Hi Google. Remember those non-evil days where you said you cared about web-standards and actually acted according to those claims? Those days were great. Feel free to get back to those.
What are they supposed to do if they want to implement features which are not supported by Firefox?
> What are they supposed to do if they want to implement features which are not supported by Firefox?
If the features they want to use are not available in standards-compliant web-browsers they should not be released on a public facing production website.
I thought that was blindingly obvious, but the Chrome-effect is evidently taking quite a hold.
What are they supposed to do if they want to implement features which are not supported by Firefox?
follow standards maybe?
That approach is what got us XHTML 2.0 and a "lost decade" for web technology. The things Google adopts (vp8, dart, spdy) are things it releases and publishes as open standards, and therefore significantly more standard and open than e.g. javascript, or even the tag, were when first introduced.
I don't see how mobile browser access to play.google.com constitutes a significant portion of the Firefox Mobile user bases core competencies. I don't think I've ever tried going to the store via browser on my Android phone just because its slower than using the native app.
You get there if you click links. It's not only this incident, Google often "accidentally" block other browsers for a day or two and then claims it was an "accident". Chrome seems to be immune to such accidents, though.
I sometimes wonder if browsers are going to become runtimes. For Google services you obviously use Chrome. For others they choose to support runtimes Chrome and Firefox. Microsoft supports IE as the runtime for there services. It's awful, but it seems like the direction things are going.
"For Google services you obviously use Chrome"
What makes you say that? It is like saying that for going to work you need a red car, but for going to the shop you need a blue car. It's insanity. It is how internet and the web were supposed to not be. It is what shitty companies like Google try to push for the greater glory of their profit margins. It is /very/ bad for customers in the mid- to long term. It is what we should put serious effort into to kill off.
For browsing, I use Firefox, and Firefox only.
If it does not work in Firefox, it is /broken/ and I walk away within less than a second. I might return in a few months to see if the particular site has already been repaired.
I suppose this way they can control access to the store of users coming from AOSP devices. Firefox is available in 3rd party app stores, Chrome isn't. So AOSP users who are not aware of other browsers (=average non-techies) can simply not browse the Play Store.
That approach is what got us XHTML 2.0 and a "lost decade" for web technology. The things Google adopts (vp8, dart, spdy) are things it releases and publishes as open standards, and therefore significantly more standard and open than e.g. javascript, or even the tag, were when first introduced.
> are things it releases and publishes as open standards
Publishing working code (even as Open Source) and possibly a white paper does not make something a 'standard.' It may be 'open' but not a 'standard.'