You are distorting my points. I didn't say any of the things that you are saying that I did, like the 2 quotes below.
I find it deeply flawed that you are suggesting companies spend more money on very little returns. In what world does it make sense to pay extra $120k and slowing down dev pace for the 1% user base that may return at best $50k?
You are too focused on development teams from Fortune 500 companies and high figures.
There are millions of other companies and people over the world developing websites. I have said this before.
But even so, you are also not proving the contrary: that people and teams making websites will not design them with compatibility with more than one engine.
Because whether or not it makes sense, it's highly subjective because it depends on many variables.
We're discussing healthy competition. Your question doesn't touch on increasing competition. You're essentially asking "well why not let Google completely win the browser war for all operating systems? It's what the user chose." which is a completely different discussion.
No, I didn't say that.
Just because a company, a product or a service has a large market share, that does not mean automatically that there is an illegally monopoly that needs to be fought. A large share is only a warning sign if the company stifles competition and harms consumers.
Competition authorities, like the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the European Commission, assess whether a firm is dominant and whether that power is abused, and they investigate things like:
- Market share
- Barriers to entry: High market share is not fought if a market is "contestable". If new competitors can easily enter and challenge the dominant firm, the threat keeps the market fair.
- Abuse of Power: Being large is legal; abusing dominance is not. Authorities take action if a firm uses its size to engage in anti-competitive practices like predatory pricing, exclusivity agreements, or buying up potential rivals to prevent market entry.
And a key indicator of
fair competition includes
level playing field: multiple independent competitors operate without systemic barriers preventing new entrants from joining the market.
Are you aware of any of the above being the reason why Chromium has such a large market share? Because if you do, enlighten me, please. I've asked you before, twice, to which you didn't answer.
But what we know for sure, and it has been ruled in multiple jurisdictions, is that
Apple has adopted anti-competitive practices for the mobile browser market, such as creating barriers to entry.
After they've been told to end those practices and comply, they "complied" maliciously by creating more barriers, such as other browsers having to use the very buggy BrowserEngineKit (while Safari does not) and having to publish as separate apps, losing their customer base and reviews.
And yet, you want to fight Chromium's (not Chrome) market share - which even though it's big, it's not an illegal monopoly - by defending Apple's clearly anti-competitive practices!
If you do not acknowledge this, I don't know what else to say.
