[Xelbair]

which is basically nothing compared to google/apple of today.They are basically forcing you to use them as a middle-man for any app you want. While getting a cut from all transactions.

Non-google app stores cannot automatically update aps, side-loading is hidden in menus behind scary warnings.

IOS forcing you to use safari no matter what, and there is no way to side-load apps, nor any non-apple app stores.

chrome de facto sets web standards, giving them slight edge over other browsers - and they do use chrome specific APIs to cripple other browsers - like YouTube working worse on Firefox due that reason.

And that's even without taking into the consideration all the tracking in form of telemetry on the devices, coupled with their own ads markets.

[techrat]

> Non-google app stores cannot automatically update aps,

They can in Android 12.

> side-loading is hidden in menus behind scary warnings.

The warnings are minimal.

-- 1) Open Chrome.

-- 2) Find and Download APK. https://i.imgur.com/ZFZb1uE.png

-- 3) Accept warning and Open APK.

-- 4) Go to settings. (This only has to be done once) https://i.imgur.com/R8FzTzP.png

-- 5) Toggle Install Unknown Apps for Chrome. (This only has to be done once) https://i.imgur.com/K0ADO2q.png

-- 6) Click back (This only has to be done once)

-- 7) Click install. https://i.imgur.com/xVSndex.png

-- Done. https://i.imgur.com/fyasTK9.png

Once you do this for the first time, the process reduces down to 4 steps each time after: Open Chrome, Download APK, Open APK, Click Install. Done.

The ZOMG SKERRRY WARNINGS only show up once when you toggle the permission for that app and if you look at the screenshot, it's a reasonable disclaimer.

We have plenty of things to bash on Google here for... the sideloading process, however, is not one of them.

> chrome de facto sets web standards,

Chrome became the most popular browser simply because it is better.

If Mozilla could get their shit together, they could potentially reclaim their number one spot... but Firefox lost that spot multiple times. Not because of subterfuge, but because they continually drop the ball.

Chrome didn't exist in a vacuum and it didn't have the advantage of having a host operating system that had it installed from the start. There's a reason it's the primary engine now. It actually works better.

If that bothers you, use Firefox or De-Googled Chromium. Or if you really hate yourself... Safari.

[simfree]

Chrome had the advantage of having the #1 search engine with 90+% market share show warning modals saying "Works best in Chrome" while they actively gated features or degraded features for other browser users. Swapping user agents would cause G Suite to perform much better in non-Chrome browsers.

[pyrale]

> If Mozilla could get their shit together, they could potentially reclaim their number one spot... but Firefox lost that spot multiple times.

Mozilla never had #1.

And I don't know what world you live in, but Google has pushed Chrome with the equivalent of billions in advertising. There's simply no way Mozilla can compete with that considering the kind of budget they're on.

If you want a fair estimate, look the time it took for Firefox to slowly grind market share from IE6, despite an abyssal difference between the two browsers.

[techrat]

Netscape was the dominant browser from at least 1995 to the end of 1998. It overtook Mosaic to become #1 with Mosaic being a very, very distant #2.

At its peak it had 90+% of the market share.

Firefox nearly overtook IE until Chrome was released. If Firefox had not been consistently a dumpster fire, I think it could have maintained at least 50/50 with Chrome.

I switched to Chrome not because Google had good advertising but simply because it was _better._ Firefox has always had issues and Mozilla can't seem to make a browser that doesn't shit itself every now and then.

[pyrale]

> If Firefox had not been consistently a dumpster fire, I think it could have maintained at least 50/50 with Chrome.

It took 6 years for Chrome to gain 50% market share. In 6 years, firefox had barely taken 25% from IE.

If you're arguing that this difference in success is explained by the technological gap between chrome and firefox being much larger than the technological gap between firefox and IE, you need a reality check.

Otherwise, you need to acknowledge the fact that Chrome had something firefox didn't have, and it was not a technological advantage.

[_xy8h]

Firefox made it to about 32%.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/internet-browser-market-sha...

Chrome took more away from IE initially than it did from Firefox.

And yes, I'm arguing a technical difference. I've used every version of every browser when it was still new, all the way back to Mosaic.

Chrome introduced per-tab instancing which was a HUGE leap ahead of everything else and Firefox took years to catch up to that one feature alone. Firefox was bloated, slow and unstable.

It still is.