Your explanation would be more believable if it wasn't for the fact that YouTube and Google sheets/docs... seem to always work better on chrome with every change they make. Then Firefox catches up and with the next change chrome works better again. Now they might not make changes to specifically make things worse on Firefox, but they just don't test on Firefox. However that is very much on purpose, so it really comes down to the same thing.

Also let's not forget the shenanigans that Google pulls with ad words auctions etc.. If a person would have a history of doing things like that we'd call them dodgy or criminal, but when a company does it we somehow are to believe it's all accidents?

I think in the end you kinda agreed with me?

QA won't test on another browser or if it does its results are ignored? So they don't make it work badly on purpose, just by negligence.

Regarding to believe it's all accidents, I don't affirm it's on purpose as to not attract shills, paid or otherwise.

It goes beyond things not working properly. Google regularly disables working features on competing browsers. Google search results for example display more information when you use Chrome. How much more intentional can it get?

All these large American companies are extremely anticompetitive. That’s been the case since the US stopped seriously enforcing its own laws on competition and will remain so until a regulator seriously slaps them. Europe is trying on the most egregious things but they are still not hitting hard enough.

I can’t see the difference with intentional ignorance/negligence and bad intentions.

You might be negligent and don’t water your plants when needed, but they will die at the end.

However it’s not your fault because you didn’t intend on killing them, right?

In the first case (negligence) you were saving water.

On the second case you were trying to kill the plants.

Oh, so I can neglect the things as I wish in the name of saving proverbial water, and be free of all consequences at the end?

That's great.

Maybe we should try that.

Please increase your level of flexible thinking so you can understand the comparison made.

Thank you.

Maybe I understood what you have said, but intentionally showed how it can be abused by thinking in a too flexible manner?

Maybe we both should increase our flexibility in different perspectives.

Thank you, too.

:)

:)

Well, if you really wish to go that far we can do a philosophy doctorate. Find me on Libera.chat, nick qa6.

I think the opposite is true in fact, Windows 11 is really anti consumer by design (anti choice, anti privacy etc).

I agree on the point that Win 11 is anti-consumer, but I think that's part of the overall trend to turn the computer into an appliance, i.e. not a device that you have to administer, but a handy tool as easy as your fridge or washing machine.

Now if that takes away a bit of freedom and privacy, well, you can still opt out on any device that could run Windows 11, and use another OS instead.

I'm wondering whether this won't be possible later down the line, though, given the trend.

If a trend is morally questionable, no honorable entity would follow it.

Furthermore, since Windows is so prevalent, you're gonna have an hard time using something else. Given you're neither tech savvy, or rich, which most people aren't.

So no, there are no excuses for a company this large to have such malpractices, we're talking about a private company with more power than many small nations.

Yep, I agree.

The issue would be to discern between honourable and dishonourable (or shameless) entities, but there starts the domain of concessions to convenience, and PR.

Instead of listening to QA, they add a bunch of telemetry, look at some fancy charts at the end of the month going downward, then make a poorly educated guess on what to do.