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

Chrome, 10 Years Later

neugierig.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 175 posts

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#111

Post by concordDance »

izacus wrote: post #81
poszlem wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that part of the blog post is probably the best example of: “it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

This obviously goes both ways - some people also utterly refuse to understand just how many businesses exist because of the revenue driven from ads. Which then results in some comments here that are utterly detached from reality. It's kinda tiring really - seeing people constantly bark past each other with no understanding of nuance. But that's the modern internet I guess.

Some of us just want to go back to the days when almost all internet content we saw was made by obsessive hobbyists.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#112

Post by kaba0 »

haspok wrote: post #63
SalimoS wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, it absolutely is following your reasoning it's your media player job to skip the uninteresting part of a video you're watching ? no, the browser job is to display what he receive from the resource YOU requested what the server put in that resource is between you and it (you can "cheat"(not my word but liked/steal it from another comment) by drop the ad or choose to not requesting the resource all together).

The proper analogy would be that the media player would play random extra videos in addition to what you are watching, in overlays or even opening new windows. Can you imagine VLC working like that? In-video ads are usually OK, the way they do "sponsor" segments on Youtube for example, they are "uninteresting" but usually short and non-obtrusive. Again, I consider these as transactions and don't skip them if otherwis…

Not directly related, but there is sponsorblock, where the community will mark the parts of a video that has a sponsored part, and so you will just skip those parts.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#113

Post by mike_hearn »

sanxiyn wrote: post #93
mike_hearn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems more like a difference of vision. Apple has a popular desktop and mobile OS. It's fundamental to what the company is. For Google they have Android on mobile, but ChromeOS didn't take off in a big way on the desktop, so Chrome has become their desktop "OS" in effect. From Apple's perspective a lot of stuff being added to Chrome is just duplication. They have a competent desktop OS already and it's not cheap t…

Google did build Google Earth for macOS. I am not sure whether this supports or opposes your points. Probably supports.

Google Earth was an acquisition and long pre-dates Chrome. They later phased it out in favor of a web app which, IIRC, at first only ran in Chrome.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#114

Post by Forge36 »

jongjong wrote: post #89

Google should do something about the Chrome repo's file size... 65GB+ is kind of ridiculous. Last time I tried to download the thing, I gave up.

I don't think that's on Google. I tried it last time using git. Having learned more about git: the defaults are not well suited to large repos. Worse: it's not easy to get the right settings.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#115

Post by UncleMeat »

erfgh wrote: post #102
rakoo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote also perpetuates the free market myth: every actor is on an equal foot, has infinite amounts of time and energy to consider options, the alternatives exist and/or are essentially free to build, and money is not a problem. That's never been true. Somehow, there is no environment, no society at large, no inequality. I understand how someone living in the richest country working for the richest company could f…

That's not what a free market is. A free market is merely one that is not regulated by the state. Stop perpetuating this strawman please.

Property itself does not exist without regulation by the state.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#116

Post by makeitdouble »

duped wrote: post #25
asddubs wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to be honest, you can already kind of see the writing on the wall in that quote, too. google wanted more control over the browser, I don't really think that's a neutral act, because they had vested interests in controlling a browser from the start. Of course google's reputation was a lot better back then, so people generally didn't question it too much.

Another way of framing this is that Google wanted to do things that browsers couldn't and better, and built a new browser that redefined what the standards could be. You could call that "control" but in the early days when Chrome was gaining dominance it made the web better. The change in reputation is directly related to the change in the decision making and reasons behind it, imo.

It feels like we're dancing around the concept of Embrace Extend Extinguish.

The first two phases are prominently positive and benefit the users enough for the newcomer to gain traction up to a dominant position. It's also only if that position is reached that the third phase kicks in.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#117

Post by whywhywhywhy »

xg15 wrote: post #34

> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads, but my perspective is that if a business owner wants to make their business repulsive, the only sensible response is to stop using the business. Somehow once technology is involved to abstract what's happening, people start talking about how it's their right to unilaterally renegotiate the transaction. Or for another analogy that will likely make you upset:…

> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads

May not be the job of a web browser but it’s the job of MY web browser. I either have a web browser that blocks ads or I have a broken web browser that’s soon to be replaced.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#118

Post by everdrive »

tgvaughan wrote: post #38
xg15 wrote: post #34

> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads, but my perspective is that if a business owner wants to make their business repulsive, the only sensible response is to stop using the business. Somehow once technology is involved to abstract what's happening, people start talking about how it's their right to unilaterally renegotiate the transaction. Or for another analogy that will likely make you upset:…

I agree, although it's never "cheating" to block ads on our own devices, unless we accept that it's okay to force people from looking away Clockwork Orange-style. (Even the term "blocking" seems wrong: it's not like the ads are coming down a pipe and my "ad blocker" is bouncing them away.)

No one seems to mind this as much as I do, but I remember well over a decade ago when I first tried the Spotify thick client. It would play ads, and if you turned off your volume, it would PAUSE the ads. Spotify has been banned in my household ever since.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#119

Post by jefftk »

Joeri wrote: post #59
yakubin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the entire analogy dubious. When I see a link, I don’t know what sort of ads or JS is on the page it leads to. By blocking ads I am not renegotiating any transactions, because I never entered any transaction. If anything, it seems the author of the post thinks it’s okay for website owners to unilaterally dictate the terms of transaction and force visitors into them. When I buy a banana, I see the price beforeh…

This is why it is perfectly fine to use an ad blocker by default, and perfectly fine for a website to refuse access with ad blockers enabled. At least then there’s a negotiation going on.

> perfectly fine for a website to refuse access with ad blockers enabled

And yet ublock origin tries to work around this. About a third of their issues are "this site refuses service to people with adblockers": https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues?q=is%3Aissue+...

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#120

Post by BoxOfRain »

tgvaughan wrote: post #38
xg15 wrote: post #34

> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads, but my perspective is that if a business owner wants to make their business repulsive, the only sensible response is to stop using the business. Somehow once technology is involved to abstract what's happening, people start talking about how it's their right to unilaterally renegotiate the transaction. Or for another analogy that will likely make you upset:…

I agree, although it's never "cheating" to block ads on our own devices, unless we accept that it's okay to force people from looking away Clockwork Orange-style. (Even the term "blocking" seems wrong: it's not like the ads are coming down a pipe and my "ad blocker" is bouncing them away.)

>unless we accept that it's okay to force people from looking away Clockwork Orange-style

Black Mirror did a delightfully dark take on this, it might have even been the first episode.

Post reply on HN