Live data from Hacker News

But what if I want a faster horse?

rakhim.exotext.com

531–540 of 632 posts

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#531
post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone else who lived through those days, I have to disagree. First, JavaScript performance was not an afterthought, it was a big deal. Second, Chrome's sandbox was massively superior from a security point of view. In a world full of viruses, that was a big deal. I personally recommended Chrome to family and friends. I did so because I didn't want to be tech support for their virus problems. But what I sold them…

> First, JavaScript performance was not an afterthought, it was a big deal. It's a /very/ big deal. It's not a mistake that V8 was chosen to build Node.JS on top of. Javascript performance continues to dominate the overall performance of browsers on the modern web as front-end developers utilize more and more JS weight in their pages and SPAs become even more commonplace. Don't mistake my comment as saying that the w…

On performance, you're acknowledging my point without recognizing how important it was for switching back in 2008. Using the web, particularly JavaScript heavy parts of the web like Google's business suite, Chrome was a significantly better experience than Firefox. It was a real reason to switch. (I'll return to V8 shortly.)

On the sandbox, I think that you are confusing the Chrome Sandbox (released in 2008) with the Privacy Sandbox (released in 2019). At the release of Chrome, it was a significant security improvement over existing browsers. You might not call their process isolation a sandbox, but they certainly did. See https://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/new-approach-to-browser-se... to verify.

True, security and sandboxing have improved greatly in the decades since. But the current quality of Firefox is irrelevant to people's reasons to switch back then.

Now let's go back to why Chrome was developed. As articles like https://www.computerworld.com/article/1501244/the-real-reaso... demonstrate, Google's reasoning was widely understood at the time. Google wanted complex web applications to run better. And Google also wanted people to not fear for the security of their web applications. So they focused on performance and security.

What Google didn't care about was creating a monopoly. Sure, they could have released V8 without a browser attached. But that wouldn't have changed the consumer experience in the way that Google cared about. That said, they had every reason to pull V8 out of Chrome and release it independently. They were as surprised as anyone when someone chose to create node.js out of it. Their actual goal was to hope that other browsers would use a better JS engine after one was shown to them. Or, if they failed to use it directly, they'd study it and copy its good tricks.

Now you claim that the fact that V8 could have been shipped on its own was part of some larger point. I have absolutely no idea what larger point that might be. But there was a significant period of time where Chrome had V8 and everything else was comparatively slow. Which speaks directly to my point that consumers had very good technical reasons to switch to Chrome.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#532
post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was much faster than Firefox, that's why I switched. It could handle more tabs. It isolated tabs so if one crashed it didn't crash the whole browser. Memory usage was lower. I wouldn't call any of those "marketing" and "mindshare".

> It was much faster than Firefox, that's why I switched. This was pretty much entirely because of the JS performance advantage from V8 near the beginning. > It could handle more tabs. This was pretty much entirely because of the JS performance advantage from V8 near the beginning. > It isolated tabs so if one crashed it didn't crash the whole browser. This is definitely a win for Chrome and something we eventually s…

The point is that "the Chrome experience was significantly better" was obviously true for a great many users. It doesn't matter what exact optimizations it boils down to.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if I have it on in the background, which then in turn feeds the algorithm that it made the "correct choice" I have a very horrible case of this. One day at night, I slept listening to lofi playlist. The next week all my recommendations were screwed. Horrible assumption on the part of algorithm.

>I have a very horrible case of this. One day at night, I slept listening to lofi playlist. The next week all my recommendations were screwed. Horrible assumption on the part of algorithm. None of the music services seem to understand that just because you like multiple genres, that doesn't mean that you want it to randomly jump around between them without any consideration for how they flow together.

That's something I'd actually pay good money for - a streaming music service with a library as extensive as the major contenders (or better yet let me bring my own!), which learns my preferences not in isolation, but tracking how they affect each other and environment - this song is normally followed by that song, or this song usually gets skipped if playing while driving etc.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Netflix would probably be better if it learned a few lessons from gyms. I have to go wash my mouth out now. Brb. Some of these companies are trying to go for status now as well. They’re trying to strengthen their brands by picking up epic storylines and making them into the show everyone is watching. Only Netflix is chickenshit and they haven’t figured out that nobody watches the…

>Only Netflix is chickenshit and they haven’t figured out that nobody watches the first season of a Netflix show until the second is announced because they know Netflix cancels shows all the fucking time. What's funny is that HBO is worse about that, but everyone watches the new HBO shows because they are big budget and look really appealing. Netflix is also really bad about taking way too long to make additional sea…

Maybe it's confirmation bias, in that I'm interested in the pitch for fewer HBO shows and so I don't feel it when they get cancelled after a half-assed attempt.

