41–50 of 320 posts
The fact that I didn't notice because I'm using Kagi anyway is probably one of the first hints at Google's downfall w.r.t. search dominance.
Count me in for the destruction of the do-be-evil giant, but we're far from it not being absolutely dominant in the space.
I didn't even know what Kagi was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems unlikely they'd want to sabotage Firefox. Google is Firefox' primary source of income, and Firefox is strategically crucial token competition that stands between Google and an antitrust lawsuit of the sort Microsoft faced in the early 2000s (where Microsoft were basically a technicality away from being broken up).
Google is currently facing an antitrust suit where their payment to Firefox is a crucial part of the evidence against them. And it's over their search engine, which is far more important to them than Chrome. They pay Firefox as they're buying a valuable product. Which is why they also pay Safari.
Sure search was their first product, but they have long since pivoted to being an ad company. And while yes, they can show ads along side search, the real cash cow is all the juicy data they can exclusively hoover up through Chrome to better target ads all across the web not just search.
Is there any legitimate use for UA string sniffing vs feature detection? And what could a search engine possibly do that's so bleeding edge it doesn't work in all browsers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some middle manager out there was making this decision. Not strategy heads
Strategy heads come up with the strategy - friction. Enough friction against Firefox will let the browser still exist (essential for the claim that there is competition) but without actually being able to compete. Middle management finds a tactic that implements the friction strategy - small "random" breaks and persistent performance issues. An engineer would find the precise measure to implement - break the UA strin…
Assuming competence and intention is foolish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strategy heads come up with the strategy - friction. Enough friction against Firefox will let the browser still exist (essential for the claim that there is competition) but without actually being able to compete. Middle management finds a tactic that implements the friction strategy - small "random" breaks and persistent performance issues. An engineer would find the precise measure to implement - break the UA strin…
> Enough friction against Firefox will let the browser still exist (essential for the claim that there is competition) but without actually being able to compete. Interesting theory, but that's exactly what M$ got dinged for in the antitrust suit re: Netscape.
If the risk is a lawsuit after years of anticompetitive behaviour - if they're unlucky - that's absolutely worth it for Google. Chrome is now THE web browser platform with the only two remaining notable exceptions being competitors in name only, and no single lawsuit can just reverse that.
I wonder how this made it past testing?
They don't test on Firefox mobile. Not explicitly anyway. Google's testing strategy is as it has always been: do some in-house burn-in testing, then launch to a small number of users and check for unexpected failures, then widen the launch window, then launch to 100%. In this case, the user base in question is so miniscule that no bugs probably showed up at the 1%, 10%, and 50% launch gates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strategy heads come up with the strategy - friction. Enough friction against Firefox will let the browser still exist (essential for the claim that there is competition) but without actually being able to compete. Middle management finds a tactic that implements the friction strategy - small "random" breaks and persistent performance issues. An engineer would find the precise measure to implement - break the UA strin…
> Enough friction against Firefox will let the browser still exist (essential for the claim that there is competition) but without actually being able to compete. Interesting theory, but that's exactly what M$ got dinged for in the antitrust suit re: Netscape.
Google is doing more "eternal irritation by 1000 papercuts". Never one big blow, never aiming to kill Firefox, they're financing it after all. Firefox needs to exist but never be attractive to users, especially on the phone where tracking is next level.
I think plausible deniability does a lot of the heavy lifting here. But statistically speaking Firefox being the one browser hit constantly by a stream of random Google issues can't be random.
The legal and regulatory landscape changed a lot since then too, with Big Tech slowly but constantly lobbying and pushing a lot more than just these tactics into normalcy. A lot of what's normal today was outrageous in the '90s.