5 ms·

Mozilla managed to do that because despite Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviour, the OS itself didn't restrict what code you could run on it. Apple has codifi

Mozilla managed to do that because despite Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviour, the OS itself didn't restrict what code you could run on it. Apple has codified their anticompetitive behaviour into iOS

Nextgrid 4y ago
Yes, I agree with that. However, the rest of my comment talks about the desktop where the situation hasn't changed much from decades ago - the incumbents use anti-competitive tactics, but people can still install alternative browsers and may do so if you give them a tangible reason to do so, but the hypothesis is hard to prove because Mozilla isn't actually interested in giving the masses a tangible reason to use its browser over the incumbents'.
- echelon 4y ago
  Google pays for an order of magnitude more engineers for Chrome. This is the only reason they're ahead of Firefox. They're doing this from an artificial law-breaking economy they built. The same with Apple and their protectionist monopoly platform. Both companies deserve DOJ slaps. If you're a start-up founder, these companies are seeping you of the time and budget you need to succeed. They're unfairly sucking the air out of the economy for the rest of us.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Let's assume we live in a perfect world where Firefox has 100% compatibility-parity with Chrome. Do you think Firefox would have a significant marketshare, and if so, why? I don't see what out-of-the-box Firefox brings to a non-technical user compared to Chrome. Yes, it can be made significantly better than Chrome with specific configuration and add-ons like uBlock Origin, but non-technical users aren't aware of that and will not try (and those who are already use Firefox).
    - hkt 4y ago
      What exactly does Firefox lack in this regard? I'm curious. I've used it for years and the only noticeable difference to me is that it doesn't nag me about having a Google account.
      - Nextgrid 4y ago
        Well it's not really that it lacks, but that it also doesn't have any compelling features (for the average user) to switch either. When it comes to nagging, Firefox is unfortunately also quite bad, every major update it will find some bullshit to nag you about such as "colorways", Pocket or a VPN.
        endemic 4y ago
        I usually “sell” Firefox along with uBlock Origin. You’re correct that out of the box functionality for Firefox isn’t super compelling, but regular users notice the improved browsing experience that comes with the blocker.
    - echelon 4y ago
      That isn't even an even playing field! Google defaults you to Chrome on Android. That's 49% of users, and most won't know to switch. Google assaults you with Chrome ads on their search page if you use a default browser without adblock. Google pays for default search status on Apple. Then pulls you in. Google is currently running a nationwide "better on Chrome" ad campaign. Billboards and murals everywhere.
      - Nextgrid 4y ago
        Why are you intentionally avoiding the question? Tell me why a non-technical user should prefer even a hypothetical, 100%-compatible Firefox over Chrome. Remember that they are non-technical, they aren't aware of FOSS or the history of Mozilla and have no ideological reason to pick Firefox, so the decision has to be made purely on functionality. What groundbreaking, relevant-to-the-average-user functionality (dev tools and advanced, off-by-default privacy options don't count) does Firefox have out of the box that Chrome doesn't?
  - btilly 4y ago
