jnoring

Fair counterargument. Thanks. I'd still contend it's different from something being bundled with an operating system (as in, a user or PC manufacturer must go out of their way to change it) and something that's tied to another piece of software that a consumer downloads.

But I think your point stands.

...except in this instance, they didn't break the web. That's what irks me about this attitude you hold, which I think is actually what's rude.

This notion that some intern posts an unfounded assertion that attributes malicious behavior to Google, that has multiple other plausible explanations? That is rude--attributing malice where it is wholly unjustified.

So am I remorseful for my tone? Fuck no. My truth standards are such that I'm not about to settle for other people's BS if there isn't evidence to support it. Speculation isn't evidence.

I don't work for google.

Author here. I do not work for google. I mistakenly thought that obvious, but clearly it's been misunderstood.

And here's where I take umbrage with your response: I'm an engineer. I'm not here to sugar coat shit for people. There are a dozen different legitimate reasons someone may position some element over a video rendering window, and it is 100% MSFT's bad for not even considering this test case when they wrote their rendering engine.

And what really irks me is: thousands and thousands of people on the Internet seem to take this story by some MSFT intern as not only plausible but probable. And that's bullshit. Our standards for truth as engineers should be higher than that.

Author here. Diplomacy isn't my strong suit, and I don't care if you think me rude.

I'm not saying consumers shouldn't have choice. That isn't at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is: Chrome didn't arrive at its market share by some corporate scheme to enforce usage by vertical tying. Chrome arrived at that market share by making a great piece of software that most consumers like and are happy with.

And I take particular offense to a browser that is bundled with an operating system by default--as opposed to one a user has to go out of their way to download--as being some panacea to Google. Edge and Safari likely have meaningful market share for no reason beyond: they ship with Windows and macOS respectively.

Chrome certainly ships as the default on Chromebooks and Android, but you'd be remiss to ignore that Chrome is the most used browser on Windows, and second most common on macOS. Those are consumers making a choice. Yet so many people in programming and tech circles don't stop to ask themselves why consumers are opting for Chrome.

So maybe the final line in my post seems harsh, but here's the reality: Edge is only a thing because it ships with Windows. Beyond that I see no technical reason to favor it over Chrome or even Firefox. On Windows, consumers have already spoken: they like Chrome. Lastly, Edge is a pretty questionable argument in favor of "consumer choice", given it represents a choice no consumer actually made beyond "default browser in Windows."

Author here. That's fair if you feel that way.

What I would say, however is "rude" is attributing malice when there is a perfectly reasonable alternate explanation to a story.

That's really what I take umbrage with; our standards for truth should be higher than the insinuations of a MSFT intern with no clear evidence, and a total lack of the net community as a whole even to consider alternate possibilities.