[vel0city]

What if it was they bought a car brand and added a transponder to the car so owners of taco bell cars could be auto-identified and had their favorite orders already ordered for them while all other models of cars were still free to use the normal drive through process? Would that be a "monopoly" somehow?

Isn't that more of what's going on here? An optional feature people can use if they choose to use the holistic platform?

This isn't forcing anyone to choose Chrome. The customer can still use any browser they want with Workspace. They get an extra feature when they use Chrome though.

[handoflixue]

Sorry, how is "blocking Firefox" not forcing people to choose Chrome?

I suppose you can argue the admin is doing it and Google is merely facilitating it, but the article title is "block Firefox access"

[vel0city]

> the article title is

The article isn't accurate. One could say they're uninformed, one could say maybe they're ignorant, but it's not reality.

This is a security feature a Workspace customer can choose to enable or not. If the workspace customer wants to use Firefox they're free to not enable this security feature that isn't supported by Firefox.

It's not a requirement at all to use Workspace, it's an optional feature. You can still use Firefox or any other browser for that matter with Workspace, if the manager of that Workspace wants you to. Which it's the company's software suite, they should be able to configure it how they wish shouldn't they?

If Google actually started banning all non-Chrome browsers maybe I'd agree that's harmful to the browser market. It was a bad thing when they blocked Windows Phone from accessing Google services back in the day, for example.