1) any kind of anticompetitive argument like that is a dangerous road to walk down. Is Google leveraging the popularity of maps.google.com to also marginalize rockmelt? Is a "install chromeframe" interstitial on IE6 some strategy beyond "we don't want to support your browser"? there is always a line, and considering how widespread UA sniffing and webkit-only prefixes are, you would need a considerably higher bar of evidence to demonstrate any sort of strategy at work instead of just lazy front end developers.
2) This we agree on. There are very few reasons to UA string sniff to determine functionality, and redirecting based on it is about as low as you can go on that axis. Yes, there will be users that click through the "this won't work in your browser" button and still get mad at you that your site doesn't work in their browser (just see app reviews for plenty of evidence of this), but there should still be some way of trying the content for the many browsers out there that a developer just doesn't have the incentives to manually test in.
("that Google used to champion" is just dumb rhetoric, though. it ignores the very simple fact that any organization is made up of people with very different opinions and attempts to trivialize the efforts of all the people at google still working hard on web standards and their implementations. I don't agree with all of Mozilla's decisions with regard to the open web (in fact, working group mailing lists are 90% disagreeing with each other on how to advance it), but that doesn't mean that you guys now no longer champion it)
> Is Google leveraging the popularity of maps.google.com to also marginalize rockmelt?
If Google did prevent a browser like rockmelt, which is not a strategic threat to Google, from accessing maps, I would say that likely it is a side effect of something else. But Microsoft IS in fact a strategic threat to Google, and Google constantly thinks about how to compete effectively against it. To do otherwise would be stupid, which Google is not.
> it ignores the very simple fact that any organization is made up of people with very different opinions
Of course Google is a very large company, and has many people inside it with many different opinions (and as you say, many are great people that truly care about the open web). But like any corporation, it is hierarchical and its leaders at the top do define an overall coherent strategy for the company as a whole. A company that does not do that is doomed to failure, and there are of course plenty of examples in history.
Google's overall strategy with respect to the web has shifted in recent years, with less support for alternative browsers on desktop and especially mobile. This makes business sense for Google - supporting other browsers in some cases might help them compete against Google, which like any company Google wants to prevent. This is not unique to Google; what is, is that years ago Google was very different - it didn't have it's own browser and OS, and it supported openness on the web, that openness helped Google as a new company making money on the web. But that openness is no longer crucial to Google's strategy, and that is affecting Google's products more and more.
Please engage with substance or just misquote "do no evil" and be done with it. If you're just providing a counterexample to "universally accessible": as I already said above, maps clearly doesn't work in Opera Mobile and it's barely useable in Firefox Mobile. It probably doesn't work on a teletype or a Speak & Spell either.
"Universally accessible" doesn't seem at odds with the fact that there's always going to be a browser support cutoff point. Google just picked a poor cutoff point in this case. It's only in light of google's commitment to cross-browser standards that this disappoints me.
2) This we agree on. There are very few reasons to UA string sniff to determine functionality, and redirecting based on it is about as low as you can go on that axis. Yes, there will be users that click through the "this won't work in your browser" button and still get mad at you that your site doesn't work in their browser (just see app reviews for plenty of evidence of this), but there should still be some way of trying the content for the many browsers out there that a developer just doesn't have the incentives to manually test in.
("that Google used to champion" is just dumb rhetoric, though. it ignores the very simple fact that any organization is made up of people with very different opinions and attempts to trivialize the efforts of all the people at google still working hard on web standards and their implementations. I don't agree with all of Mozilla's decisions with regard to the open web (in fact, working group mailing lists are 90% disagreeing with each other on how to advance it), but that doesn't mean that you guys now no longer champion it)