I don't understand the ideas in this article. Or the writing itself, which is horrible. > Firefox was a legend. It’s of course, still underused by millions and

I don't understand the ideas in this article. Or the writing itself, which is horrible. > Firefox was a legend. It’s of course, still underused by millions and millions of people, but not the way it was before. It was without a doubt one of the most dominant software before. What the fuck does that even mean? Is it underused but not as underused as before? Was it the dominant software before? Before what, exactly? > For example, the mobile version of chrome integrates well with Android and is the default browser in android because both Android and Chrome was owned by Google. > Since google chrome just started giving good competition, and also making itself and default for Android, the marketing and popularity of Chrome flew through the sky. Is competition given? Do browsers give competition? Also, is this good competition, really? I remember a certain software giant who got into some legal trouble over similar mechanics. But I'm happy that the popularity of Chrome didn't flew through the dirt or through water. Flying through water is not as good as it was 'before'