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

Did Google Cripple Edge’s YouTube Performance?

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 55 posts

Re: Did Google Cripple Edge’s YouTube Performance?

#11

Post by jnoring »

amatwl wrote: post #7

I have to say the author's attitude does not come off particularly well in this post, at least in my opinion. Just seems rude.

Author here. That's fair if you feel that way.

What I would say, however is "rude" is attributing malice when there is a perfectly reasonable alternate explanation to a story.

That's really what I take umbrage with; our standards for truth should be higher than the insinuations of a MSFT intern with no clear evidence, and a total lack of the net community as a whole even to consider alternate possibilities.

Re: Did Google Cripple Edge’s YouTube Performance?

#12

Post by jnoring »

t0astbread wrote: post #3

Wow, that's a rude standpoint to take. Of course a monopoly can implement technically better solutions more quickly but the author is completely disregarding the benefits of distributed power: That you as a consumer can decide what you need and what you will use and that you're not a big company's slave. Ignoring this is just short-sighted and an asshole move towards others, IMO. Oh and also, EdgeHTML might not have…

Author here. Diplomacy isn't my strong suit, and I don't care if you think me rude.

I'm not saying consumers shouldn't have choice. That isn't at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is: Chrome didn't arrive at its market share by some corporate scheme to enforce usage by vertical tying. Chrome arrived at that market share by making a great piece of software that most consumers like and are happy with.

And I take particular offense to a browser that is bundled with an operating system by default--as opposed to one a user has to go out of their way to download--as being some panacea to Google. Edge and Safari likely have meaningful market share for no reason beyond: they ship with Windows and macOS respectively.

Chrome certainly ships as the default on Chromebooks and Android, but you'd be remiss to ignore that Chrome is the most used browser on Windows, and second most common on macOS. Those are consumers making a choice. Yet so many people in programming and tech circles don't stop to ask themselves why consumers are opting for Chrome.

So maybe the final line in my post seems harsh, but here's the reality: Edge is only a thing because it ships with Windows. Beyond that I see no technical reason to favor it over Chrome or even Firefox. On Windows, consumers have already spoken: they like Chrome. Lastly, Edge is a pretty questionable argument in favor of "consumer choice", given it represents a choice no consumer actually made beyond "default browser in Windows."

Re: Did Google Cripple Edge’s YouTube Performance?

#13

Post by mscasts »

Bayart wrote: post #4
mscasts wrote: post #2

Well Youtube performance used to suck under Firefox as well to the point that I felt that running youtube without the addon "Youtube Classic" in firefox was unbearable. I still run Youtube Classic.

Playback or rendering ? I know my browser has performance issues because it doesn't have hardware-accelerated playback for VP9, I don't know if FF is in the same basket (sounds like it might be). Having an addon that only enables h264 solves that.

Both but mainly playback.

Re: Did Google Cripple Edge’s YouTube Performance?

#14

Post by bitpush »

Disappointed with people talking about the tone and not the content of the blogpost.

Didnt realize it was an intern (who probably lacks experience with the code) who made the false accusation in the first place. Even if that werent true, making baseless arguments do not sound like the new MSFT that HN tries to project.

Re: Did Google Cripple Edge’s YouTube Performance?

#15

Post by ethelward »

jnoring wrote: post #12
t0astbread wrote: post #3

Wow, that's a rude standpoint to take. Of course a monopoly can implement technically better solutions more quickly but the author is completely disregarding the benefits of distributed power: That you as a consumer can decide what you need and what you will use and that you're not a big company's slave. Ignoring this is just short-sighted and an asshole move towards others, IMO. Oh and also, EdgeHTML might not have…

Author here. Diplomacy isn't my strong suit, and I don't care if you think me rude. I'm not saying consumers shouldn't have choice. That isn't at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is: Chrome didn't arrive at its market share by some corporate scheme to enforce usage by vertical tying. Chrome arrived at that market share by making a great piece of software that most consumers like and are happy with. And I take pa…

IMHO, Chrome arrived at such a market share mostly through (i) ubiquitously ad campaigns (subways, buses, on the web, ...); (ii) an strong push towards the users (it's quite easy when your editor is in charge of what is basically the homepage of the internet for most people); (iii) an aggressive bundling strategy with dozens of other programs (JVM, freewares, ...).

Re: Did Google Cripple Edge’s YouTube Performance?

