The company that would have to hire devs to make sure it worked correctly on firefox.
The business case for things like this is pretty obvious when firefox usage is so low.
A page that works on Chrome will also work on Firefox unless you go out of your way to avoid web standards.
Making a website not work in some browsers is additional, not subtractive work.
Yes, but it also means that if someone complains you can more easily tell them to shove it. The net can still be less.
I don't like it, but i understand why it happens.
In one of these cases Apple, who has a competing browser that they make tens of billions of dollars with by selling the traffic to Google. It's the top of the surveillance capitalism funnel.
Surely they are not benefiting if people don't use their website because their browser is not supported