[sgift]

> But he loses me on the next bit where he rules out incompetence and then jumps to org-level malice.

I think he has a reasonable justification for his position (two even):

- Google would have to be very incompetent for it to be incompetence (stated in the article)

- If Mozilla comes around every few weeks "hey guys, you broke it again" it's hard to argue they "don't care" or "don't prioritize" in the sense of "oh, we have so many things to do ..."

You even state it yourself: "People building say, Inbox were told it was acceptable to launch a product that is only accessible to one browser at launch."

Yeah. That's active malice if your company produces the one browser they choose. Whether you couch it as "simple prioritization" or not.

At the end of the day I still think the competition agencies should have thrown the law book at Google so hard that it bleeds. Start with a few billion and go up from there. Google had (has) a virtual search monopoly and actively used it to promote their browser. At least in the EU that's illegal. And that the agencies didn't kick Googles ass for it is for me one of their biggest regulation failures.

[GoblinSlayer]

Google does save on the frontend, e.g. they use pixel-oriented design, which is incompetent. Maybe they have competent engineers somewhere deep in the backend.

[brainwad]

It's not malice against another browser to build for where the users are. When the users were on IE and Firefox, Google built for those platforms, ignoring e.g. Konqueror or Opera. Now that the users are on Chrome, Google can ignore Firefox. Each product team can independently decide that the best thing to help the most people is to work on more features for 1 browser rather than fewer features for several browsers.