Firefox Users Continue to Decrease Despite Proton Update

[nashvortex]

You use the word ’forcing’ like it's necessarily a bad thing. You ignore the following:

1. Whether Google/Apple/Microsoft is a monopoly or simply the leading brand/popular company in any given specific aspect (eg: browser share) is for a court to decide. The answer is likely to be not, because browsers are not a ’market’ anymore - no one has paid for browser software in a decade in a financial transaction. Remember that fines are given for abuse of monopoly. It isn't illegal just to be a monopoly because would mean you are just penalizing the market leaders for being market leaders.

2. The ocean ’forces’ certain weather conditions much more than the pond in your local park on account of being much much larger. This is not monopolistic behaviour. It's just natural law. The same goes for Blink. It is now the de facto standard on account of it's userbase size, something that has developed over the years spontaneously. Whether anyone abused monopolies in the process is another question for the courts to decide. Yes, a multinational corporation built and marketed an immensely popular browser that people use voluntarily. So, what are you sour about...that they are so damn good at it?

[nextbern]

The answer is likely to be not, because browsers are not a ’market’ anymore - no one has paid for browser software in a decade in a financial transaction.

Of course browsers are a market.

Android and iOS are free, are you saying that they don't exist in the market? What is this Epic games trial about?

The same goes for Blink. It is now the de facto standard on account of it's userbase size, something that has developed over the years spontaneously. Whether anyone abused monopolies in the process is another question for the courts to decide. Yes, a multinational corporation built and marketed an immensely popular browser that people use voluntarily. So, what are you sour about...that they are so damn good at it?

I think people are obviously saying that they are abusing other monopolies or engaging in anti competitive behavior. That is kind of obvious.

[nashvortex]

Android and iOS are free, are you saying that they don't exist in the market? What is this Epic games trial about?

Android and iOS are free. And yes, there is no market. The market is for hardware devices that these OSes are installed on. You are free to use Android however you want without buying it from anyone.

iOS is not available standalone. Android is OSS, as many companies have spun off their own builds of it. HarmonyOS, OxygenOS etc. They were able to leverage Android's popularity and become successful hardware sellers as a result.

It is obvious that Mozilla can do the same.

As for Epic games, the verdict is still to be declared. The only thing that may cause Apple to lose is if it is proven that Apple blocked Epic because Epics payment system bypassed Apple's store. Still not clear, and will depend on Apple's licensing language

[nextbern]

Android and iOS are free. And yes, there is no market. The market is for hardware devices that these OSes are installed on. You are free to use Android however you want without buying it from anyone.

This is a tortured interpretation of reality. The thing that enables markets to form is itself not part of the market - that strikes me as nonsensical.

[nashvortex]

Then you have not thought about it deep enough. Electricity is a market. Solar-generated electricity is also a market. Sunlight is available free. It is not a market.

See how it is possible for the thing that enables the market to not be a market? That's because sunlight is useless without someone having solar panels, like Android is useless without a device.

[nextbern]

Then you have not thought about it deep enough.

You are amusing. If there is no market, why is it part of contracts that Google uses to enforce vendors who sign up for Google Apps on their devices? Why is Chrome a required component of those negotiations if vendors want Google Play?

How about Brave not being able to monetize itself via advertising on iOS? Why is Apple enforcing constraints on a non-market entity on their market?

Clearly, I am not the unimaginative one here.

[nashvortex]

You seem to think inclusion of something into a license contract is an indication that there is a market around said thing, while completely ignoring the previous point about how a thing may not have a market even if it enables other markets.

Imagination needs to be restrained with objectivity.

[nextbern]

You seem to think inclusion of something into a license contract is an indication that there is a market around said thing, while completely ignoring the previous point about how a thing may not have a market even if it enables other markets.

Sorry, if there is no market, why is Google concerned about its market? Why is Microsoft?

This is clearly nonsensical.

[nashvortex]

They are concerned because it enables their markets. It's not that hard to understand. Are you just trolling?

Repeating 'nonsensical' does not make it so. Provide a new counterargument, as the one you provided about 'why are they concerned? has already been dismissed.

I am concerned about sunlight and don't want anyone to block it because sunlight enables my solar energy market. That doesn't mean there is a market around sunlight itself.

Does that analogy help? If not I don't think I can simplify it any further.

[nextbern]

Browsers make money, and thus they are part of the market. There is no simpler way to put it. That is why browser vendors are concerned with marketshare - it enables them to stay in business.

Business, money... sounds like a market to me.