2 ms·

> "When I started at Mozilla in 2007 there was no Google Chrome, and most folks we spoke with inside [Google] were Firefox fans," Nightingale recollected in a T

> "When I started at Mozilla in 2007 there was no Google Chrome, and most folks we spoke with inside [Google] were Firefox fans," Nightingale recollected in a Twitter thread on Saturday. > "When Chrome launched... ... many of those same folks started to use Chrome, making it easier to miss Firefox bugs? Jonathan Nightingale is claiming a company-wide conspiracy ("coordinated plan" in Jonathan's words) across "hundreds" of different product teams could be executed without any Firefox users or other internal Mozilla sympathizers picking up on it. We're talking Google here: they have a hard enough time coordinating internally when they're openly trying. This seems like a very complicated theory when the natural consequences of everyone switching to a different product provide an obvious and ready explanation for what we're seeing. Ideally developers ought to test everything across different browsers, I agree, but we know in practice developers are only human and humans are lazy. And testing is still no substitute for using a browser day in and day out. I want better support for Firefox and other browsers, but blaming lack of support on a conspiracy is an easy cop-out that doesn't help us address the real issues at stake.

leshenka 7y ago
> We're talking Google here: they have a hard enough time coordinating internally when they're openly trying. Yet for some reason each oops only resulted in Google's favor. It's like slipping on banana peel and doing a perfect backflip. Every time.
WorldMaker 7y ago
> We're talking Google here: they have a hard enough time coordinating internally when they're openly trying. Which is an interesting point here: is Google a drunken master pretending to be an incompetent but way more coordinated than they appear or is Google simply an incompetent company whose left hand never knows what its right hand is doing, but yet has been extremely lucky at pretending to be competent? (Either way, given such history how can you trust anything about Google if they seem so uncoordinated and prone to so many "oops"?)

leshenka 7y ago

> We're talking Google here: they have a hard enough time coordinating internally when they're openly trying. Yet for some reason each oops only resulted in Google's favor. It's like slipping on banana peel and doing a perfect backflip. Every time.

WorldMaker 7y ago

> We're talking Google here: they have a hard enough time coordinating internally when they're openly trying. Which is an interesting point here: is Google a drunken master pretending to be an incompetent but way more coordinated than they appear or is Google simply an incompetent company whose left hand never knows what its right hand is doing, but yet has been extremely lucky at pretending to be competent? (Either way, given such history how can you trust anything about Google if they seem so uncoordinated and prone to so many "oops"?)