This makes no sense. The parent argument is that Chrome wins due to aggressive bundling and free ads on Google. Neither of those are self-inflicted wounds. The claim is that Mozilla doesn't actually have self-inflicted wounds.
The claim is that we have to blame Firefox's failure on bundling and google.com banners, and can't discuss how hostile and bizarre they've been. We also can't discuss that 80% of their revenue comes from Google, for nothing, and that the other 20% of their revenue is the entire return on 100% of their investment in the browser.
> The claim is that Mozilla doesn't actually have self-inflicted wounds.
Not in the comment I was responding to; you would have to be arguing that "Firefox smoking a cigarette from time to time" doesn't describe a type of self-inflicted wound—and for you to be right—for that to be true. (Whether you genuinely think that or not is one thing, but you definitely wouldn't be right about it, in any case.)
The entire comment I responded to belongs to the flavor of apologia that takes the form, "it doesn't matter if X is bad, because Y is worse".
>it doesn't matter if X is bad, because Y is worse
In the case of Mozilla and Google, yes. Mozilla's leadership fucking sucks, and I've written at length about how the entire Foundation board is a bunch of useless MBA clowns that are here to suck from the golden teat.
But it doesn't matter, when the alternative is Google having absolute and total control of the web. Mozilla, for what they're still worth today, still have a weight. Write an article titled "Mozilla opposes API proposal X from Google for privacy reasons" and people will at the very least give it a listen. RFCs from them are listened to. The WHATWG has to at least pretend to hear them out.
Go on. Let Mozilla die. See what the web looks like when Google can push every API they want, unopposed. WEI would look like a walk in the park. Apple could say nuh uh we don't want to, and Google would do the exact same thing they did with Firefox: snuff it out. Microsoft wouldn't even need to be pressured to work with them, pissing off Apple sounds like a lovely distraction for them. Little by little, websites would stop working on Safari (not that they work quite well currently, most Safari users are doing it because of a complete lack of technical knowledge and it's the default browser, with three nerds on HN saying it's because it's better for their battery life), APIs unsupported because Apple isn't interested in the open web.
At best, you end up with an Apple Web, and a Google Web, both of them sucking ass in their own right. At worst, Apple becomes irrelevant because of their focus on native apps. Most of which are already Chromium wrappers anyways.
So yes. Pinch your nose and go in. Mozilla is worth the support, no matter what. Their leadership already sucks, what's the worst that could happen ? They keep sucking, but take back marketshare ? Good. For once, give them support instead of being the worst user in the world, the one the just shits on them for not being good enough, while flocking to Google anyways.
This makes no sense. The parent argument is that Chrome wins due to aggressive bundling and free ads on Google. Neither of those are self-inflicted wounds. The claim is that Mozilla doesn't actually have self-inflicted wounds.