This is Google’s strategy. Haven’t you followed the manifest V3 debacle? They want to end ad blocking once and for all. Their entire business model is to sell ads. They want to turn that ad blocking crooks into sweet new ad revenue. Maybe even subscription revenue.
In what way are they sacrificing their monopoly? There’s no viable alternative to n YouTube.
They also restricted IE6 when it was far more dominant than Firefox is today (and when YouTube was far less dominant), so it’s not completely unheard of.
They can probably find loop holes, like saying they do support many alternative browsers like Edge, Safari, Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, etc. . They just don’t want “insecure” and “outdated” browsers that support terrible stuff like ad blocking, but they can agree to support Firefox if Mozilla takes action to prevent “insecure” extensions like ad blocking.
They will probably block “non-certified” browsers soon enough.
I’d hope that would lead to FTC action, but that’s only if the republicans don’t win the presidency next year.
And also EU DMA/DSA actions
Youtube’s entire platform is built around dominance. It’s the one-stop-shop for all “content creators.”
They won’t sacrifice that because it will make Youtube no longer synonymous with ‘online video.’
Firefox is like 3% of all internet browsing. Probably even less on YouTube. They can sacrifice a little bit.
I mean, that’s a terrible business decision when you have a monopoly.
I can easily see you getting fired for even suggesting this. It just shows how out of touch you are with modern economics.
This is Google’s strategy. Haven’t you followed the manifest V3 debacle? They want to end ad blocking once and for all. Their entire business model is to sell ads. They want to turn that ad blocking crooks into sweet new ad revenue. Maybe even subscription revenue.
Yes, but google won’t sacrifice its monopoly to show people more ads. Hence why they, you know, haven’t done it yet.
In what way are they sacrificing their monopoly? There’s no viable alternative to n YouTube.
They also restricted IE6 when it was far more dominant than Firefox is today (and when YouTube was far less dominant), so it’s not completely unheard of.
But using the dominance of YouTube to influence the browser market is textbook anticompetitive, painting a huge target on themselves for regulators.
They can probably find loop holes, like saying they do support many alternative browsers like Edge, Safari, Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, etc. . They just don’t want “insecure” and “outdated” browsers that support terrible stuff like ad blocking, but they can agree to support Firefox if Mozilla takes action to prevent “insecure” extensions like ad blocking.