3 ms·
I get why people want to assume bad faith but it's pointless, it's hard to intentionally sabotage Firefox when nobody tests shit in Firefox at Google. There's (
by jchw 3y ago
I get why people want to assume bad faith but it's pointless, it's hard to intentionally sabotage Firefox when nobody tests shit in Firefox at Google. There's (or at least was) still an internal group of Firefox users a few years ago, but it's small, and internal tools may have poor or no support for Firefox at any given time. When I worked there I made some attempts to fix things (e.g. once Google Cloud was accidentally broken on Firefox during a time when many people were out...) but the bigger problem is that most people don't use Firefox because it's inconvenient or they don't care to and a lot of the tooling only works on Chrome/only works well on Chrome.
There's a silver lining though: it really doesn't matter if it's due to negligence or malicious sabotage, and if they (where "they" is hypothetical leadership within Google that is trying to eliminate Firefox) thought that pleading negligence instead of sabotage was going to be a good defense, we'll see how that holds up to future scrutiny and regulation. I mean hey, Microsoft tried to pull a lot of shit too, and they were probably more competent at it if the Epic Games lawsuit is any indicator of Google's competence right now.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lopis 3y agoTo me, the fact they don't run automated checks on Firefox is in itself malicious and anti-competitive.
- TheCoelacanth 3y agoYes, deciding not to test in Firefox is a decision to break Firefox. Sites with a tiny fraction of Google's resources manage to test Firefox. There's no way they just forgot.