Live data from Hacker News

A tale of how Google tried to win against Mozilla

twitter.com

171–180 of 194 posts

Re: A tale of how Google tried to win against Mozilla

#171
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are now too dumb to type addresses? This is unwarranted condescension. Many URLs are long and non-obvious — do remember that people usually want specific pages rather than a top-level homepage — and there's a thriving industry registering domains which are one typo away from something legitimate and loading them up with ads & malware. For the average person, it's safer and faster just to let Google figure it…

> For the average person, it's safer and faster just to let Google figure it out. Of course. Only a genius like me can use the address bar's auto completion. I know: even my programmers colleagues at work reach for the search bar, I must be a unique snowflake. Seriously though, the difference isn't that big, barely a speed bump. But that speed bump is enough to cause people to go around it, and use Google even when r…

I agree that there's a downside to having search as a fallback to locations but try to be a bit more empathetic for the people who might type something like “support.apple.com” as “supportapple.com” and end up somewhere sketchy.

If they've previously hit the site before, autocompletion will work but lots of people hear about sites in contexts which don't give them a direct clickable link on the computer they want to use and they're a lot more likely to have a negative outcome from that than Google's data mining.

Re: A tale of how Google tried to win against Mozilla

#172
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For people running in non-default scaled resolutions. In the default configuration it's somewhere in between Safari (best) and Chrome (worst).

Unfortunately, a non-native scaling mode is the default on new Mac laptops now. You need to switch to one of the custom scaling modes to get a true, native 2x.

I've heard this but haven't seen it on any new hardware — I thought it was limited to 2016 or so.

Re: A tale of how Google tried to win against Mozilla

#173
post #68
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, https://twitter.com/acdlite/status/1089273195281080335

"The browsers are working to standardise new lower level APIs that frameworks need" Highlighting "standardise". They are NOT private APIs.

The usual way this works nowadays is that there's a proposal developed with minimal (if any) input from anyone outside Google, often tied to the specific architectures of Chrome and whatever Google app they are trying to improve. Once they publish it, other browsers point out various problems in the proposal, but Google is unwilling to change anything non-cosmetic because "we have put a lot of time into thinking about this and we're sure we're right". Unsurprisingly, the API fails to get adoption in other browsers and web apps unless forced to for web compat reasons.

As part of this process, Google publishes a proposed standards draft that goes nowhere because of the above dynamic plus because it typically doesn't actually match the Chrome implementation. The engineer responsible for the feature gets their bonus, which is tied to shipping the feature (and throwing a standards draft over the wall is a requirement for that; it's better than nothing, but also worse than an actual standard while allowing the engineer and the rest of the Chrome team to feel good about themselves).

Crucially, there are incentives inside Google for shipping features and throwing a standards draft over the wall, but no incentives for actually getting things standardized, adopted in other browsers, addressing feedback on the standards proposal, maintaining the standard, etc. All of this shows in the observed behavior of even well-meaning engineers who have limited time and bonus targets to hit.

There's some movement towards changing the incentive structure. We'll see how it goes. There are definitely _very_ well-meaning people on the Chrome team who are not happy with the state of things and are trying to improve them.

Disclaimer: I work on Firefox and see this play out quite regularly.

Re: A tale of how Google tried to win against Mozilla

#174
post #50
post #30

I thought the thread would have more substance to it. His claim is that Google products would have performance bugs or would explicitly block any non-Chrome browser. As a long time Firefox user, I’m with him so far. But he loses me on the next bit where he rules out incompetence and then jumps to org-level malice. I don’t think it’s either. A simpler explanation is that Google simply stopped caring about non-Chrome b…

> But he loses me on the next bit where he rules out incompetence and then jumps to org-level malice. I think he has a reasonable justification for his position (two even): - Google would have to be very incompetent for it to be incompetence (stated in the article) - If Mozilla comes around every few weeks "hey guys, you broke it again" it's hard to argue they "don't care" or "don't prioritize" in the sense of "oh, w…

Google does save on the frontend, e.g. they use pixel-oriented design, which is incompetent. Maybe they have competent engineers somewhere deep in the backend.

Re: A tale of how Google tried to win against Mozilla

#175
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good news: Full background update functionality is in the works. (I work on the team that owns install/update at Mozilla, though I don’t work on it myself.)

Will that also help with the 10% or so users that are not on up-to-date versions? It looks like the user base is still a bit fractionated.

Hopefully it prevents more users from getting caught up in that. As for the existing ones, that's an ongoing problem that people have been working on.

Re: A tale of how Google tried to win against Mozilla

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nb. with extensions you can also get background play and even ad blocking on YouTube.

> background play Oooh, I so very much want that. Thanks, I'll check it out!

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/video-backgro...

Re: A tale of how Google tried to win against Mozilla

#177
post #113
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations or any other business exist solely on one purpose: to make profit. If you're not making any profit you're not doing business, you're running a charity. That's why you can't trust corporations when it comes to anything "open" and "free".

There is some nuance required here, since ‘corporation’ is such a vague term. Even Mozilla Corporation, which is wholly owned by the not-for-profit Mozilla Foundation, is a for-profit organisation (i.e. it aims to turn a profit and is taxed) which which reinvests its profit back into Mozilla’s projects and and other work which Mozilla considers to be in the public interest for a free and open Internet. Everyone has t…

MoCo is for-profit in the legal sense, yes. But it doesn't "aim to turn a profit".

Re: A tale of how Google tried to win against Mozilla

#180
post #162
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Admittedly, when I was at Google, I only worked on three different products. However, while there I had no real deadlines. My work was done when it was done. Performance was measured in quality and impact. This was in fact a part of the culture that was communicated to my team on multiple occasions. With that said, there is some indication from the outside that the culture is changing. It can be difficult to sustain…

I wish more companies came closer to this.

its not always possible to sustain that philosophy of work economically for all businesses. I'm not defending every case of it, just that there are legitimate reasons why speed is valued over quality in certain cases.
Post reply on HN