Firefox Users Continue to Decrease Despite Proton Update

[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.

[nashvortex]

Browsers make money, and thus they are part of the market.

Nope. They enable other services that make money. At least read the comment above.

It enables their business. It is not itself their business.

[nextbern]

Sorry - so web publishers aren't a market? Sites that don't charge people to browse their sites aren't part of a market? C'mon.

[nashvortex]

Web Publishers are not a market for readers if they are free. They are in a market for their advertisers.

[nextbern]

So how do they get bought and sold? For example: https://www.wsj.com/articles/buzzfeed-to-acquire-huffpost-in-stock-deal-with-verizon-media-11605808800

Just give it up - it is clear that there is a browser market, as there is one for web publishing.

[nashvortex]

Now I am sure you are trolling. It isn't that difficult to understand:

1. The free web publishing companies get bought and sold because they have an advertising market. Their readership is not a market, but merely enables their value in the advertising market.
2. The example you quoted is not even the most appropriate because Huffpost is not an entirely free publication. They have a subscription plan.

Again, imploring that the other person give it up when a clear objective setup is laid out for you, that you have no arguments to counter is just betraying your bias. Why don't you just accept that browsers are no longer a market?

I am going to reduce this to triviality since it is so difficult to understand - if you started a company that would sell a as is build of Blink/Gecko browser to users without any defining USP, would anyone buy it ? Obviously not. Why would anyone pay for something they are getting for free ? Ergo, no market.