Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Browsers

adactio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 316 posts

Re: Browsers

#221

Post by sangnoir »

XCabbage wrote: post #201
ksec wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will Microsoft gain if they Win? Nothing. Google has the upper hand in public image. Microsoft is still evil outside of Dev Circles. And IE did some ass moves as well in IE6 era, think about the PR mess this would lead. It is not the best time to strike now, once the timing is right, I am sure they will.

> "What will Microsoft gain if they Win?" Uh, money? It might not exactly be a noble incentive for a lawsuit, but it's sure as hell an incentive, isn't it?

I wonder what sort of information Google might dredge up during discovery that Microsoft wouldn't want to see the light of day. I'm no lawyer/accountant, so I don't know what amount of money would be worth that risk.

With a lot of legal issues, sometimes the only winning move is not to play.

Re: Browsers

#222

Post by StudentStuff »

eridius wrote: post #212
StudentStuff wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safari has purposefully neutered WebRTC, both Firefox and Google have full codec support while Apple tries to push H.264 only, plus things like web push still doesn't work on iOS: https://webrtchacks.com/safari-webrtc/ Google Meet also appears to have updated to support the WebRTC spec (rather than the oddball implementation Chrome had) so long as your browser supports it: https://blog.mozilla.org/webrtc/firefox-is-n…

While it's true that Safari only supports H.264, Google already produces quite a lot of H.264 video. In fact, Google has a Google Meet iOS app; I don't suppose you have any idea if they push H.264 to that app, or if they've actually embedded a software VP8/9 encoder/decoder into the app? I sincerely hope it's the former for battery life reasons if nothing else (though we already know Google doesn't seem to care about…

WebRTC was created to replace the need for apps that handle calling, without web push notifications (like every other WebRTC supporting browser has) there is no way for inbound calls to cause the phone to receive a notification unless Safari is open and has the webpage pulled up.

WRT VP8/VP9, bandwidth is much more of a concern than you make it out to be. Network bandwidth on mobile devices is inconsistent, unstable, and often relatively low (say hello to congested towers, or fringe 700Mhz coverage where 500Kbps is all you get :P), thus the best compression possible ensures that video quality and usability is top notch.

By restricting video to H.264, your stuck with a legacy codec that has relatively poor compression rates compared to the other standardized codecs. Is it good for interop with a 2005 era deskphone? Sure, but not much else.

Re: Browsers

#223

Post by StudentStuff »

ksec wrote: post #194
StudentStuff wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safari has purposefully neutered WebRTC, both Firefox and Google have full codec support while Apple tries to push H.264 only, plus things like web push still doesn't work on iOS: https://webrtchacks.com/safari-webrtc/ Google Meet also appears to have updated to support the WebRTC spec (rather than the oddball implementation Chrome had) so long as your browser supports it: https://blog.mozilla.org/webrtc/firefox-is-n…

I thought H.264 is free for Software Decode? Supported in Firefox as well. There is no reasons why Apple should support VP8 / 9 Which is a Google's Codec, even though it is free of charge.

H.264 isn't free, Cisco is footing the licensing bill for support in most software (including Firefox): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Implementatio...

This is why Mozilla is pushing AV1 and VP8/VP9 so hard, being stuck with H.264 as the whole industry migrates to H.265 due to bandwidth savings is a major impediment, and the licensing body could easily extract usurious rent for H.265 if it becomes the only reasonable option: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/08/the-video-wars-of-2027/

Re: Browsers

#224

Post by magicalist »

Mil0dV wrote: post #220
cramforce wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter anecdote: As a Google engineer it always seemed like Edge implemented the sparsest possible version of the web platform to make major Google products work–and literally nothing else. That works to launch the browser, but then basically any product change runs a chance to no longer fall into that sparse subset and break in a browser. If Edge had implemented a more robust set of features, it would have massivel…

Features like empty divs on top of video? Could be by accident ofc, but the entire story makes this unlikely.

> Features like empty divs on top of video? Could be by accident ofc, but the entire story makes this unlikely.

I'd suggest inspecting a few sites you watch video on. An empty div is the least weird thing you'll find.

Re: Browsers

#225

Post by WorldMaker »

Manishearth wrote: post #214
kipkniskern wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are, however, changes to Chrome and not Chromium, right? Even with a move to Chromium, anyone/everyone is still going to be playing catch up to Google. Having an open source engine means next to nothing if Google plays these kinds of games, abusing its dominant position. Having Edge updates tied to OS updates seems to be more of a problem than EdgeHTML itself, unless there are other issues (and there probably a…

Chrome and Chromium share the same engine, and for this stuff it is the engine that matters.

For now, at least. AOSP and Android "share the same engine", supposedly, but API footprint standardized in AOSP is getting drastically distanced from the API footprint moved behind Google Play Services and other proprietary bulkheads. The number of APKs that run on non-Google Play enabled AOSP builds has dwindled fast in the last few years. (Just ask Amazon.)

What's to stop "YouTube needs Genuine Chrome™ with Google Play® Support Services Installed"?

Re: Browsers

#226

Post by DrPizza »

magicalist wrote: post #224
Mil0dV wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Features like empty divs on top of video? Could be by accident ofc, but the entire story makes this unlikely.

