“Google: it is time to return to not being evil” • Hacker News Board

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#181

Post by int_19h » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 10:39 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #35

Jonnax wrote: post #12

Google are really shitty with their web browser especially on mobile. If you run Firefox you get a stripped down version of Google Search also with no infinite scrolling for images and low resolution. Use a user agent spoofer like this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/chrome-ua-on-... And it seems to work fine on Firefox. I'm sure their official excuse is that they only support WebKit based browsers on…

(I used to work on the webserver for Google Search. Left Google several years ago, have no more vested interest in them.) The reason for the browser-sniffing in search is a combination of ease of testing + latency reduction. By supporting a known set of browsers, you can write a test plan for each and shard it out among contractors (or ideally, automate it with a Selenium config). Manual tests run on every release (2…

The real problem here is optics. There are certainly many valid technical and business reasons to target specific browsers - we've heard them all back in the day when "Best viewed in Internet Explorer" was a standard disclaimer on more than half of all websites out there. That arrangement did not work to the advantage of either the users or Google, though. So Google invested significant resources in web standards and alternative browsers, breaking the Microsoft monopoly. But now that Chrome is rapidly approaching the position that IE held, the users and the web developers are getting a feeling of deja vu, and Google's behavior - however motivated - plays right into that.

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#182

Post by mentando » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 10:46 AM UTC

studentrob wrote: post #161

mentando wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do Chromebooks actively block you from installing another browser? I mean I have a Chromebook and I can install crouton and run Firefox. Or would Google have to provide a "supported" way to install other browsers?

> Do Chromebooks actively block you from installing another browser? I don't have one. If it's sufficiently harder, like it was in the Microsoft IE antitrust case, there may be an argument there. IANAL but I think an antitrust lawsuit would have to show they have majority marketshare too. > Or would Google have to provide a "supported" way to install other browsers? I don't how ChromeOS works. Is Chrome the OS? If so…

> I don't how ChromeOS works. Is Chrome the OS? If so they might have more of an argument than, say, Microsoft, since Windows existed before IE and it was clear IE was not integral to the base system.

It is essentially a really light Linux Distribution with Chrome running on top of it. But I have no clue, how hard or easy it would be for Google to allow a package manager or something to work.

As I said, they do not actively block you from installing crouton, which allows you to use any browser, but I don't know, if that would help with an antitrust lawsuit.

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#183

Post by kuschku » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 10:51 AM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #174

kuschku wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Google teams are just focusing on what would get the largest marketshare, then why did we never see Firefox-only launches of Google products? For many years Firefox was the largest browser that wasn't IE, yet no such launch happened. Even when Chrome's marketshare was below 5%, Google always launched Chrome-only. Your argument is nice, but ultimately invalid: Google never cared about providing to the most user…

You answered your own question. IE having the largest market share in those days. "Google always launched Chrome-only" -- another unsubstantiated claim. When Chrome was 5%, all their launches were always Chrome only? I know it doesn't fit your narrative, but we don't launch broken stuff to screw over other browsers on purpose, period. The number one reason I've seen for non-working browsers is reliance on some non-st…

> I know it doesn't fit your narrative, but we don't launch broken stuff to screw over other browsers on purpose, period

Sure, you never did something that would improve your browser share and then claim in the media that it was for "technical reasons". You also never intentionally made usability on other browsers worse, and then threw dozens of popups and messages into users faces about how they should "upgrade to chrome".

Oh, wait, regulators actually fined you for that.

It doesn’t matter if the browser support is just a coincidence, or actually malicious, the end result is the same, and shouldn’t happen.

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#184

Post by kuschku » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 10:55 AM UTC

xerophyte12932 wrote: post #173

andosa wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point you have to stop giving the benefit of the doubt. I draw the line where Google is unable to make a search page (that is making them the "x billion dollar" company in the first place) work with Firefox due to "lack of dev resources". Even though the only thing stopping the page from working in FF is a user agent check. You are making exactly the same argument that Microsoft proponents were making when IE…

I agree. At some point they should stop considering FF users as "well they aren't OUR users" in the cost benefit equation. They have to acknowledge that FF has a big chunk of the market and it should be part of the "Browsers we test on" list. Considering the features work fine on FF, the actual costs for testing on FF should be minimal.

Well, they’re busy solving that with alternative solutions, by paying devs to secretly install Chrome with their software, and set it as default, and similar shady deals.

This is helpfully decimating the marketshare of anything that isn’t Chrome.

