Who benefits from terminating service like this?

The company that would have to hire devs to make sure it worked correctly on firefox.

The business case for things like this is pretty obvious when firefox usage is so low.

A page that works on Chrome will also work on Firefox unless you go out of your way to avoid web standards.

Making a website not work in some browsers is additional, not subtractive work.

Yes, but it also means that if someone complains you can more easily tell them to shove it. The net can still be less.

I don't like it, but i understand why it happens.

In one of these cases Apple, who has a competing browser that they make tens of billions of dollars with by selling the traffic to Google. It's the top of the surveillance capitalism funnel.

They're forcing the use of their browser.

Yup. Feels like we're being dissed.

> Whats going... That's trivially easy: The big gorilla engine is a monopoly and it "thinks" this is the way to make get more money.

What methods, algorythms, rational they're playing with - sorry, I got no chops in that lane.

"..teams not design..efficiency.."

Enough truth in that.

Need hours back and forth w/the end user, moderately sophisticated UX designers (eg. empathy, anybody?) user education (not mandates) and training, an actually useful help desk, efficient equipment... And real time graduated enforcement that impacts all levels, not just the bottom level perp-scapegoat.