Android already has a problem with fragmentation, which becomes a problem for customers when their phone becomes vulnerable due to a lack of security patches.

There are lots of cheap Chinese Android phones simply filled with malware from the factory.

If Google allowed phone makers to ship Android forks, this whole problem would become a lot worse. I think this Google policy is actually pro-consumer, and the EU is wrong on this point.

I meant locking out competing OSs is worse than bundling a browser with your OS. Both companies deserve the fine.

Microsoft used to threaten PC manufacturers that bundled any other OS other than Windows or no OS at all. They claimed that not bundling an OS was the express purpose of installing a pirated copy of Windows.

Let's be honest, they're the same thing, we just aren't able to to anything about it because the beneficiaries are the ones in power.

Chrome basically got a fresh start and built on top of existing WebKit codebase with new ideas. They did well with the “second mover advantage”

Firefox and IE were riddled with code debt issues so they couldn’t move fast.

Chrome was a great example of software written by a company with resources to dominate a huge market segment relatively quickly. I’m guessing Chrome earned Sundar Picchai a lot of good karma within Google to later become CEO.

Also, Google paid to have their browser installed through the installers of other companies software, by default.

For instance, by default, the installer for AVG's free antivirus program would install Google Chrome and make it the default browser.

The GP didn't make the claim that the "product only succeeded because Google pushed it hard". All they said was that Google used their search monopoly to give it a big advantage.

Chrome's quality was a necessary, but probably not sufficient condition for it to gain the market traction that it did.

Actually, the biggest thing in Chrome's favor was being an installer pack-in. People still get sometimes Chrome installed on them if they go download Adobe Reader without unchecking the box. (McAfee Security Scan Plus is Adobe's other paid pack-in, you might see that instead, depending on your location.) People seem to vastly forget that a large part of Chrome's dominance of the ordinary user is the fact that installing half a dozen plugins or tools on Windows has or still installs Chrome and sets it as your default browser.

When doing PC support for layusers, I've found that: Most people don't know what Chrome is, and don't know the difference between it, Edge, IE, and the malicious Chromium fork they have installed on their PCs. (Side note: May the soulless individuals behind the "WebDiscover Browser" suffer a life of misery and despair as punishment for their crimes.) They end up with Chrome (or a malicious fork thereof) due to a bundle installer.

Google also showed a warning about an unsupported browser when Google Documents were used with other browser like Opera.

> You're missing the massive point that it was also happened to be far superior to Firefox and IE when it came out

I mean, you really could have said the same thing about IE 4 when it came out. It was actually better than Communicator at the time, which was a bloated, unfocused, mess of a browser.

It's hard to find news and reviews from 1997 to back me up, but here are a couple accounts I found recollecting their experiences with the browsers: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Netscape-lose-ground-to-IE

It had a few new concepts, mainly multi-processes, but "far superior when it came out" is a broad exaggeration.

Equally, IE was far superior to Netscape when it came out ;)

This is not to say Chrome is (now) the inferior browser but saying their marketing push has nothing to do with its market share is ignoring reality.

It’s literally the definition of leveraging a monopoly to enter a market.

> On the other hand, building "web" apps that only run on chrome, that was a shocker for me.

Wow, I wasn't aware of this. Do you recall any examples?

New Googler.