#16

Post by plushpuffin »

jnoring wrote: post #12
t0astbread wrote: post #3

Wow, that's a rude standpoint to take. Of course a monopoly can implement technically better solutions more quickly but the author is completely disregarding the benefits of distributed power: That you as a consumer can decide what you need and what you will use and that you're not a big company's slave. Ignoring this is just short-sighted and an asshole move towards others, IMO. Oh and also, EdgeHTML might not have…

Author here. Diplomacy isn't my strong suit, and I don't care if you think me rude. I'm not saying consumers shouldn't have choice. That isn't at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is: Chrome didn't arrive at its market share by some corporate scheme to enforce usage by vertical tying. Chrome arrived at that market share by making a great piece of software that most consumers like and are happy with. And I take pa…

While I share your disgust for IE and its successor Edge, you are incorrect about one thing.

The Chrome install base on Windows is not entirely due to user choice. Chrome is/was bundled and selected for installation by default with many other software products, including Adobe Reader, CCleaner, and Avast antivirus.

Re: Did Google Cripple Edge’s YouTube Performance?

#17

Post by ABCLAW »

bitpush wrote: post #14

Disappointed with people talking about the tone and not the content of the blogpost. Didnt realize it was an intern (who probably lacks experience with the code) who made the false accusation in the first place. Even if that werent true, making baseless arguments do not sound like the new MSFT that HN tries to project.

The tone of the article and the posts in this thread are literally the most important piece of content.

This is the person who was directly called out for a specific action which broke one element of Edge functionality. His commits and comments have a very strong "well, fuck them" vibe to them.

I read the initial post that led to this blog reply. It accused google of not playing well with others. The engineer in question is in this thread saying he doesn't give a shit what people think about his tone and that he isn't diplomatic.

He is literally the criticism personified - the hubris made person.

No wonder people are talking about it.

Re: Did Google Cripple Edge’s YouTube Performance?

#18

Post by Analemma_ »

jnoring wrote: post #12
t0astbread wrote: post #3

Wow, that's a rude standpoint to take. Of course a monopoly can implement technically better solutions more quickly but the author is completely disregarding the benefits of distributed power: That you as a consumer can decide what you need and what you will use and that you're not a big company's slave. Ignoring this is just short-sighted and an asshole move towards others, IMO. Oh and also, EdgeHTML might not have…

Author here. Diplomacy isn't my strong suit, and I don't care if you think me rude. I'm not saying consumers shouldn't have choice. That isn't at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is: Chrome didn't arrive at its market share by some corporate scheme to enforce usage by vertical tying. Chrome arrived at that market share by making a great piece of software that most consumers like and are happy with. And I take pa…

> I don’t care if you think me rude

You should care. Part of the implicit criticism in the original post by the intern is that Google is so arrogant in its browser’s dominance that it breaks the web and doesn’t give a shit if anyone complains about it. The tone of your article is certainly doing nothing to help that impression.

Re: Did Google Cripple Edge’s YouTube Performance?

#19

Post by _the_inflator »

t0astbread wrote: post #3

Wow, that's a rude standpoint to take. Of course a monopoly can implement technically better solutions more quickly but the author is completely disregarding the benefits of distributed power: That you as a consumer can decide what you need and what you will use and that you're not a big company's slave. Ignoring this is just short-sighted and an asshole move towards others, IMO. Oh and also, EdgeHTML might not have…

Sorry, I don't really get what's wrong with using Chromium in Edge. It is open source. Everybody can contribute or even fork the code (Blink/WebKit).

And I think Microsoft did a genius move because Edge can be now the cool browser that rocks like Chrome but without the privacy issues it offers.

This is also the problem Mozilla confronts. Year after year they urged for open source and an open web and now that Microsoft opts for it, they feel betrayed.

Put another way: the rendering engine is a commodity while the intention you use it for is the real deal.

Re: Did Google Cripple Edge’s YouTube Performance?

#20

Post by cronix »

plushpuffin wrote: post #16
jnoring wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here. Diplomacy isn't my strong suit, and I don't care if you think me rude. I'm not saying consumers shouldn't have choice. That isn't at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is: Chrome didn't arrive at its market share by some corporate scheme to enforce usage by vertical tying. Chrome arrived at that market share by making a great piece of software that most consumers like and are happy with. And I take pa…

While I share your disgust for IE and its successor Edge, you are incorrect about one thing. The Chrome install base on Windows is not entirely due to user choice. Chrome is/was bundled and selected for installation by default with many other software products, including Adobe Reader, CCleaner, and Avast antivirus.

My dads Dell came with Edge, Firefox and Chrome installed. I wonder how many other vendors are including multiple browsers? Surely if you purchase Win10 on its own you only get Edge, but I don't think most people are buying Win10 on its own compared to purchasing a PC that has it installed already.
Post reply on HN