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

281–290 of 316 posts

Re: Browsers

#281

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Browsers

#282

Post by jansan »

ttty2 wrote: post #140
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…

I think it's interesting. Did you investigate why they added that div?

We often use empty DIVs for catching mouse events.

Re: Browsers

#283

Post by mda »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #141
mirimir wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Currently, all of Google's services work on non-Chrome browsers. Last time I checked, Google Authenticator only works on Chrome.

Gmail and YouTube uses Chrome only features that make them slow in other browsers, compared to Chrome.

You imply they do this deliberately, do you have any evidence? It sounds super unlikely to me.

Re: Browsers

#284

Post by eganist »

bonesss wrote: post #265
eganist wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinating. I wonder what the counter-argument would be; that a website isn't software, perhaps? That argument could be sufficiently argued apart by equating manually downloaded/installed software with code that's manually downloaded (GET / host: youtube.com) and run in a browser context. I'd be curious to see how likely Microsoft would be to follow this approach rather than to just stick to using Blink... as they'v…

The counter arguments are a) broken rendering in your browser does not dictate how my websites have to be, and b) since when is Google a monopoly on standardized HTML web video? Google could start responding to YouTube requests with binary streams of gibberish if they want, MS would only have standing to sue as a content creator and advertiser on YouTube. If Google is reverse engineering other browsers optimization p…

a) A broken reference C compiler don't dictate how a different C compiler might act -- in reference to the case which Intel lost.

b) since Google's browser became the defacto standard browser thanks to Edge switching engines, hence the thread. The standard doesn't really matter anymore; Google makes most of them now as a matter of course anyway.

Re: Browsers

#285

Post by earthboundkid »

austincheney wrote: post #247
wvenable wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a matter of opinion, content-box is much more difficult to work with when using fluid layouts than border-box which is why all major CSS frameworks use border-box now. At the time, the CSS specification didn't make it clear which way to calculate widths so Microsoft, probably due to their experience building graphical layout software, chose border-box while all other rendering engines at the time went conten…

You claim it’s not a matter of opinion and due to personal opinion. Weird. Then you invent a history from which to draw imaginary conclusions. It is perfectly ok to have a personal opinion on CSS. You don’t have to justify it and you certainly don’t have to conjure a dillisional alternate reality. Imagination aside, IE3 was the first browser to offer any CSS support.

You're just wrong. The CSS box model as specified by the standards was totally unusable for making a website where you want boxes to have certain sizes with certain margins and paddings, especially in the days before you could use calc(), so you couldn't mix pixels with percentages. It's true that it was the standard, and so MS should have implemented the standard, but it's also true that what MS shipped made way more sense and every frontend dev turns on their box model when it box-model: border-box became part of the standard.

Re: Browsers

#286

Post by magicalist »

fefe23 wrote: post #274
magicalist wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

> And how would you measure that? Youtube, of course!

Makes total sense, but if you're over-fitting for Youtube's exact layout in 2016, you're eventually going to have to update your optimizations. Sites don't stay the same forever.

Re: Browsers

#287

Post by eridius »

StudentStuff wrote: post #262
eridius wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Meet is a video conferencing app, not a telephone replacement. AFAIK there's no way to "call" someone. So Web Push seems to be rather irrelevant. > Network bandwidth on mobile devices is inconsistent, unstable, and often relatively low I'm not using Google Meet on a cellular network. I'm using it on a wifi network. And if it comes to it, I'd rather have slightly worse video quality with H.264 than slightly bet…

> Google Meet is a video conferencing app, not a telephone replacement. Great, I really don't care about Google's WebRTC app of the month, it is unlikely to be with us in 10 years. Your root question about why Google hasn't supported Safari with their Meet product likely boils down to the codec wars, as without VP8/VP9 support, Safari does not support the WebRTC standard. A reasonable thing Safari could do is rank co…

> once again not WebRTC spec compliant

According to the page you linked, nobody is spec-compliant.

I'm going to guess that Google's lack of support for Safari boils down to video codec and nothing else.

> A reasonable thing Safari could do is rank codecs by power usage, prioritizing H.264 front and center.

Apple does not have any support for VP8/9, period. And I will be extremely surprised if they ever add support for a non-hardware-accelerated video codec. Apple believes in power efficiency over pretty much anything else, which makes hardware acceleration mandatory for something like this.

Re: Browsers

#288

Post by Tolomir »

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…

and it was ok with drdos and windows 30 years ago. Now let's eat your own dogfood.....

Re: Browsers

#289

Post by ineedasername »

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…

I'm a little skeptical... when an intern claims a single empty div tanks performance from hardware acceleration that is presumably robust enough to handle much weirder stuff, this comment starts to look a bit more like a conspiracy theory account if the demise of Edge.

Re: Browsers

#290

Post by joepie91_ »

ineedasername wrote: post #289
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…

I'm a little skeptical... when an intern claims a single empty div tanks performance from hardware acceleration that is presumably robust enough to handle much weirder stuff, this comment starts to look a bit more like a conspiracy theory account if the demise of Edge.

It sounds plausible to me. Overlaying something onto a hardware-accelerated thing suddenly adds a compositing step to your rendering pipeline, which - usually - requires moving the compositing to your GPU as well, AFAIK.
Post reply on HN