    That isn't how this works. Google is investing a lot in making websites run better on user computers, while protecting the users from malicious websites. This is a problem if you're trying to sell a browser. And an opportunity if you're trying to make a good website. If Google was actually sucking air out of the ecosystem, all of the VCs would stop investing in websites because no money could be made. But they invest because Google isn't doing that, and there is a ton of air in the economy. For a contrast, look at what happened to Windows applications in the 1990s. Microsoft really did suck the air out of the system. Startups really did die en masse. And VC stopped investing in Windows applications because your viable outcomes were fail, be bought out by Microsoft cheaply, or be wiped out by Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior. None of which made money for the VC.
    - onemoresoop 4y ago
      > Google is investing a lot in making websites run better on user computers, while protecting the users from malicious websites. This is a problem if you're trying to sell a browser. And an opportunity if you're trying to make a good website. Google is also investing a lot into gulping up large chunks of the market too, they're investing heavily into spying on user behavior and collecting as much info as possible. All in the name of improving usability. Not saying only Google is the culprit here, all big players do it. What I am pointing out is that a lot of these are really hurting the user in the name of making things better for the user.
- admax88qqq 4y ago
  You're not wrong, but every thread about browsers like this turns into people armchair running mozilla and complaining about their personal pet peeves. I don't disagree that there's probably things Mozilla could do better in their desktop browser. I do think it's an off topic distraction in a comment thread sparked by a report of how operating systems are abusing their position to limit competition in web browsers.
sixstringtheory 4y ago
What Apple is doing is not anticompetitive because they own the platform. Microsoft was anticompetitive because they wound up dictating what OEMs could or could not do with the platform they built. Not the same situation.
- stephc_int13 4y ago
  Yes, exactly the opposite of what you said.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Your comment doesn't make sense. Apple "owns" the platform because... why, exactly? Because they build the software and the hardware? Or because you can only run software that they approve? The PC OEMs didn't "build" a platform, they licensed Windows from Microsoft and that license contained anti-competitive clauses. Apple's restrictions on iOS are also anti-competitive, regardless of the fact that they also built the hardware.
  - sixstringtheory 4y ago
    > Because they build the software and the hardware? Yes > Apple's restrictions on iOS are also anti-competitive Why, exactly? Should Subway be forced to allow McDonald's to sell Big Macs inside of each of their locations? That's competition, not anticompetitive.
    - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
      Should McDonald's be able to tell their franchisees that they can't sell Whoppers? That seems like the more apt comparison, and put like that it's hard to see why Microsoft would be in the wrong.
    - ColonelPhantom 4y ago
      The iOS situation is closer to Subway forbidding me from taking my food home and putting McDonald's sauce on it, even though I bought the damn sandwich.
loudmax 4y ago
In Microsoft's case, there is an entire world of software that only runs on Windows. There are a lot of circumstances where businesses and users simply don't have a choice to run an operating system other than Windows because so much of the software world is built around it. There software that runs only on macOS, but nowhere near the extent of Windows. The overwhelming majority of people using a Mac have made a decision to use an Apple product. For most Windows users, this was never a choice.

