Google controls but knowing Microsoft, they'll probably pull what Google did to Apple with WebKit.

My bet is that Microsoft will offer everything that google offers, AND some more extras that google probably won't want to offer to protect their business plan.

Also, my bet is that Microsoft will make kick-ass documentation for Chromium and kick-ass developer integration with the popular VSCode so web developers will reach for that first.

...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.

> Part of the implicit criticism in the original post by the intern is that Google is so arrogant in its browser’s dominance that it breaks the web and doesn’t give a shit if anyone complains about it. The tone of your article is certainly doing nothing to help that impression.

Is there anything that a person who doesn't work at Google (like the author) can do to help that impression? Is there any reason why anybody who doesn't work at Google should even worry about helping that impression?

Which ones then?

Hi, thanks for replying.

I'm a lawyer. I get paid a lot to communicate directly and precisely. While many people in our field are viewed as assholes, the best of us are able to be blunt while also being tactful. Being an engineer isn't an excuse for communicating poorly or having your tone override your message. Luckily this is a trait that can be worked on - I used to have the same issue and am getting better.

Let me take a deeper look at what's irking you: You state Google may have had a valid reason to do what it did. Okay. Let's conceed that. Despite that concession, does that actually address the problem you raised?

1) Google may have, despite having had a reason to do what it did, done it for the wrong reason. The timing of advertising which specifically required the negative effect of the change upon Edge's metrics certainly seems to point that way. You've described a plausible alterative rationale for their actions, but nothing more than that.

2) Incentivewise, Google has every desire in the world to maintain their browser marketshare numbers.

3) The full claim made by the intern is that this was one of an onslaught of changes made by Google to make their sites less performant on other browsers. Other people in the same thread indicated similar issues, and Google staff indicated that they were actually planning on resolving some of these issues in the future, an admission that the issues do, in fact, exist.

4) The intern further makes an allegation that the Edge team attempted to inform Google about the behavior, but did not receive any redress or explanation regarding the issue. One would expect that the Youtube team would have raised the issues you addressed regarding Edge's handling in a quick reply. They didn't.

Overall, if you were Google staff, your objection would deal with a number of these points I've raised, but as it stands that isn't the case.

I did appreciate the article's technical discussion, though, so thank you for that insight.

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.

My dads Dell came with Edge, Firefox and Chrome installed. I wonder how many other vendors are including multiple browsers? Surely if you purchase Win10 on its own you only get Edge, but I don't think most people are buying Win10 on its own compared to purchasing a PC that has it installed already.

I don't work for google.

YouTube started using Shadow DOM V0 (which is deprecated) some time ago, which is implemented only in Chrome/Chromium, as a result all other browsers render it slower.

If my organization is called out, and the citation given is my specific work, I would consider that someone called me on my work, even if they hadn't named me.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

They also are still blocking pretty much all browsers except Chrome from Google Hangouts.

Here's how an editor would quote that : "I’m pretty sure I’ve written that exact (same) code?" I'm sorry, but you have misunderstood the author. To me (and others) it's quite obvious that he doesn't work for Google, but has simply implemented a workaround for Edge that matches exactly what YouTube did, and (as you correctly surmised) speculated their reason for doing so. Edit : I have changed my mind a little! It's not beyond the realms of possibility that he works for Google. However, I suspect not.

> If you're right and he doesn't work for the company the piece becomes pure speculation.

He says as much himself: "Here’s what I suspect happened at google:"