Re: What's wrong at Redmond?
"Google achieved a foofhold when IE was dominant intalling it surreptitiously with "free" software - something Firefox never did. What's the business case?"
Google is an advertisement company, they had bought Doubleclick earlier and they are playing the long game here. Chrome is paying the dividends now back to Google.
"Today a browser is the gateway to most information and applications, and allows to control web standards. Should everybody let it to Google?"
Not at all.
"Why? Chrome is today what Windows was thirty years ago. Why Windows domination was bad, and Chrome not?"
I'm not claiming Google/Chrome domination is good at all. Microsoft had a great run during IE4 and up around IE6 when it was among the best browsers (even if the security was lacking with ActiveX and such). For me it was Opera after Netscape Navigator evolution stopped and Netscape Communicator was garbage. The Opera rewrite pushed me to Firefox.
"Firefox was created to counter IE dominance."
No, it wasn't. It was created to make a simple Mozilla browser instead of the fat suite Mozilla was pushing with browser+email+IRC combined.
Firefox had a good run against IE until Chrome stole the scene.
"And Google was not "clever", was criminal."
There was no crime even though it was despised thing to do. You have to be clever when you want to oust the market leader (MS) with endless resources.
"OK, Google is goooooood, MS is baaaaad."
Look, kmorwath...I can see you're really upset about this...I honestly think you should sit down calmly...take a stress pill and think things over...kmorwath...stop. Stop, will you?
"Deliver a good browser not built on Chromium?"
"If you build it they will come" is a great fantasy but just for being the best product does not automatically win people over or change their browsers automatically. Most people are using their OS provided browser and do not contemplate using anything else if it renders sufficiently well the websites they visit.
Firefox is a good browser not built on Chromium.
"Do you mean LibreOffice should close shop because they have no way to compete with Office? Linux should stop desktop distros because they have no chances?"
Not at all.
"Does developing a web browser requires "billions"? C'mon"
No, but the marketing and push will certainly require loads of money. Google probably paid a lot of money to Adobe and others to bundle their browser.
"the new Outlook doesn't run in pure Electron, it is an Electron-like framework"
There, there. That wasn't too hard to admit.
"You didn't want Windows phone." -- "Stop putting words in my mouth." -- "You said people didn't want Windows Phone."
Is that some odd version of gaslighting?
"People didn't want Windows Phone" which is directly reflected by its low sales volume, a fact. Because it lacked several critical software already available on other platforms, people chose Androids and iPhones. Google was never going to code software for it. Similarly other important everyday software was missing. MS even had to pay Rovio to code Angry Birds for it.
"It takes time to make a new platform competitive and appealing."
The market share was always low single digits and it was a dying platform by the time Windows Phone 10 emerged.
"Your example about Youtube is a perfect example of anti-competitive behaviour."
Yes, it was anti-competitive but Google is still free to choose the platforms they code for.
Also, around the same time MS was running their own Scroogled ad campaign against Google. No love lost between the two.
"Anyway, my original post was about a company the size of Microsoft that stopped to invest in many end-user technologies. MS could turn into a cloud-only company, but how clever that idea would be, letting others control the access to that cloud, on their own terms?"
Works pretty well for Amazon, don't you think?