jatone

I gave examples of the opposite in an earlier comment. Though it’s unclear what level of APIs you refer to here, specially given that you said “same deal with webkit” (which, again, is not under google). You might as well apply the same deal to gecko too.

I do apply the same standard to gecko. and if it every becomes a larger market share I'll be more critical of it than I already am. However those criticisms are immaterial to the decision this judge had to make.

This is a contradiction. If few browsers will do it, then my statement that it can happen is correct...

its not a contradiction. the difference here is every browser you mentioned as 'alternatives' are not well funded dont actively add new functionality in the same way mozilla/google do. they dont actively trying to drive the feature set of the web. apple's browser is just there to give apple control they dont care about it beyond that, which results in a captured ecosystem on macos. most/all 3rd party browsers use chrome under the hood on other platforms to limit developer costs, resulting in a captured ecosystem by google or are so tiny they'll never bootstrap effectively (i.e. ladybird). Mozilla has the only non-corporate / user focused implementation of a web browser that is funded.

The point was that the final say on what those projects will do is a decision those projects can make, not Google.

which is completely immaterial when they don't develop/add new features for the web.

look your argument is 'other browsers besides firefox exist so its fine if firefox dies' and mine is 'they dont provide any real value for the growth of the ecosystem so they're immaterial when considering the market effects of the only well funded one with a open code base and user focus'

now we can sit here continuing to talk nonsense at each other or just move on. I recommend just moving on. I grew bored with this conversation about 15 posts ago and im basically just responding to you on autopilot.

Google definitely influences the decision, but they can’t dictate it.

it definitely dictates it when you're talking about things like APIs exposed etc. no one is going to try and maintain core apis if google isnt going to play nice. sorry you're just wrong on this one. its played out repeatedly in software for decades. same deal with webkit on apple hardware.

The one who ultimately decides whether to update/rebase to the new version of chromium or not; or abandon chromium entirely and maybe use something else, like Webkit, that many other Linux browsers are using

incorrect. very few browsers will go the extra mile for functionality that google is hostile to. firefox is basically the only one simply because they have their own engine. those that hook into blink almost never do anything more than cosmetic simply because the maintenance burden for doing so is too high.

Im not particularly interested in this conversation btw so ill leave you with this:

I put all the chrome based browsers in the same bucket because google has final say in what web standards are basically adopted for chrome and without firefox being entirely independent codebase that alternative is lost.

Thats the important bit. The data collection isnt my worry, its just the main benefit google gets from building the browser and why they did it in the first place.

The judges revenue sharing idea might also mean more money for Firefox since who's revenue are you sharing? If its the value an individual using firefox brings to google then suddenly thats significantly higher than a flat fee.

oh boy a lot to unpack here. google search is dominant because it used to be the only game in town with reasonable results, its free, and is sufficiently good that most people dont think about alternatives. kagi from the word on the streets is infinitely better than google these days. hence my statement 'there are better paid search engines.' I personally havent used google search in 7 years. and there are multiple search engines around that are monetarily sustainable. hilariously chatgpt was the biggest disruption to google search simply because it is a better search engine lol.

chrome is incredibly important to google for the simple reason it allows them to basically dominate the advertising market. you know that thing that enables their decisions on which ad to show you in your search results... yeah that thing. No search engine can replicate that information and compete without implementing two monumental tasks:

• implementing/maintaining a search engine.
• implementing/maintaining a browser.

of the two the browser is the more important one as it influences everything and can track everything a user does. without firefox all that 'push back' you mentioned disappears. gnome/kde do not have the resources to maintain a browser. ladybird is too young to be of any importance in the decision by the judge. the rest use blink.

the changes in the browser ecosystem havent shifted in 15 (?) years. most of the market shifts you saw were in the early days before shit ossified (pre 2008). good luck seeing another one for at least another decade.

your experience with google search vs other vendors is likely influenced by your integration with googles ecosystem in some manner. once i managed to get most of google nonsense isolated its search performance crated to be similar to microsofts and duckduckgo. it took a few years for this to occur (data had to be washed out of their predictive algos)

take away chrome and google search's magic disappears. judge made the right call here, full stop, end of discussion.

You didnt verify shit the only people who know the real number of twitter users is twitter and even that is up for debate given the prevelance of bot accounts. And its in their best interests to lie about the numbers.

And yes i do get to forecast its downfall, people are jumping off soon as their primary usecase is supported by other platforms, advertisers are leaving etc etc etc. its essentially a fascist hell hole walking at this point kept alive via funding by a fascist billionaires.

What i dont get to predict is the timeline because that is unknowable since it depends on a bunch of individuals finally pulling the trigger and that can take years even after a person decides to disassociate from the platform. Each individual having different thresholds for jumping ship etc. but as more and more people leave the faster the rest will follow.

The only thing keeping it relevant at this point is political news and that'll disappear soon as another platform get sufficient reach.

Browser monoculture is a worse outcome than googles relatively weak dominance in search. (There are better paid search engines around)

Your dreamscape is thinking numbers you have no way of verifying in any way tell a story.

The fact is the damage to twitter has been done socially and its on its way out. It'll take time for people to find their new home and move over but its occurring and will continue to accelerate as time goes on.

Shrug keep living in your dream scape. I dont have to convince you time will take care of it eventually.

you're just a incredibly dense individual. No worries though twitter will continue to hemorrhage its user base as its slide into irrelevance continues.

How it spends has nothing to do with pulling from google would cause it to collapse removing the only competition chrome really has. Pretty simple.

Whatever you say champ.

Fuck no. Look son i did it! I used fuck on the internet!