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

271–280 of 316 posts

Re: Browsers

#271

Post by yankdevil »

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.

There are dev circles where Microsoft isn't evil? I've been a Unix/Linux dev for thirty years so maybe I'm not keeping up, but the general view was that if Microsoft had a platform we needed to target it was because it made us money and we assumed we'd eventually get burned - which nearly every time we did.

And I've worked for Google in the past, but their main issue has always been that they change a lot which makes them a moving target which is annoying in its own way.

Microsoft earned its public image and while it's made nicer noises recently it's not an organisation that fills me with trust.

Re: Browsers

#272

Post by mtgx »

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.

It hasn't. Otherwise it wouldn't have developed a mobile Edge browser (also based on Chromium), and other mobile apps for Android and iOS.

Re: Browsers

#273

Post by catwell »

pcwalton wrote: post #242
magicalist wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You need heuristics of some kind to get good performance, and I can't blame Microsoft for using the DOM for that. which, again, that's fine, but mayyyyybe they were a little lax in checking performance on nearly any other popular video site on the web to see if that heuristic is a good one? Or maybe changing page layout in an extremely common way wasn't an effort to undermine a hyper specific benchmark?

How many sites put invisible DOM elements over the videos? Remember, if you put visible DOM elements on top of the videos, then you lose scanout compositing no matter what.

There are visible elements on top of YouTube videos.

That's what this "empty div" is for if that's the one I think it is. It is the container for things like branding and annotations.

Re: Browsers

#274

Post by fefe23 »

magicalist wrote: post #263
DrPizza wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the performance claiming is really the important part here; it's doing something that lacks any real reason but which hurts Edge. And while I agree that video overlays are common, I also think it's reasonable for such overlays to revert to a slightly less efficient path.

> it's doing something that lacks any real reason but which hurts Hey, there's a new div in the DOM, the only possible reason for a change like that is so Chrome can advertise about beating Edge on a benchmark nobody cares about? Even though they never beat Edge on it and this "advertising" never took place? This was the credulity I was talking about. These events didn't happen (you literally wrote the stories plural…

Speak for yourself, please.

I do care about video playback battery performance. So much so, in fact, that I bought my current laptop specifically so it would last long when watching videos.

Also note that tablets, smartphones, the Macbook Air and the Surface are sold on their battery stamina, and specifically while watching videos. And how would you measure that? Youtube, of course!

Re: Browsers

#275

Post by aloisdg »

perilunar wrote: post #166
JoshuaJB wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's?" This is already happening. I very recently worked on the Edge team, and one of the reasons we decided to end EdgeHTML was because Google kept making changes to its sites that broke other browsers, and we couldn't…

That sort of behaviour should be called out and publicised widely. Given how easy it is to delete an offending div using the dev tools, it would be easily verified by web developers. There'd be a thousand blog posts and news stories saying "Google deliberately sabotages Edge on YouTube" and the public blowback would be pretty damaging I imagine.

well... https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/12/the-web-now-belongs-...

Re: Browsers

#276

Post by JohnBooty »

JoshuaJB wrote: post #124
sonnyblarney wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concern is not 'now' it's 'later'. Google is a business like any other - and when they have the power to lever a monopolized situation - they will. For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's? Or what if they integrate technology that de-facto collects usa…

"For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's?" This is already happening. I very recently worked on the Edge team, and one of the reasons we decided to end EdgeHTML was because Google kept making changes to its sites that broke other browsers, and we couldn't…

Thank you for posting this.

Re: Browsers

#277

Post by johnisgood »

acdha wrote: post #168
johnisgood wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Apple has been playing the game of vendor lock-in for quite some time now. How does it make the situation any better? Heck, they have changed - and set a nasty precedent - their hardware for this exact purpose.

Large companies usually don’t act with a single voice. The iPhone is what stopped IE’s ability to dictate what the web would work like — not entirely without help but it’s what forced companies to treat support for other browsers as mandatory rather than nice-to-have – and WebKit was a huge win for open source, eventually including Chrome. That doesn’t mean that things like Lightning connectors don’t also happen but…

By the way, just came across: https://apple.slashdot.org/story/18/11/10/1656225/apple-bloc...

Ugh.

Re: Browsers

#278

Post by FerretFred »

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.

"Microsoft is still evil outside of Dev Circles"

TBH, I consider Google much more evil than Microsoft, in or outside of Dev Circles. Microsoft dropped the evil baton and Google picked it up and sprinted away.

Re: Browsers

#279

Post by shevegen »

JoshuaJB wrote: post #124
sonnyblarney wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concern is not 'now' it's 'later'. Google is a business like any other - and when they have the power to lever a monopolized situation - they will. For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's? Or what if they integrate technology that de-facto collects usa…

"For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's?" This is already happening. I very recently worked on the Edge team, and one of the reasons we decided to end EdgeHTML was because Google kept making changes to its sites that broke other browsers, and we couldn't…

[dead]

Re: Browsers

#280

Post by shevegen »

XCabbage wrote: post #162
JoshuaJB wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's?" This is already happening. I very recently worked on the Edge team, and one of the reasons we decided to end EdgeHTML was because Google kept making changes to its sites that broke other browsers, and we couldn't…

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…

Your comment is only good in theory.

In practice, Google won the browser wars and can dictate whatever they want to.

Microsoft got tired and the market segment was already extremely small, so there was not much to gain from fighting Google.

It's unfortunate because now we are all stuck with Google.

AMP is the next step of dominance for Google.

Post reply on HN