@Kushan
@lemmy.worldYup, with a LD relationship like that, you have to fill in a lot of blanks about someone that you can't determine - how are they in the morning? Do they pick up after themselves? Do they have any gross habits? There's tonnes of little things that are entirely irrelevant in a remote setting but can really make a difference in person.
And naturally when you fill in those blanks, you tend to only fill them in with positives or you just don't think about all those little things.
I thought this was dumb as fuck, but I think I understand what Microsoft is trying to do here.
What might not be obvious is that this "Windows" app is for iOS, Android and Linux - yes, it's a replacement for remote desktop but it's specifically a remote desktop app to connect to Windows machines.
So while I still this this rebranding is entirely unnecessary, I can see that they are trying to clearly distinguish "I'm not on windows and I need to do something on windows so I'll use the windows app for that" .
It also means less confusion when "remote desktop" doesn't let you connect to your Mac or whatever.
I think you're missing the point here. You're claiming Google only pays Mozilla to have a competitor, yet they also pay apple even more money for the same thing in an area they're just competing.
The point is that there is competition in the default browser search space, it's just that Google pays more than anyone else.
If Google stopped paying Mozilla tomorrow, someone else would pay them for the same default search engine spot. It might not be as much, but it would still be a significant amount.
A few years ago it was Yahoo that footed the bill.
As much as I'm happy to criticise Mozilla and its leadership, this graph is misleading.
Firefox is not the only thing Mozilla does, not should the market share of the browser be the sole metric the leadership is measured by.
Overlay the revenue and profit (or whatever revenue minus expenses is called for a nonprofit), then decide if the CEO is overpaid.
Google pays to keep it's monopoly on search
Agreed.
Google pays literally tens of billions to make sure they're the default search engine across everything - including the likes of iOS.
Why is it that when Google pays Apple hundreds of millions of dollars, it's because they're enforcing their search monopoly, but when they pay Mozilla a fraction of that, it's because Mozilla would have no way of staying afloat otherwise?
Why is Google paying apple so much if nobody else could afford it?
Make it make sense.
Yes they contributed a lot to web standards, bit they didn't contribute to actual user experience which is why people install a web browser in the first place.
Mozilla consistently gets complacent.
I use teams on Firefox and haven't encountered any issues. Admittedly I only use it occasionally, as I do mainly use the desktop app.
Despite my above rant, I still use Firefox as my primary browser. The web works absolutely fine on it. I think I've encountered one site that required chrome to work correctly in the last year and that's a huge improvement over where we were back in the early 2000's with IE.
No, there's other reasons why people don't switch, compatibility is not the issue.