101–110 of 251 posts
going by Hanlon's Razor, i would guess that this is merely the result of an engineering update that nobody bothered to QA on Firefox rather than a malicious attack on a single browser that isn't _really_ winning market share let's not assume Google malice is _too_ competent
Just a normal day on YouTube for me.
Took a performance benchmark in both Firefox and Brave. Both of them are unusually slow (addons/extensions disabled, fresh profile), but Firefox especially so. Source for the huge render times seems to be desktop_polymer.js, specifically the part that's registering and setting up custom web components. Once the website loads, performance becomes a lot better. My guess is that a Polymer update made Youtube slower for…
(Obviously, they know about Firefox, they've developed for it since it was available, and they've even been funding it.)
going by Hanlon's Razor, i would guess that this is merely the result of an engineering update that nobody bothered to QA on Firefox rather than a malicious attack on a single browser that isn't _really_ winning market share let's not assume Google malice is _too_ competent
Just because there's no one person twirling their mustache and mwahahaha-ing doesn't mean this isn't malicious and hostile behavior by Google. It doesn't matter even if there's no individual human at Google that intended this.
What does matter is that the leadership at Google clearly doesn't do what is necessary in preventing hostile behavior as a consequence of negligence. They know that if they don't put in the effort to ensure compatibility, side effects will degrade competitor performance. It's an inevitable consequence; they've done, and been forced to do, the right thing, and provide quality assurance and compatibility review in complex systems. There are people that know the consequences of not being proactive. Hell, they probably have lawyers that know the exact numbers - they probably make some tens of millions of dollars more revenue by "slacking off" and not being proactive about compatibility.
Took a performance benchmark in both Firefox and Brave. Both of them are unusually slow (addons/extensions disabled, fresh profile), but Firefox especially so. Source for the huge render times seems to be desktop_polymer.js, specifically the part that's registering and setting up custom web components. Once the website loads, performance becomes a lot better. My guess is that a Polymer update made Youtube slower for…
Also, it is Firefox on the desktop. 90% of YouTube views come from mobile, and Firefox only has about 5% market share on the desktop. So desktop Firefox is a half a percent of the overall users of youtube. Is it any surprise that maintaining support for a browser that delivers less than a percent of the total users is deprioritized or just forgotten about?
If they're inadvertently doing it because firefox is so insignificant as not to be worth thinking about, that's an argument for Chrome to be severed from google.
Can confirm. Google is a new Microsoft, they leverage their position to cross promote their shit browser and their shit data stealing services. Sorry guys, if your data collection website doesn't work well with Firefox and uBlock Origin, I just won't use it.
Promoting Chrome may have gotten more people to install it and give it a try, but it didn't force those people to continue using Chrome. It didn't force them to keep using Chrome for years and years, in many cases. Most people, including a great many former Firefox users, simply chose to keep on using Chrome because it offered (and still offers) a superior web browsing experience compared to its competitors. This isn…
Isnt a huge reason Google just lost its anti trust case exactly this? Google search is the default on iphones and studies, and the court, found that that was enough to make a huge majority of users stay with google search for years and years.
Google has been degrading YouTube in Firefox for me for about six months. Where are the antitrust enforcers when you need them?
Well, um, er. As a matter of fact the antitrust enforcers just won their case against Google. They are in the remedy phase now. Figuring out what Google's punishment is going to be. Google no longer being allowed to pay Firefox for its default search placement is most certainly in play as part of the possible remedies. https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/boom-judge-rules-google-i... If you follow the money the idea th…
(Except that it might dry up Firefox's funding if Google won't pay Mozilla to be the default browser engine anymore...)
Can confirm. Google is a new Microsoft, they leverage their position to cross promote their shit browser and their shit data stealing services. Sorry guys, if your data collection website doesn't work well with Firefox and uBlock Origin, I just won't use it.
The behavior is awful, but I wouldn’t call chrome shit. I keep trying to switch away and keep ending back up on it because everything else has inferior performance, or is just a clone of chrome and its rendering engine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah no, this has happened too many times to be just incompetence. It's malicious, plain and simple.
Everybody knows a company can’t be incompetent a bunch of times in a row.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, it is Firefox on the desktop. 90% of YouTube views come from mobile, and Firefox only has about 5% market share on the desktop. So desktop Firefox is a half a percent of the overall users of youtube. Is it any surprise that maintaining support for a browser that delivers less than a percent of the total users is deprioritized or just forgotten about?
If they're doing it to intentionally damage firefox because they feel it is competition, that's an argument for Chrome to be severed from google. If they're inadvertently doing it because firefox is so insignificant as not to be worth thinking about, that's an argument for Chrome to be severed from google.