good example.

Google could pretty easily prevent this for its "chrome experiments" via a simple policy of requiring capability sniffing, not UA sniffing for them, the way other UAs do for branded demos. But they sure aren't doing that.

> AFAIK, chromium has an excellent user experience.

As long as you don't want the PDF viewer, or Flash, or the H.264 video, or the MP3 audio, or a few other goodies.

> But NaCl is under a BSD-like license.

I have heard people from Opera and Microsoft explicitly express concerns about the licensing of NaCl; whether it was copyright or patent issues I can't tell you.

> And Google is busy developing Portable NaCl

If they ever manage that (which is somewhat doubtful), we can revisit the situation. In the meantime, PNaCl is vaporware, and Google is pushing hard to get people to use NaCl.

> but I ask you to agree that it is not as evil as
> Microsoft

See, that's the funny thing. It's not as evil as Microsoft in 2000. It's just about as evil (in the browser space) as Microsoft today. More evil in some ways, less in others. Apple is more evil than both of them, of course. ;)

So no, I don't agree that MSIE needs to die in general. IE8 and earlier sure do, though.