undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsjncfhnb2y ago0 comments

Some middle manager out there was making this decision. Not strategy heads

0 comments

Strategy heads come up with the strategy - friction. Enough friction against Firefox will let the browser still exist (essential for the claim that there is competition) but without actually being able to compete.

Middle management finds a tactic that implements the friction strategy - small "random" breaks and persistent performance issues.

An engineer would find the precise measure to implement - break the UA string sniffing targeting a specific browser.

zozbot2342y ago

> Enough friction against Firefox will let the browser still exist (essential for the claim that there is competition) but without actually being able to compete.

Interesting theory, but that's exactly what M$ got dinged for in the antitrust suit re: Netscape.

close042y ago

MS waged a lot more open war against Netscape, and documented their desire to "extinguish", "smother", and "cut off Netscape's air supply".

Google is doing more "eternal irritation by 1000 papercuts". Never one big blow, never aiming to kill Firefox, they're financing it after all. Firefox needs to exist but never be attractive to users, especially on the phone where tracking is next level.

I think plausible deniability does a lot of the heavy lifting here. But statistically speaking Firefox being the one browser hit constantly by a stream of random Google issues can't be random.

The legal and regulatory landscape changed a lot since then too, with Big Tech slowly but constantly lobbying and pushing a lot more than just these tactics into normalcy. A lot of what's normal today was outrageous in the '90s.

alpaca1282y ago

Google doesn't care, they knowingly implemented the mother of all illegal antipattern cookie banners and only changed it after getting fined over $100M.

If the risk is a lawsuit after years of anticompetitive behaviour - if they're unlucky - that's absolutely worth it for Google. Chrome is now THE web browser platform with the only two remaining notable exceptions being competitors in name only, and no single lawsuit can just reverse that.

jncfhnbOP2y ago

Sometimes! And sometimes a middle manager just does what he thinks clears the ticket quickly enough and then someone yells at him.

Assuming competence and intention is foolish.

oblio2y ago

> Middle management finds a tactic that implements the friction strategy - small "random" breaks and persistent performance issues.

> An engineer would find the precise measure to implement - break the UA string sniffing targeting a specific browser.

You got the strategy right but the implementation is laughable, sorry :-)))

The implementation is: "We have a budget of N story points this sprint to resolve bugs, let's prioritize them. Let's prioritize by impacted audience size."

The audience size will make 99% of Firefox specific bugs be deprioritized out of the current sprint. And the next one. And the one after that.

And unless a senior engineer stands up to update the prioritization criteria, plausible deniability forever.

close042y ago

The aim was to lay out at which level each stage happens. It's not middle management taking a random decision. The fish rots from the head but the tail certainly doesn't smell rosy either. Dieselgate was also just a random deprioritized code bug until it wasn't.

Repeated incompetence from one level is actual maliciousness from the level above, all the way to the top.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

close042y ago

Middle management finds a tactic that implements the friction strategy - small "random" breaks and persistent performance issues.

An engineer would find the precise measure to implement - break the UA string sniffing targeting a specific browser.

zozbot2342y ago

> Enough friction against Firefox will let the browser still exist (essential for the claim that there is competition) but without actually being able to compete.

Interesting theory, but that's exactly what M$ got dinged for in the antitrust suit re: Netscape.

close042y ago

MS waged a lot more open war against Netscape, and documented their desire to "extinguish", "smother", and "cut off Netscape's air supply".

I think plausible deniability does a lot of the heavy lifting here. But statistically speaking Firefox being the one browser hit constantly by a stream of random Google issues can't be random.

alpaca1282y ago

Google doesn't care, they knowingly implemented the mother of all illegal antipattern cookie banners and only changed it after getting fined over $100M.

jncfhnbOP2y ago

Sometimes! And sometimes a middle manager just does what he thinks clears the ticket quickly enough and then someone yells at him.

Assuming competence and intention is foolish.

oblio2y ago

> Middle management finds a tactic that implements the friction strategy - small "random" breaks and persistent performance issues.

> An engineer would find the precise measure to implement - break the UA string sniffing targeting a specific browser.

You got the strategy right but the implementation is laughable, sorry :-)))

The implementation is: "We have a budget of N story points this sprint to resolve bugs, let's prioritize them. Let's prioritize by impacted audience size."

The audience size will make 99% of Firefox specific bugs be deprioritized out of the current sprint. And the next one. And the one after that.

And unless a senior engineer stands up to update the prioritization criteria, plausible deniability forever.

close042y ago

Repeated incompetence from one level is actual maliciousness from the level above, all the way to the top.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse