4 ms·

FF has a strong reputation for adhering to open standards. For Google to not dedicate “scarce resources” (what a choice of words when talking about a company wi

FF has a strong reputation for adhering to open standards. For Google to not dedicate “scarce resources” (what a choice of words when talking about a company with a market cap over Two TRILLION dollars) to those standards, I think it’s fair to call this a deliberate action by leadership to prioritize their browser over any other.

magicalist 2y ago
If the fix is disabling and then reenabling ublock origin, the problem isn't properly testing against web standards.
hombre_fatal 2y ago
This would suggest that google never accidentally makes bad experiences because it can throw big money at everything but that's clearly not the case nor how software nor org management work. I think this is a fantasy we have about big companies, esp big tech companies, often until we work at one. "But they have so much money, surely it wasn't just one guy working on this major thing" and "If they wanted to do it right, it would have been done right" and such.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Point is... Maybe it shouldn't be up to Google that the prioritization other browsers get is "one guy in his spare time." Maybe society is allowed to hold the dominant market player to a higher standard? The market itself is, after all, a made-up set of rules people agree on; we could make those rules encourage multiple options over a single winner.
- knowitnone 2y ago
  so they accidentally not "adhering to open standards"? Thanks for confirming.
tehlike 2y ago
You would change your opinion on my "choice words" if you decide to work at a trillion dollar company one day. Trillion dollar company with probably <100K eng, spread over hundreds of products/features/etc, who also have to go through performance reviews and have to show impact. So yes, my choice words are very intentional in this case. leadership to prioritize their browser -> leadership to prioritize the most popular browsers. Yes.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  > leadership to prioritize their browser -> leadership to prioritize the most popular browsers This should be considered malice rather than incompetence. I believe that's what others are getting at.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    Unless one is of the philosophy that Google is not required to support alternative browsers more than complying with (their best interpretation of) the standard, which is not a philosophically incoherent position. (On the other hand, perfectly reasonable to assert "If the rules say the market leader doesn't have to care about the welfare of others in the market, maybe those rules need to change").
- ajnin 2y ago
  Is 100k somehow a small number? How many of them are working on YouTube? To prioritize an issue and not another is a deliberate act, and YouTube has had problems in Firefox for years.
  - pratnala 2y ago
    Less than 10k and all aren't engineers
  - tehlike 2y ago
    > To prioritize an issue and not another is a deliberate act "sort by revenue", or "sort by users" is not as deliberate in my opinion. But sure.
  - tehlike 2y ago
    Google has Android, Chrome OS, Youtube, Search, Search Ads, Display Ads, Drive and products, Cloud, etc... So divide by all, and each product has much less engs.

magicalist 2y ago

If the fix is disabling and then reenabling ublock origin, the problem isn't properly testing against web standards.

hombre_fatal 2y ago

This would suggest that google never accidentally makes bad experiences because it can throw big money at everything but that's clearly not the case nor how software nor org management work. I think this is a fantasy we have about big companies, esp big tech companies, often until we work at one. "But they have so much money, surely it wasn't just one guy working on this major thing" and "If they wanted to do it right, it would have been done right" and such.

shadowgovt 2y ago
Point is... Maybe it shouldn't be up to Google that the prioritization other browsers get is "one guy in his spare time." Maybe society is allowed to hold the dominant market player to a higher standard? The market itself is, after all, a made-up set of rules people agree on; we could make those rules encourage multiple options over a single winner.
knowitnone 2y ago
so they accidentally not "adhering to open standards"? Thanks for confirming.

tehlike 2y ago

You would change your opinion on my "choice words" if you decide to work at a trillion dollar company one day. Trillion dollar company with probably <100K eng, spread over hundreds of products/features/etc, who also have to go through performance reviews and have to show impact. So yes, my choice words are very intentional in this case. leadership to prioritize their browser -> leadership to prioritize the most popular browsers. Yes.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
> leadership to prioritize their browser -> leadership to prioritize the most popular browsers This should be considered malice rather than incompetence. I believe that's what others are getting at.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Unless one is of the philosophy that Google is not required to support alternative browsers more than complying with (their best interpretation of) the standard, which is not a philosophically incoherent position. (On the other hand, perfectly reasonable to assert "If the rules say the market leader doesn't have to care about the welfare of others in the market, maybe those rules need to change").
ajnin 2y ago
Is 100k somehow a small number? How many of them are working on YouTube? To prioritize an issue and not another is a deliberate act, and YouTube has had problems in Firefox for years.
- pratnala 2y ago
  Less than 10k and all aren't engineers
- tehlike 2y ago
  > To prioritize an issue and not another is a deliberate act "sort by revenue", or "sort by users" is not as deliberate in my opinion. But sure.
- tehlike 2y ago
  Google has Android, Chrome OS, Youtube, Search, Search Ads, Display Ads, Drive and products, Cloud, etc... So divide by all, and each product has much less engs.