Nextgrid 4y ago

Yes, I agree with that. However, the rest of my comment talks about the desktop where the situation hasn't changed much from decades ago - the incumbents use anti-competitive tactics, but people can still install alternative browsers and may do so if you give them a tangible reason to do so, but the hypothesis is hard to prove because Mozilla isn't actually interested in giving the masses a tangible reason to use its browser over the incumbents'.

echelon 4y ago
Google pays for an order of magnitude more engineers for Chrome. This is the only reason they're ahead of Firefox. They're doing this from an artificial law-breaking economy they built. The same with Apple and their protectionist monopoly platform. Both companies deserve DOJ slaps. If you're a start-up founder, these companies are seeping you of the time and budget you need to succeed. They're unfairly sucking the air out of the economy for the rest of us.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Let's assume we live in a perfect world where Firefox has 100% compatibility-parity with Chrome. Do you think Firefox would have a significant marketshare, and if so, why? I don't see what out-of-the-box Firefox brings to a non-technical user compared to Chrome. Yes, it can be made significantly better than Chrome with specific configuration and add-ons like uBlock Origin, but non-technical users aren't aware of that and will not try (and those who are already use Firefox).
  - hkt 4y ago
    What exactly does Firefox lack in this regard? I'm curious. I've used it for years and the only noticeable difference to me is that it doesn't nag me about having a Google account.
    - Nextgrid 4y ago
      Well it's not really that it lacks, but that it also doesn't have any compelling features (for the average user) to switch either. When it comes to nagging, Firefox is unfortunately also quite bad, every major update it will find some bullshit to nag you about such as "colorways", Pocket or a VPN.
      - endemic 4y ago
        I usually “sell” Firefox along with uBlock Origin. You’re correct that out of the box functionality for Firefox isn’t super compelling, but regular users notice the improved browsing experience that comes with the blocker.
  - echelon 4y ago
    That isn't even an even playing field! Google defaults you to Chrome on Android. That's 49% of users, and most won't know to switch. Google assaults you with Chrome ads on their search page if you use a default browser without adblock. Google pays for default search status on Apple. Then pulls you in. Google is currently running a nationwide "better on Chrome" ad campaign. Billboards and murals everywhere.
    - Nextgrid 4y ago
      Why are you intentionally avoiding the question? Tell me why a non-technical user should prefer even a hypothetical, 100%-compatible Firefox over Chrome. Remember that they are non-technical, they aren't aware of FOSS or the history of Mozilla and have no ideological reason to pick Firefox, so the decision has to be made purely on functionality. What groundbreaking, relevant-to-the-average-user functionality (dev tools and advanced, off-by-default privacy options don't count) does Firefox have out of the box that Chrome doesn't?
- btilly 4y ago
  That isn't how this works. Google is investing a lot in making websites run better on user computers, while protecting the users from malicious websites. This is a problem if you're trying to sell a browser. And an opportunity if you're trying to make a good website. If Google was actually sucking air out of the ecosystem, all of the VCs would stop investing in websites because no money could be made. But they invest because Google isn't doing that, and there is a ton of air in the economy. For a contrast, look at what happened to Windows applications in the 1990s. Microsoft really did suck the air out of the system. Startups really did die en masse. And VC stopped investing in Windows applications because your viable outcomes were fail, be bought out by Microsoft cheaply, or be wiped out by Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior. None of which made money for the VC.
  - onemoresoop 4y ago
    > Google is investing a lot in making websites run better on user computers, while protecting the users from malicious websites. This is a problem if you're trying to sell a browser. And an opportunity if you're trying to make a good website. Google is also investing a lot into gulping up large chunks of the market too, they're investing heavily into spying on user behavior and collecting as much info as possible. All in the name of improving usability. Not saying only Google is the culprit here, all big players do it. What I am pointing out is that a lot of these are really hurting the user in the name of making things better for the user.
admax88qqq 4y ago
You're not wrong, but every thread about browsers like this turns into people armchair running mozilla and complaining about their personal pet peeves. I don't disagree that there's probably things Mozilla could do better in their desktop browser. I do think it's an off topic distraction in a comment thread sparked by a report of how operating systems are abusing their position to limit competition in web browsers.

sixstringtheory 4y ago

What Apple is doing is not anticompetitive because they own the platform. Microsoft was anticompetitive because they wound up dictating what OEMs could or could not do with the platform they built. Not the same situation.

stephc_int13 4y ago
Yes, exactly the opposite of what you said.
jaywalk 4y ago
Your comment doesn't make sense. Apple "owns" the platform because... why, exactly? Because they build the software and the hardware? Or because you can only run software that they approve? The PC OEMs didn't "build" a platform, they licensed Windows from Microsoft and that license contained anti-competitive clauses. Apple's restrictions on iOS are also anti-competitive, regardless of the fact that they also built the hardware.
- sixstringtheory 4y ago
  > Because they build the software and the hardware? Yes > Apple's restrictions on iOS are also anti-competitive Why, exactly? Should Subway be forced to allow McDonald's to sell Big Macs inside of each of their locations? That's competition, not anticompetitive.
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    Should McDonald's be able to tell their franchisees that they can't sell Whoppers? That seems like the more apt comparison, and put like that it's hard to see why Microsoft would be in the wrong.
  - ColonelPhantom 4y ago
    The iOS situation is closer to Subway forbidding me from taking my food home and putting McDonald's sauce on it, even though I bought the damn sandwich.

loudmax 4y ago

In Microsoft's case, there is an entire world of software that only runs on Windows. There are a lot of circumstances where businesses and users simply don't have a choice to run an operating system other than Windows because so much of the software world is built around it. There software that runs only on macOS, but nowhere near the extent of Windows. The overwhelming majority of people using a Mac have made a decision to use an Apple product. For most Windows users, this was never a choice.