It's possible to install Google Chrome on a Windows box with chocolatey, the Windows answer to apt and brew.
But, still, Microsoft's browsers still aren't good. In my workplace (where we do some complex cross-browser work) they're an enormous nuisance to development and QA. I wish Edge were far better than IE, but they're both quirky. Firefox and Google Chrome ordinarily work predictably. Safari has a few quirks, Edge is really quirky, and IE is a narrow gauge steam train, all different.
Why doesn't Redmond stop throwing good money after bad and just license Firefox? Are they stuck in the sunk-cost fallacy?
Chocolatey is very handy but has a few warts. It can't tell if the underlying app has self-updated. When Chrome autoupdates after choco install, the next time you run a choco upgrade, it will unnecessarily upgrade Chrome again.
take a look at appget, we use windows itself as the source of truth. so even if an app self updates, or you have installed the app manually or even using chocolate, appget will know the _currently_ installed version.
also, we don't run some random PowerShell script written by god-knows-who on your machine. All installs are driven by pure data, so the only thing you need to trust is the appget client itself.
Microsoft wouldn't even need to license Firefox, they could build their own browser on top of it and do minimal work. They already do that on Android (Chrome) and iOS (Safari), and once GeckoView stabilizes, they can even use that on Android.
However, I think it's more of a branding thing. Microsoft wants a complete experience when you install their OS, and they want something that will keep users on that platform. If they build IE, they can control the platforms it runs, which means users will feel uncomfortable on anything else.
But, still, Microsoft's browsers still aren't good. In my workplace (where we do some complex cross-browser work) they're an enormous nuisance to development and QA. I wish Edge were far better than IE, but they're both quirky. Firefox and Google Chrome ordinarily work predictably. Safari has a few quirks, Edge is really quirky, and IE is a narrow gauge steam train, all different.
Why doesn't Redmond stop throwing good money after bad and just license Firefox? Are they stuck in the sunk-cost fallacy?