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.
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.