6 ms·

lets not forget their latest and greatest of releasing chrome for free until it saturated the market and became a monopoly then maliciously making changes to re

by soup10 7y ago

lets not forget their latest and greatest of releasing chrome for free until it saturated the market and became a monopoly then maliciously making changes to reduce the effectiveness of adblockers like ublock origin

xkgt 7y ago
And they did all they could to kill Windows Phone (a viable alternative ecosystem at that time) by blocking access to Youtube[1] and providing sub-par experience for their other services. Now I fear Firefox has a similar sisyphean task at hand, trying to keep their browser usable on google services. And for many of the users, that is same as usability of the browser as a whole. [1]https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/microsoft_on_the_issues/2013/08/15/the-limits-of-googles-openness/ https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/microsoft_on_the_issues/...
- Zigurd 7y ago
  Microsoft managed to kill Windows Phone by itself and take Nokia, and a more mature more viable smartphone OS, down with it. Windows phone was a "viable alternative" by the end, but in the beginning it was uncompetitive without any hindrances. Also recall that mobile carriers and OEMs were opposed to Android because it would further degrade their ability to create walled gardens. The carriers lost control of apps, not for lack of trying. Imagine what a world that would be. The FANG succeed largely instead of a carrier-controlled mobile ecosystem. You may think that replaces one kind of oppression with another, but if you weaken the internet platforms, you strengthen the carriers who are now off the net neutrality leash, and who see 5G as an opportunity to gain control of a lot of what we now enjoy as an open internet.
  - endorphone 7y ago
    Also recall that mobile carriers and OEMs were opposed to Android I agree with the other claims (about Microsoft killing Windows Phone through their own actions and choices), however this one is a bit weird. Apple gave essentially no ground to carriers, which was a huge change. Which is why carriers all embraced Android, at a time when it was horribly uncompetitive, because it returned control to them, letting them preload any nonsense they wanted, making it undeletable, etc. Apple updates come through Apple alone. If you have a Samsung phone on a carrier, they still matriculate through your carrier. Add that of the 30% cut that the Play Store takes for apps and games, historically one half of that went to the carriers (it was always very nebulous, but again was one of the reasons carriers pushed Android when it was not good).
    - Zigurd 7y ago
      It was tough sledding at first, with just T-Mobile and HTC, both second-tier players, being first to adopt Android. Android's SDK had been released well before this first deal. Android could have turned out to be an interesting but minor embedded OS with a less well run ecosystem of system integrators than Windows CE. Android was in fact an alternative to iPhone. Google was more amenable to carrier and OEM mods to Android and third-party app stores. But carriers still were hoping the traditional OEM and app store walled gardens would hold, and Apple could be confined to high-end customers. App store revenue, at that time, was still small for both the carriers' walled garden and for Apple. It was more a matter of control.
  - p0nce 7y ago
    I've only met happy Windows Phone users
    - maxxxxx 7y ago
      That makes it even worse. They had a great product and still managed to screw it up.
    - xkgt 7y ago
      I am not sure how much we can read into it because they are the ones who are already bought in to that ecosystem. Even I was a happy WP user and but I can't be sure how much of my satisfaction was out of choice-supportive bias.
  - z3t4 7y ago
    Apple and other hardware will not agree. But peope buy devices bacause of the apps. The reason symbian, meego, blackberry, windows et all died was because some of the popular apps where only available on Android and iPhone. Microsoft of course knew this but failed because they where unfriendly to developers. And are now desperately trying to bye goodwill in order to keep Windows on PC relevant.
- burtonator 7y ago
  It's going to be interesting if we have to lie about user agents. If you lie about the UA and it works then something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
dmix 7y ago
[citation needed]
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  Err, is there another reason for chrome to exist? Google is no philanthropist.
  - bjt 7y ago
    To compete with Microsoft, who used to try to leverage their power in similar ways.
  - IshKebab 7y ago
    Yes, because before Chrome existed most people used IE which is very slow to create or adopt new web standards and is full of bugs. That makes developing complex websites really difficult. What company do we know that makes some the most complex web sites out there and would really benefit if the web had... I dunno WebGL so they could make a smooth mapping site, maybe with a 3D mode. Or a new version of HTTP so their sites load faster. Or a new version of TCP that works better on mobile. Or native web components that makes their web framework faster. Or HTML video so their video streaming site is more reliable. I'll give you a hint - it starts with "Googl". They created Chrome because IE was holding them back. Not to kill as blockers (did IE ever even support as blockers). Some people here don't use their brains...
    - dao- 7y ago
      Reality was a bit different from what you describe. Firefox was a thing. Its market share was rising slowly but steadily. Google paid leading Firefox engineers such as Ben Goodger and Darin Fisher. It could have doubled down, improved Firefox's performance, marketed it aggressively, and then your narrative would make sense. Instead they pulled the engineers to create Chrome. There was no need at all for that except that Google wanted more direct control over the Internet which the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation ultimately wouldn't give them.

by soup10 7y ago

xkgt 7y ago

And they did all they could to kill Windows Phone (a viable alternative ecosystem at that time) by blocking access to Youtube[1] and providing sub-par experience for their other services. Now I fear Firefox has a similar sisyphean task at hand, trying to keep their browser usable on google services. And for many of the users, that is same as usability of the browser as a whole. [1]https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/microsoft_on_the_issues/2013/08/15/the-limits-of-googles-openness/ https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/microsoft_on_the_issues/...

