Unless you have some imagination, in which case you can explain a hypothetical or a possible truth.
> So you're just assuming they're innocent
The post you are responding to does not really suggest innocence overall, just perhaps they are guilty of something else (laziness or incompetence) in this instance and perhaps that they are covering that up.
The companies you worked for published their own browsers?
User B: "What if it's just them being cheap or incompetent?"... no evidence of this behavior either
Asshole take: "You MS Apologist! Quit making excuses for them" ... no evidence of this behavior either
So many companies mistake "support" for "support". You can have software that supports platform X without providing technical support for it when run on platform X. Commercial software companies tend to confuse these two very different meanings of support.
But it's likely just statistics as you said. Somebody made the genius move to say "we don't want to spend time testing a browser with 5-10% market share". Which of course it makes sense to MBAs but they are missing so much other nuance.
So, if things are working mostly, and you're intentionally not fixing the trivial problems, then you have bad intentions either directly or indirectly.
I actually forgot that Teams has audio and video. You are right about testing those two, I don't have a good idea for that either. I would probably look into using a virtual cam, like OBS implemented one, and then just check the footage on the other end?
But honestly, Firefox usually just works.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.