21–30 of 91 posts
Chrome advances the web. It does this because it's damn good. It's forced others to be good. None of this has anything to do with the point being made in the OP he's responding to.
Everything between the user and the monetization mechanism (advertisement) is strategic to Google. To believe otherwise is to be delusional. It's like the people who thought they could partner with Microsoft in the 90s and it'd be good for them.
I work at Mozilla, and the atmosphere between us and Chrome is not the high-stakes cage match people would have it be. At a fundamental level there's only so much market share, but at an engineer-level, we're insulated from such corporate politics. It's a cooperative atmosphere, and we both succeed with each others' help and knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android's browser isn't nearly as good as Chrome or Firefox and only gets updated with the OS (which means never, for most phones).
Starting with ICS it is Chrome.
According to this HTML5 compliance test, the ICS browser scores 230 (out of 450), while Chrome 15 desktop browser scores 342. Why would these browsers have such distant scores if they shared the same browser core? For comparison, the Firefox 8 desktop browser scores 314 and the Firefox 8 mobile browser scores 314.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree that both have good browsers. What I'm worried about is the lack of emphasis that seems to be placed; Android browser is missing a lot of html5 features (according to caniuse.com it only supports 66% of current features in Android 4.0). Mozilla, on the other hand, seems to be making mobile a priority with all of the work they are doing in WebAPI. Their browser is updating a lot faster than Android's, which…
OS upgrades that a lot of Android users don't get. If I want to get an up to date browser on my Nexus One, I have to use Firefox... as Google said they no longer support the phone. iOS users are in the same boat, but Apple has been providing much more support to older devices.
This article is BS. Google is a for-profit public company, hence google wants to make more money for google's shareholders. If they can do that by pushing chrome (advertizing platform) or firefox (OSS platform that they want to control) then that's what they will do. It doesn't matter what browser you use, so long as you look at their ads. Never mind their horrible privacy practices (2038 cookie) and associated shena…
How is that incompatible with bringing the web forward? Making sure the web is an open platform make sure no one control the technology, therefor Google have more opportunities to display ads. And also people have more opportunities to compete with Google too. Nothing forces you to visit Google properties, etc.
I would've thought this was obvious. Google didn't just pay $300 to stop Firefox from using Bing, although I'm sure that played a big role, too, but I believe the reason Mozilla got $300 million was because they knew how to negotiate the price up. I don't think Mozilla really wanted to change to Bing. Also, Google is a lot better off having an ally in Mozilla. Not so much because they don't want Bing to get a lot of…
I would've thought this was obvious. Google didn't just pay $300 to stop Firefox from using Bing, although I'm sure that played a big role, too, but I believe the reason Mozilla got $300 million was because they knew how to negotiate the price up. I don't think Mozilla really wanted to change to Bing. Also, Google is a lot better off having an ally in Mozilla. Not so much because they don't want Bing to get a lot of…
Mozilla's decisions on what technologies to support and what to oppose are not influenced by our business arrangements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla's decisions on what technologies to support and what to oppose are not influenced by our business arrangements.
Not officially, no, but I'm sure if google goes to mozilla and says, "hey, we think you guys should support technology X, it's really great" I'm sure you'd listen and probably get a good nudge from the higher ups that, "hey maybe we should listen to those google people".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla's decisions on what technologies to support and what to oppose are not influenced by our business arrangements.
Not officially, no, but I'm sure if google goes to mozilla and says, "hey, we think you guys should support technology X, it's really great" I'm sure you'd listen and probably get a good nudge from the higher ups that, "hey maybe we should listen to those google people".
We're not going to implement things that we think are bad for the web just because Google says so. You can look around to see what Brendan Eich (CTO of Mozilla, a higher up by any definition) has to say about Dart and NaCl. Google's money doesn't buy our cooperation on these kinds of issues (and it's worth noting that we work with plenty of people who aren't paying us money, such as Facebook, the same way that we work with Google).