Even the VLC authors documented how Google tried paying them to ship Chrome as default with their installers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWx1P93nS0c&t=48s Google even tried

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#185

Post by kuschku » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 10:57 AM UTC

squeaky-clean wrote: post #115

ricardobeat wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird combo being Firefox with its default user agent..

Well, mobile Firefox which is much less common.

Or Desktop Firefox (~43% of German desktop market) in Google Inbox (during the launch), the new YouTube redesign, Hangouts, Allo, Earth...

Half of Google products either don’t work at all, or far worse, on one of the largest browsers out there.

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#186

Post by kuschku » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 10:59 AM UTC

sogen wrote: post #133

Jonnax wrote: post #12

Google are really shitty with their web browser especially on mobile. If you run Firefox you get a stripped down version of Google Search also with no infinite scrolling for images and low resolution. Use a user agent spoofer like this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/chrome-ua-on-... And it seems to work fine on Firefox. I'm sure their official excuse is that they only support WebKit based browsers on…

Sounds like the return of 90s "best viewed with IE" but for Chrome...

A list of sites affected by this:

Google Translate ("You are using an outdated browser, Upgrade now to the safer Chrome with integrated translation!" (on Firefox 57...)

Google Inbox (during the launch)

YouTube (the new redesign)

Allo (atm Chrome-Only)

Hangouts (Chrome-Only)

Earth (Chrome-Only)

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#187

Post by cromwellian » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 11:32 AM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #183

cromwellian wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You answered your own question. IE having the largest market share in those days. "Google always launched Chrome-only" -- another unsubstantiated claim. When Chrome was 5%, all their launches were always Chrome only? I know it doesn't fit your narrative, but we don't launch broken stuff to screw over other browsers on purpose, period. The number one reason I've seen for non-working browsers is reliance on some non-st…

> I know it doesn't fit your narrative, but we don't launch broken stuff to screw over other browsers on purpose, period Sure, you never did something that would improve your browser share and then claim in the media that it was for "technical reasons". You also never intentionally made usability on other browsers worse, and then threw dozens of popups and messages into users faces about how they should "upgrade to c…

Google fines for advertising Upgrade To Chrome? Citation needed. The EU fine recently was for Shopping, not advertising Chrome downloads.

And as I already pointed out, the Vivaldi CEO claims were based on software which Google didn't even write. Google Docs (Writely) was an acquisition of a service with existing customers and it did not work on Safari or Opera before Google bought them.

Google would have faced a choice after acquisition: continue running a service for existing users that doesn't work on Opera, or, shut it down immediately for a year or more until a rewrite was completed And launch on all browsers.

Of course, Google has been attacked for buying startups and shutting down their products as well, so damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#188

Post by JohnTHaller » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 11:40 AM UTC

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #176

zmmmmm wrote: post #120

A lot of words, but it seems to boil down to: In exchange for being reinstated in Google’s ad network, their in-house specialists dictated how we should arrange content on our own website and how we should communicate information to our users. It's impossible to evaluate this without more details. If their web site actually broke reasonable elements of Google's terms and conditions then it sounds like this is complet…

That is a valid point, but the question remains: How come that one ad network is powerful enough to make a customer beg for three months to be reinstated instead of simply choosing a competitor? Something is clearly out of whack in this market.

Because that ad market is coupled to the largest search engine.

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#189

Post by golfer » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 12:04 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #107

Jonnax wrote: post #12

Google are really shitty with their web browser especially on mobile. If you run Firefox you get a stripped down version of Google Search also with no infinite scrolling for images and low resolution. Use a user agent spoofer like this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/chrome-ua-on-... And it seems to work fine on Firefox. I'm sure their official excuse is that they only support WebKit based browsers on…

Let's not forget the time they refused to make a YouTube app for Windows Phone and when Microsoft made one, Google forced them to remove it. And then seemingly in retribution for making the app, Google blocked Windows Phone from being able to access Google Maps even though the browser was technically capable of using it. Google's reasoning was (similarly to another comment here) "it's too hard to check functionality…

Microsoft's YouTube app removed the ads. Violation of TOS. Pretty straightforward reason for wanting it removed.

Don't act like Microsoft, of all companies, is some poor victim. They compete their ass off, and sometimes they win, sometimes lose. They lost that time.

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#190

Post by katastic » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 12:14 PM UTC

TruthSHIFT wrote: post #91

"Don't be Evil" was just code for "Don't be Microsoft." But, today even Microsoft has enough sense to not be Microsoft.

Microsoft is too busy being a dumpster fire to be evil.

I install and maintain their products for a living. I have horror stories upon horror stories representing weeks (if not months) of dev time to work around--including writing a custom plugin with an SDK just to fix a bug in the data import wizard in CRM.