Zigurd 7y ago
Microsoft managed to kill Windows Phone by itself and take Nokia, and a more mature more viable smartphone OS, down with it. Windows phone was a "viable alternative" by the end, but in the beginning it was uncompetitive without any hindrances. Also recall that mobile carriers and OEMs were opposed to Android because it would further degrade their ability to create walled gardens. The carriers lost control of apps, not for lack of trying. Imagine what a world that would be. The FANG succeed largely instead of a carrier-controlled mobile ecosystem. You may think that replaces one kind of oppression with another, but if you weaken the internet platforms, you strengthen the carriers who are now off the net neutrality leash, and who see 5G as an opportunity to gain control of a lot of what we now enjoy as an open internet.
- endorphone 7y ago
  Also recall that mobile carriers and OEMs were opposed to Android I agree with the other claims (about Microsoft killing Windows Phone through their own actions and choices), however this one is a bit weird. Apple gave essentially no ground to carriers, which was a huge change. Which is why carriers all embraced Android, at a time when it was horribly uncompetitive, because it returned control to them, letting them preload any nonsense they wanted, making it undeletable, etc. Apple updates come through Apple alone. If you have a Samsung phone on a carrier, they still matriculate through your carrier. Add that of the 30% cut that the Play Store takes for apps and games, historically one half of that went to the carriers (it was always very nebulous, but again was one of the reasons carriers pushed Android when it was not good).
  - Zigurd 7y ago
    It was tough sledding at first, with just T-Mobile and HTC, both second-tier players, being first to adopt Android. Android's SDK had been released well before this first deal. Android could have turned out to be an interesting but minor embedded OS with a less well run ecosystem of system integrators than Windows CE. Android was in fact an alternative to iPhone. Google was more amenable to carrier and OEM mods to Android and third-party app stores. But carriers still were hoping the traditional OEM and app store walled gardens would hold, and Apple could be confined to high-end customers. App store revenue, at that time, was still small for both the carriers' walled garden and for Apple. It was more a matter of control.
- p0nce 7y ago
  I've only met happy Windows Phone users
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    That makes it even worse. They had a great product and still managed to screw it up.
  - xkgt 7y ago
    I am not sure how much we can read into it because they are the ones who are already bought in to that ecosystem. Even I was a happy WP user and but I can't be sure how much of my satisfaction was out of choice-supportive bias.
- z3t4 7y ago
  Apple and other hardware will not agree. But peope buy devices bacause of the apps. The reason symbian, meego, blackberry, windows et all died was because some of the popular apps where only available on Android and iPhone. Microsoft of course knew this but failed because they where unfriendly to developers. And are now desperately trying to bye goodwill in order to keep Windows on PC relevant.
burtonator 7y ago
It's going to be interesting if we have to lie about user agents. If you lie about the UA and it works then something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

dmix 7y ago

[citation needed]

SomeOldThrow 7y ago
Err, is there another reason for chrome to exist? Google is no philanthropist.
- bjt 7y ago
  To compete with Microsoft, who used to try to leverage their power in similar ways.
- IshKebab 7y ago
  Yes, because before Chrome existed most people used IE which is very slow to create or adopt new web standards and is full of bugs. That makes developing complex websites really difficult. What company do we know that makes some the most complex web sites out there and would really benefit if the web had... I dunno WebGL so they could make a smooth mapping site, maybe with a 3D mode. Or a new version of HTTP so their sites load faster. Or a new version of TCP that works better on mobile. Or native web components that makes their web framework faster. Or HTML video so their video streaming site is more reliable. I'll give you a hint - it starts with "Googl". They created Chrome because IE was holding them back. Not to kill as blockers (did IE ever even support as blockers). Some people here don't use their brains...
  - dao- 7y ago
    Reality was a bit different from what you describe. Firefox was a thing. Its market share was rising slowly but steadily. Google paid leading Firefox engineers such as Ben Goodger and Darin Fisher. It could have doubled down, improved Firefox's performance, marketed it aggressively, and then your narrative would make sense. Instead they pulled the engineers to create Chrome. There was no need at all for that except that Google wanted more direct control over the Internet which the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation ultimately wouldn't give them.