11–20 of 153 posts
Honestly it would be pretty incredible for Chrome to be split out of Google, and I for one would love to see that happen.
In what possible way would Chrome make money as a standalone company without utterly alienating its userbase? Chrome is subsidized by the rest of Google.
Honestly it would be pretty incredible for Chrome to be split out of Google, and I for one would love to see that happen.
In what possible way would Chrome make money as a standalone company without utterly alienating its userbase? Chrome is subsidized by the rest of Google.
This is an interesting, and relatively fair, article. There are two big issues with it's reasoning though. First, chrome isn't yet close to IEs peak dominance. Ie peaked at over 90% market share. Second, DRM isn't necessary for watching video, it's needed for watching certain liscenced video. In practice, this means Netflix and streamed televison. You can still watch YouTube just fine, minus YouTube red originals, wi…
It's pretty much all the paid media on the internet . Spotify, Hulu, netflix, cable providers, amazon, etc. I guess if you literally only watch free YouTube videos it's not a problem? Totally not an anti-trust issue...
So... why would it cause any antitrust violation?
Widevine was not the first DRM for videos, it was already common practice for the big paid video websites to require DRM before it was created.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amp. Amp is what really scares me about the future of web browsing in chrome.
Pardon my ignorance, but could you elaborate? What is Amp, and why is it so scary?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amp. Amp is what really scares me about the future of web browsing in chrome.
Pardon my ignorance, but could you elaborate? What is Amp, and why is it so scary?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimf...
Basically it's a way for google to promote web pages that are better formatted for mobile devices that use a limited subset of html and restrict use of javascript. The pages are hosted on google.com as additional assurance that they will load quickly.
I do believe it's scary to some because it seems like it's giving google a lot of power and control over content on the web.
I don't faintly see the logic in this! The proof is in the pudding on Chrome's tangible open source impact: 1. V8 is used in a multitude of projects, node being the most impact-ful. And node has changed desktop (with electron and CLI apps), server and developer workflow 2. Brave, Edge, Opera are just some of the WideVine licensed Chromium based browsers On the contrary, iOS has banned almost every tenet of common sen…
IMO it was not Chrome that was the problem as much as:
... the way Google has rammed it down the troat of the Internet
... the way Google keep sabotaging other browsers from the server side (yep, ask the Edge team about YouTube or Firefox users about GSuite)
... the way a number of developers has picked up these bad habits and forget (or "forget") to check their sites in all browsers
... and of course the bait and switch they are playing now.
(With a bit of DRM needed for video, so those competitors can't be pure open source. But still, it's not going to stop Microsoft.)
The article admits to this, then kind of ignores it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what possible way would Chrome make money as a standalone company without utterly alienating its userbase? Chrome is subsidized by the rest of Google.
By doing like firefox, making money out of making google the default search engine. Which means their unique source of revenue (and client) would be google. Full circle...
However, a Chrome-with-Google-revenue would be far more independent of Google than Chrome-the-Google-Subsidiary. Mozilla/Firefox has shown that it's still possible to advance privacy even within such an arrangement.
Also, its far from clear who would have the most power in such an arrangement. Without a popular browser of its own, Google will be forced to pay the browser vendors to stay the default, unless it wants to give a search engine competitor a chance to unseat it.
I don't faintly see the logic in this! The proof is in the pudding on Chrome's tangible open source impact: 1. V8 is used in a multitude of projects, node being the most impact-ful. And node has changed desktop (with electron and CLI apps), server and developer workflow 2. Brave, Edge, Opera are just some of the WideVine licensed Chromium based browsers On the contrary, iOS has banned almost every tenet of common sen…
> Brave, Edge, Opera are just some of the WideVine licensed Chromium based browsers Today I learned: the new Edge has both WideVine and PlayReady. I figured they'd just go with PlayReady and be done with it - does WideVine have any real advantages? https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/chromium-mic... https://www.ghacks.net/2019/04/03/chromium-based-microsoft-e...
This is an interesting, and relatively fair, article. There are two big issues with it's reasoning though. First, chrome isn't yet close to IEs peak dominance. Ie peaked at over 90% market share. Second, DRM isn't necessary for watching video, it's needed for watching certain liscenced video. In practice, this means Netflix and streamed televison. You can still watch YouTube just fine, minus YouTube red originals, wi…
It's pretty much all the paid media on the internet . Spotify, Hulu, netflix, cable providers, amazon, etc. I guess if you literally only watch free YouTube videos it's not a problem? Totally not an anti-trust issue...
1. copyright owners forced Google to implement DRM
2. Or, Google welcomed DRM (with the intention of lock-in)
3. Or, Google should have kept Chrome DRM free and fought the copyright owners...