281–290 of 497 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> show the full URL but have the domain name in white and the rest of the URL in a muted color Which is exactly what they do at the moment.
Meaning that the need for the new hiding feature is... what, exactly?
IMO this is the real reason why they're pushing hard towards this: However, it's also worth considering that making the web address less important, as this feature does, benefits Google as a company. Google's goal with Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) and similar technologies is to keep users on Google-hosted content as much as possible, and Chrome for Android already modifies the address bar on AMP pages to hide that…
We are going back to AOL days. That didn’t work out so well for AOL in the long run. It’s kind of crazy to me you can’t do marketing now without at least discussing Google and Facebook these days. Edit: at least you knew you were the customer with AOL and paid them with clear terms for access.
When the final version is implemented in a couple of years you will no longer see any URL, that way it won't be as evident that most sites on the web will be loaded from Google. Google is also attacking this issue from a different perspective with Signed Exchanges [1][2], to fake the URL and ensure their success in becoming the gatekeepers of the internet. If you refuse to become a content provider for Google's visio…
Yeah the endgame would involve a play-store like 30% cut of any revenue, subscription, ads, anything. 30% cut from non-Google ad network revenue as well. At that point publishers won't have a choice any more because of the Chrome and Google search monopolies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the webshits didn't bloat the web like this, AMP wouldn't have happened. "But all hipsters I know have latest macbook pro" has been the standard answer from all of them.
Lean websites are NOT featured in the Top Stories carousel, only AMP websites, so this is not primarily about page speed. If page speed would be the main reason for AMP, they'd simply continue to demote websites that have poor performance in search results, and they'd curtail the main bloat from sites in Chrome, ads and trackers. But I agree that Google has used this talking point successfully so far to bully publish…
Hasn’t Safari already been doing this for ages with no issues?
Edit: I've just tried it in Chrome (enable [0] and [1] or [2]), and it's a disorienting user experience. As a matter of fact, I also just tried it in Safari, where I have similar complaints (but, again, it's easy to disable there).
[0]: chrome://flags/#omnibox-ui-sometimes-elide-to-registrable-domain
[1]: chrome://flags/#omnibox-ui-reveal-steady-state-url-path-query-and-ref-on-hover
[2]: chrome://flags/#omnibox-ui-hide-steady-state-url-path-query-and-ref-on-interaction
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were a large number of layoffs at Mozilla, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24120336 .
And strategic re-orientation as I understood it.
Explanation: Google undermined FireFox, both through ads, then through a series of incompatibilities.
And they did the same to Edge, which is using Chromium.
I still haven't found a good answer why they do this. "Makes it harder to tell if the current site is legitimate" sounds like an excuse. If you are the perfect target for a phishing attack (= clicks on everything, enters passwords everywhere, has no clue about host names) then you also won't be able to understand what Chrome presents you in the address bar after obfuscation. My best explanation so far is that the Chr…
Why? To me, having helped elderly relatives with computers a lot, it is very plausible. Phishing URLs use all sorts of subdomain and querystring tricks to fool users, and it can work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that there are simply no good free browsers that are not Chromium-based or Firefox. It doesn't seem viable or worthwhile to write a web rendering engine from the ground up. We're heading rapidly towards a Blink/Webkit monoculture.
Why exclude FF? It’s good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only difference is that Google has endlessly more clout and depth than AOL and my fear is that where AOL failed, Google may succeed. With Firefox succumbing this week, this is pretty horrible. I’m not a Richard Stallman type, but I think it’s come to the point where if you have even the slightest pretense of being a “free web” person, using Chrome or a Chromium-based browser has become unconscionable. This compan…
I've been using Firefox/Safari on my personal devices for a couple years now, but as a web developer I unfortunately can't not use Chrome at work because of its dev tools. I try to test on other browsers when I have time - I've always made a point to push for supporting at least Firefox, as an organization - but when I'm iterating I really just need the Chrome tools. Firefox's tools always remained one or two steps b…