3 ms·
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
by 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.
- IshKebab 7y agoWhy pay to develop some other company's product when you can just develop it yourself? Nobody would do that. Also when Chrome was released IE still had a 60% market share. You can't ignore that.
- dao- 7y agoThat nobody would do that is contradicted by the fact that Google did it for years, for instance. But Google ended up doing what most for-profit corporations would do. I'm not saying it's particularly immoral. It's pretty normal, for better or worse. What I am saying is that the narrative that Google created Chrome only to further the Web does not add up. Also, I was not ignoring that IE had 60% market share. That's perfectly in line with what I said, as that market share was in fact shrinking without Chrome.