> Features like empty divs on top of video? Could be by accident ofc, but the entire story makes this unlikely. I'd suggest inspecting a few sites you watch video on. An empty div is the least weird thing you'll find.

On the other hand, pretty easy how such a div might trigger a less efficient path; if the video is top in the z-order then it can probably bypass being composited by the browser (and who knows, maybe even bypass being composited by the OS) and avoid a whole mess of rendering to a texture, texturing some triangles, and so on and so forth.

Re: Browsers

#227

Post by sonnyblarney »

ksec wrote: post #192
XCabbage wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The behaviour that your co-workers claim Google engaged in sounds pretty exactly like the AMD-Intel antitrust case where AMD alleged that Intel's C compiler was deliberately crippling performance on AMD processors to help Intel's processors compete. If true, Microsoft should sue Google over it - not just out of raw corporate self-interest, but because this sort of conduct is evil and should be stamped out. If this ca…

What will Microsoft gain if they Win? Nothing. Google has the upper hand in public image. Microsoft is still evil outside of Dev Circles. And IE did some ass moves as well in IE6 era, think about the PR mess this would lead. It is not the best time to strike now, once the timing is right, I am sure they will.

"What will Microsoft gain if they Win? Nothing. "

They'll get a more level playing field.

CEO's generally don't order this stuff to happen. More often it's a director, manager, VP or whatever that's just really aggressive. Possibly the CEO knew or not.

When a company gets bloodied for a pile of money, they generally have to own up to it, which makes them look bad (by they way, these things do have a cumulative effect) - but more importantly, they have to at very least 'go through the motions' of getting staff to 'not do this stuff'.

So they have 'training' and 'oversight' etc.. However ingrained it is into behaviour (or even a single rotten apple) the likelihood of recursion goes down.

For example - if an inner legal team gets some responsibility for oversight on these issues, they can make life difficult for managers on these things.

I worked at a Fortune 50 that was sued by a patent troll, and it seriously and fundamentally changed internal culture to the point wherein we needed lawyers involved in everything, it was really bad. Obviously a negative example.

But especially Microsoft has enough $ to drag Google into court, they should do it.

That said: I'll bet $100 that MS might be doing some tricky things of their own anyhow.

Re: Browsers

#228

Post by WorldMaker »

scarface74 wrote: post #66
oooglaaa wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the only competitor to Google’s monopoly on web browsers is... funded almost entirely by Google? Yikes

While Safari’s desktop market share is minimal and it really only competes with Chrome directly on Macs. No one is going to use Chrome only features that don’t work on iPhones.

> No one is going to use Chrome only features that don’t work on iPhones.

Mostly facetious, but who except Americans cares about iOS anymore? Total iPhone market share is down to ~15% of smart phones worldwide. Android has the big lead now and doesn't look like it will relinquish it soon. Chrome only feature, works on ~85% of smart phones today? "Ship it," says the bottom line.

Re: Browsers

#229

Post by magicalist »

DrPizza wrote: post #226
magicalist wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Features like empty divs on top of video? Could be by accident ofc, but the entire story makes this unlikely. I'd suggest inspecting a few sites you watch video on. An empty div is the least weird thing you'll find.

On the other hand, pretty easy how such a div might trigger a less efficient path; if the video is top in the z-order then it can probably bypass being composited by the browser (and who knows, maybe even bypass being composited by the OS) and avoid a whole mess of rendering to a texture, texturing some triangles, and so on and so forth.

ha, just saw your story over on ars.

FWIW, I think you're a little credulous there; as I mentioned in my other comment[1], I can't find anything stating that Chrome starting beating Edge at the test (their videos actually claim the opposite) or anybody from Chrome boasting about it (articles from the time like yours[2] also say the opposite).

> On the other hand, pretty easy how such a div might trigger a less efficient path

I mean, sure, you can always fall off the fast path, but given how common transparent divs over video are, the battery benchmark should have come with even more caveats. Edge is the most battery efficient browser†!

† for playing fullscreen video††

†† Battery test not valid if the page doesn't use the exact layout youtube used in December 2017. Also not valid if testing vimeo, or twitch, or any porn site, or...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18701430

[2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/05/edge-still-boasts-be...

Re: Browsers

#230

Post by WorldMaker »

sys_64738 wrote: post #210
scarface74 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that is true. Gaining control of the “Windows desktop browsing market” is at best a Pyrrhic victory. 63% of all browsing is done on mobile. https://www.stonetemple.com/mobile-vs-desktop-usage-study/

Microsoft has already conceded the mobile space. They're doubling down on desktop dominance.

If they were doubling down on desktop dominance they'd be doing something more interesting with Edge than conceding it to the competition.

(Microsoft is doubling down on Azure and DevDiv, if anything.)

This seems only to put the desktop at risk, especially with (EdgeHTML-powered) HTML+CSS+JS as the "third pillar" of the original Universal Windows Platform strategy, this only seems to further feed questions about Microsoft's overall confidence in UWP and thereby that middle word, Windows itself. This decision is directly showing a weak flank to "Chrome OS". What's to stop Chromebooks from attacking Windows for just being the junk drawer of old Win32 applications and games around a Chrome OS knockoff?

There's certainly still a lot of value, especially in enterprise, invested in that "junk drawer", but is that enough any more? Yeah, there's just no way that this decision is doubling down on "desktop dominance".

Post reply on HN