3 ms·

It's clear Google is only testing for chrome engine and safari: which comprise 97% of the browsers being used. Would you increase your testing by 50% to thoroug

It's clear Google is only testing for chrome engine and safari: which comprise 97% of the browsers being used. Would you increase your testing by 50% to thoroughly test for 3% of the market?

beej71 3y ago
_I_ would in their shoes because I'm not just in it for the money and I care about the craft. But clearly I am not them. :-) Mathematically it doesn't make sense for Google. It might make sense from an anti-trust perspective...
- taylodl 3y ago
  It's hard to argue anti-trust when all these browsers are based on Chromium - which is maintained in part by Google, Microsoft, Opera, Vivaldi, Intel, ARM, and Canonical plus several volunteers.
  - Kwpolska 3y ago
    Google is the largest contributor. The others chose Chromium because making a browser that's compatible with all the bloated standards invented by Google would require too much effort.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    > hard to argue anti-trust Makes me wonder if it's the wrong strategy and what an alternative might be. In context, one might assume that Google will use the Chromium monoculture to... ahem more assertively deliver advertisements, which would be "a real dick move" as it goes. I don't know how a concerned citizen might bring attention to or possibly prevent the actualization of such a strategy by Google.
hotnfresh 3y ago
In most companies, when 3% represents an in-fact huge number because you have a very successful product, you absolutely do test for that 3%. It’s tiny companies that may ignore 3% as too expensive to worry about.
foob 3y ago
As I said, the decisions are locally reasonable. However, if not supporting Firefox potentially exposed my company to scrutiny over anti-competitive behavior, then, yes, I would absolutely invest in testing procedures to mitigate that. It's also worth emphasizing that it isn't difficult to support Firefox. I'm pretty sure that many of the sites that I visit do so largely by accident. I do a fair bit of web development, and Firefox/Chrome compatibility has never been an issue in the slightest for me. You almost have to go out of your way to choose Chrome-specific APIs in order to break compatibility. How does virtually every other website on the internet manage it—from my bank to scrappy startups with junior developers coming straight out of bootcamps—while Google with all of their engineering talent and $100+ billion cash on hand just can't seem to make it work?
- taylodl 3y ago
  Serious question - does anti-competitive behavior even apply to open source? Also, it's the open source chromium, not necessarily the browser Chrome, that dominates the browser market. The largest players in the industry, except for Apple, have lined-up to support chromium. Firefox is going against the grain. Is it Google's job to help them with their mission? Loosely speaking, in anti-competitive scenarios you have to show how a significant faction of the consumers are being harmed. You're going to have a tough time with that one.
  - foob 3y ago
    you have to show how a significant faction of the consumers are being harmed. You're going to have a tough time with that one. I'm not a lawyer and can't speak to what qualifies as anti-competitive behavior in a legal sense. Qualitatively, Web Extensions Manifest v3 and Web Environment Integrity are clearly harmful to consumers in my opinion. The first significantly hinders ad blockers, and the second kicks down the ladder on building search engines and hinders competition in that space. Other browsers using Chromium as a base doesn't change the fact that Google almost unilaterally controls it, and Google has made it extraordinarily clear that they're interested in making decisions that prioritize their own best interests over those of their users. I don't see why Chromium being open source would absolve any responsibility here, especially when the open source project in question primarily exists to serve the interests of the profit center of a mega-corp. I deeply support open source software, and I'm glad that Chromium is open source, but being open source doesn't excuse behavior that is against the interests of users whether it qualifies as illegal or not.
davemp 3y ago
> Would you increase your testing by 50% to thoroughly test for 3% of the market? I don't think you get to make these kind of cost cutting decisions when you're a vertically integrated mega-corp who also owns the browser with 65% of the market.
frob 3y ago
At a company at the scale of Google or Facebook, yes. 3% x N billion people = a central European country or two.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
emddudley 3y ago
This is exactly the same situation that web developers faced with Internet Explorer 5 and 6, and it sucked for end users!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sgift 3y ago
Since they throw me "Google recommends Chrome!" adverts in my face for various of their services, even when using a chrome-based browser it's not a case of only testing for Chrome/Safari. It's active work against others.
ben0x539 3y ago
Isn't that a good deal? 50% more testing in a way that can surely be parallelized to some extent does not seem a very steep price at youtube scale.
acdha 3y ago
Here’s another way to answer that question: do Vimeo, Twitch, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Instagram, TikTok, etc. say “let them use Chrome” or do they manage to do entry-level browser testing? The cost increase is nowhere near 50% and clearly they aren’t willing to write off millions of users – only the company with a direct financial incentive does that. Yes, Firefox’s market share has been declining but that’s substantially because Google spent billions of dollars marketing Chrome and promoted it heavily on YouTube, Gmail, Search, etc. Deciding not to test or optimize fits neatly into the same pattern.

