lets not forget their latest and greatest of releasing chrome for free until it saturated the market and became a monopoly then maliciously making changes to reduce the effectiveness of adblockers like ublock origin
Now I fear Firefox has a similar sisyphean task at hand, trying to keep their browser usable on google services. And for many of the users, that is same as usability of the browser as a whole.
[1]https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/microsoft_on_the_issues/...
Also recall that mobile carriers and OEMs were opposed to Android because it would further degrade their ability to create walled gardens. The carriers lost control of apps, not for lack of trying. Imagine what a world that would be.
The FANG succeed largely instead of a carrier-controlled mobile ecosystem.
You may think that replaces one kind of oppression with another, but if you weaken the internet platforms, you strengthen the carriers who are now off the net neutrality leash, and who see 5G as an opportunity to gain control of a lot of what we now enjoy as an open internet.
I agree with the other claims (about Microsoft killing Windows Phone through their own actions and choices), however this one is a bit weird. Apple gave essentially no ground to carriers, which was a huge change. Which is why carriers all embraced Android, at a time when it was horribly uncompetitive, because it returned control to them, letting them preload any nonsense they wanted, making it undeletable, etc.
Apple updates come through Apple alone. If you have a Samsung phone on a carrier, they still matriculate through your carrier.
Add that of the 30% cut that the Play Store takes for apps and games, historically one half of that went to the carriers (it was always very nebulous, but again was one of the reasons carriers pushed Android when it was not good).
Android was in fact an alternative to iPhone. Google was more amenable to carrier and OEM mods to Android and third-party app stores. But carriers still were hoping the traditional OEM and app store walled gardens would hold, and Apple could be confined to high-end customers.
App store revenue, at that time, was still small for both the carriers' walled garden and for Apple. It was more a matter of control.
Even I was a happy WP user and but I can't be sure how much of my satisfaction was out of choice-supportive bias.
But since you asked...
https://bgr.com/2019/05/31/google-chrome-update-ad-blockers-...
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evy53j/google-struggles-t...
https://9to5google.com/2019/05/29/chrome-ad-blocking-enterpr...
But I mean, that was a 2 second search. Citations are indeed hard to come by...
I still don’t think the browser market is a good example right now.
There’s far better examples than this.
What company do we know that makes some the most complex web sites out there and would really benefit if the web had... I dunno WebGL so they could make a smooth mapping site, maybe with a 3D mode. Or a new version of HTTP so their sites load faster. Or a new version of TCP that works better on mobile. Or native web components that makes their web framework faster. Or HTML video so their video streaming site is more reliable.
I'll give you a hint - it starts with "Googl".
They created Chrome because IE was holding them back. Not to kill as blockers (did IE ever even support as blockers). Some people here don't use their brains...
Also when Chrome was released IE still had a 60% market share. You can't ignore that.
Also, I was not ignoring that IE had 60% market share. That's perfectly in line with what I said, as that market share was in fact shrinking without Chrome.