So a multihundred billion dollar web company doesn't have the dev resources to support Firefox? Even though it already works when you spoof the agent string?
Even with all the resources in the world, opportunity cost plays into every decision. To remove that context would be missing my point.
And as always, resources dedicated to a project are finite. The “X billion dollar company can’t do trivial Y thing” isn’t as straightforward as it seems and the argument rarely holds up to scrutiny in my opinion.
We’re missing a ton of internal context here, and to have a real discussion we’d need that context. Otherwise there are tons of valid reasons why the opportunity cost calculation might not have worked out.
At some point you have to stop giving the benefit of the doubt. I draw the line where Google is unable to make a search page (that is making them the "x billion dollar" company in the first place) work with Firefox due to "lack of dev resources". Even though the only thing stopping the page from working in FF is a user agent check.
You are making exactly the same argument that Microsoft proponents were making when IE was bundled into Windows trying to push off other browsers. We don't have all the context, it must be too difficult to separate browser and OS code, etc
I agree. At some point they should stop considering FF users as "well they aren't OUR users" in the cost benefit equation. They have to acknowledge that FF has a big chunk of the market and it should be part of the "Browsers we test on" list.
Considering the features work fine on FF, the actual costs for testing on FF should be minimal.
Well, they’re busy solving that with alternative solutions, by paying devs to secretly install Chrome with their software, and set it as default, and similar shady deals.
This is helpfully decimating the marketshare of anything that isn’t Chrome.
> Even the VLC authors documented how Google tried paying them to ship Chrome as default with their installers:
It doesn't mention when though. If its around the time where MSIE was dominant, well, I (FWIW) got less of a problem with that. Because -even with its profiling- Google Chrome is objectively a far, far better browser than MSIE ever was. And the Google of 2005 or 2010 is a better Google than Microsoft was in 1998 or 2002. Check the Halloween documents on that one.
The only real cost here is processor cycles for increased number of automated tests. You don't even need a part time job to maintain the extra tests (otherwise you'd do something wrong).
And as always, resources dedicated to a project are finite. The “X billion dollar company can’t do trivial Y thing” isn’t as straightforward as it seems and the argument rarely holds up to scrutiny in my opinion.
We’re missing a ton of internal context here, and to have a real discussion we’d need that context. Otherwise there are tons of valid reasons why the opportunity cost calculation might not have worked out.