It's clear Google is only testing for chrome engine and safari: which comprise 97% of the browsers being used. Would you increase your testing by 50% to thoroughly test for 3% of the market?

beej71 3y ago

_I_ would in their shoes because I'm not just in it for the money and I care about the craft. But clearly I am not them. :-) Mathematically it doesn't make sense for Google. It might make sense from an anti-trust perspective...

taylodl 3y ago
It's hard to argue anti-trust when all these browsers are based on Chromium - which is maintained in part by Google, Microsoft, Opera, Vivaldi, Intel, ARM, and Canonical plus several volunteers.
- Kwpolska 3y ago
  Google is the largest contributor. The others chose Chromium because making a browser that's compatible with all the bloated standards invented by Google would require too much effort.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > hard to argue anti-trust Makes me wonder if it's the wrong strategy and what an alternative might be. In context, one might assume that Google will use the Chromium monoculture to... ahem more assertively deliver advertisements, which would be "a real dick move" as it goes. I don't know how a concerned citizen might bring attention to or possibly prevent the actualization of such a strategy by Google.

hotnfresh 3y ago

In most companies, when 3% represents an in-fact huge number because you have a very successful product, you absolutely do test for that 3%. It’s tiny companies that may ignore 3% as too expensive to worry about.

foob 3y ago

As I said, the decisions are locally reasonable. However, if not supporting Firefox potentially exposed my company to scrutiny over anti-competitive behavior, then, yes, I would absolutely invest in testing procedures to mitigate that. It's also worth emphasizing that it isn't difficult to support Firefox. I'm pretty sure that many of the sites that I visit do so largely by accident. I do a fair bit of web development, and Firefox/Chrome compatibility has never been an issue in the slightest for me. You almost have to go out of your way to choose Chrome-specific APIs in order to break compatibility. How does virtually every other website on the internet manage it—from my bank to scrappy startups with junior developers coming straight out of bootcamps—while Google with all of their engineering talent and $100+ billion cash on hand just can't seem to make it work?

taylodl 3y ago
Serious question - does anti-competitive behavior even apply to open source? Also, it's the open source chromium, not necessarily the browser Chrome, that dominates the browser market. The largest players in the industry, except for Apple, have lined-up to support chromium. Firefox is going against the grain. Is it Google's job to help them with their mission? Loosely speaking, in anti-competitive scenarios you have to show how a significant faction of the consumers are being harmed. You're going to have a tough time with that one.
- foob 3y ago
  you have to show how a significant faction of the consumers are being harmed. You're going to have a tough time with that one. I'm not a lawyer and can't speak to what qualifies as anti-competitive behavior in a legal sense. Qualitatively, Web Extensions Manifest v3 and Web Environment Integrity are clearly harmful to consumers in my opinion. The first significantly hinders ad blockers, and the second kicks down the ladder on building search engines and hinders competition in that space. Other browsers using Chromium as a base doesn't change the fact that Google almost unilaterally controls it, and Google has made it extraordinarily clear that they're interested in making decisions that prioritize their own best interests over those of their users. I don't see why Chromium being open source would absolve any responsibility here, especially when the open source project in question primarily exists to serve the interests of the profit center of a mega-corp. I deeply support open source software, and I'm glad that Chromium is open source, but being open source doesn't excuse behavior that is against the interests of users whether it qualifies as illegal or not.

davemp 3y ago

> Would you increase your testing by 50% to thoroughly test for 3% of the market? I don't think you get to make these kind of cost cutting decisions when you're a vertically integrated mega-corp who also owns the browser with 65% of the market.

frob 3y ago

At a company at the scale of Google or Facebook, yes. 3% x N billion people = a central European country or two.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

emddudley 3y ago

This is exactly the same situation that web developers faced with Internet Explorer 5 and 6, and it sucked for end users!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sgift 3y ago

Since they throw me "Google recommends Chrome!" adverts in my face for various of their services, even when using a chrome-based browser it's not a case of only testing for Chrome/Safari. It's active work against others.

ben0x539 3y ago

Isn't that a good deal? 50% more testing in a way that can surely be parallelized to some extent does not seem a very steep price at youtube scale.

acdha 3y ago

Here’s another way to answer that question: do Vimeo, Twitch, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Instagram, TikTok, etc. say “let them use Chrome” or do they manage to do entry-level browser testing? The cost increase is nowhere near 50% and clearly they aren’t willing to write off millions of users – only the company with a direct financial incentive does that. Yes, Firefox’s market share has been declining but that’s substantially because Google spent billions of dollars marketing Chrome and promoted it heavily on YouTube, Gmail, Search, etc. Deciding not to test or optimize fits neatly into the same pattern.