> This makes it prohibitively difficult for competing browsers, to keep up with the evolving web standard.
Maybe Apple with their 2 trillion dollar market cap should make their browser not suck then?
I'm sure they can fund it.
Maybe Apple with their 2 trillion dollar market cap should make their browser not suck then?
I'm sure they can fund it.
Chrome has some APIs that are more useful e.g. Serial, WebUSB etc. and it’s debugging tools are better plus it’s possible to extract and reprocess the devtools data to build other tools on top
In contrast, Microsoft has a very healthy web development platform. Edge allows debugging in-browser Javascript and C# (via WASM) in Visual Studio.
So, in other words, complaints about "Google's broeser is too good, it is unfair how fast they are moving!" Therefore ring hollow.
Yes, Apple could compete if they wanted to. There is no anti competitive pressure stopping them.
But Apple simply chooses not to make a good browser, even though they could.
It's an interesting concept that a company could gain a dominant position in a market involving an open standard, then lead innovations in a way that would be difficult for other companies to challenge or follow.
It's not embrace, extend, extinguish because the changes are not proprietary. Chrome is simply able to out invest everyone else with their cash from their ad business. I am not a legal expert, so I don't know if this type of cross-market subsidization is legal.
Go back and read the posts even you just wrote.
We already established that yes Apple could compete if they wanted.
They have a 2 trillion dollar market cap.
I was thinking out loud if a case could be made against Google, similar to the EEE logic.