It's also worth emphasizing that it isn't difficult to support Firefox. I'm pretty sure that many of the sites that I visit do so largely by accident. I do a fair bit of web development, and Firefox/Chrome compatibility has never been an issue in the slightest for me. You almost have to go out of your way to choose Chrome-specific APIs in order to break compatibility. How does virtually every other website on the internet manage it—from my bank to scrappy startups with junior developers coming straight out of bootcamps—while Google with all of their engineering talent and $100+ billion cash on hand just can't seem to make it work?
I'm not a lawyer and can't speak to what qualifies as anti-competitive behavior in a legal sense. Qualitatively, Web Extensions Manifest v3 and Web Environment Integrity are clearly harmful to consumers in my opinion. The first significantly hinders ad blockers, and the second kicks down the ladder on building search engines and hinders competition in that space. Other browsers using Chromium as a base doesn't change the fact that Google almost unilaterally controls it, and Google has made it extraordinarily clear that they're interested in making decisions that prioritize their own best interests over those of their users. I don't see why Chromium being open source would absolve any responsibility here, especially when the open source project in question primarily exists to serve the interests of the profit center of a mega-corp. I deeply support open source software, and I'm glad that Chromium is open source, but being open source doesn't excuse behavior that is against the interests of users whether it qualifies as illegal or not.
I don't think you get to make these kind of cost cutting decisions when you're a vertically integrated mega-corp who also owns the browser with 65% of the market.
It’s tiny companies that may ignore 3% as too expensive to worry about.
Yes, Firefox’s market share has been declining but that’s substantially because Google spent billions of dollars marketing Chrome and promoted it heavily on YouTube, Gmail, Search, etc. Deciding not to test or optimize fits neatly into the same pattern.
But clearly I am not them. :-) Mathematically it doesn't make sense for Google. It might make sense from an anti-trust perspective...
Makes me wonder if it's the wrong strategy and what an alternative might be. In context, one might assume that Google will use the Chromium monoculture to... ahem more assertively deliver advertisements, which would be "a real dick move" as it goes. I don't know how a concerned citizen might bring attention to or possibly prevent the actualization of such a strategy by Google.