Netflix shouldn't bother signing shows without a 2 year contract at this point.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#535

I just hate so so so much the Netflix of nowadays, they manage to keep me because of a few good movies/series and releasing new seasons of shows that I watched previously. But otherwise, this interface is so much bat shit! Incredible to me that anyone can pretend to Product manager of something so badly designed and unergonomic. The most important thing is "continue watching", that should be almost the first line, bu…

I really don't think bad Product Manager's is a good explanation for the UI. Any big company like Netflix is going to heavily A/B test any and every change to the UI. They will only ever add things that boost metrics like engagement. You may not like the UI; it may annoy you, but you should have some appreciation for the fact that they are using sophisticated techniques to optimize for what they care about.

Why should I appreciate a company's exploitative and extractive experimentation on its customers?

The cost of maximizing "value" for the company to the nth degree degrades the customer experience once it exceeds a certain threshold.

It's greedy tunnel vision that makes the world worse for everyone in the long term.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re giving it way too much of a positive spend. None of the companies are using analytics to increase the desirability for the majority of users. They are doing it to increase “engagement” and so more people will stay on their site longer. Why else wouldn’t Netflix show the “continue watching” row first instead of forcing you to scroll past algorithmic generated crap? It is the same reason that Google went from de…

What's the difference between that which optimized for what you call "engagement" and what the average user wants? Presumably the best thing for Netflix is to have a happy userbase, so why do you assume it wouldn't optimize for that?

(Not OP) I can think of many ways where optimizing for greater watch time is unaligned and often opposite to making me happy and giving me what I want. In the case of Netflix, what I want might be to watch one show at a time for one or two hours every night. It may even for some people be about watching The Office or Friends, a show they know well and just watch for comfort. What Netflix wants is for me to start a completely new show (and probably one they produced themselves) every single time I open Netflix, and also to binge watch for six hours every night because I have “so many shows to keep up with.” This may not make me happy. But they suppose maybe it’ll make me more likely to keep my subscription.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#537
post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was much faster than Firefox, that's why I switched. It could handle more tabs. It isolated tabs so if one crashed it didn't crash the whole browser. Memory usage was lower. I wouldn't call any of those "marketing" and "mindshare".

> It was much faster than Firefox, that's why I switched. This was pretty much entirely because of the JS performance advantage from V8 near the beginning. > It could handle more tabs. This was pretty much entirely because of the JS performance advantage from V8 near the beginning. > It isolated tabs so if one crashed it didn't crash the whole browser. This is definitely a win for Chrome and something we eventually s…

No, it was not just JS. They were the first to do a ton of other optimizations such as prefetching. https://www.igvita.com/2012/06/04/chrome-networking-dns-pref...

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#538
post #238

I am astonished by how much less delightful software has become. Computers used to feel like a magical tool, that would respond instantly and allow me to perform complicated transformations at the press of a button. Now, I feel like I am fighting against software most of the time, having to compete with someones vision for how I should be using their program, which is likely aimed at the least technically sophisticat…

Is this about software or is it about you? I loved my computer when I was a kid, now I only see flaws. I don't think software was flawless at the time, it's just that I became very keenly aware of its current issues because this is my field.

One aspect of this that I think deserves more attention is the reasons.

It's one thing when the flaws are there because of the limitations of hardware (and you understand the reasoning behind it). It's very different when you know that limitations are artificially imposed on you for the sake of someone's profit.

And mind you, it certainly did exist back then - stuff like early DRM schemes with hardware keys etc. And I was just as annoyed by them.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#539

I feel like this with my (current) bank of choice here in Brazil. They were one of the first to focus on being digital-first and allowed opening an account without going to a branch etc. They grew fast and became one of the largest banks in the country and generally considered pretty solid. I've been banking there for like a decade. Now they've decided to be what they call a "SuperApp". This goddamn super app has a T…

> I feel like this with my (current) bank of choice here in Brazil. Now they've decided to be what they call a "SuperApp".

I'm curious to know the name of that digital bank.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#540

There's a fundamental reality that shapes both Netflix and Spotify's trajectory: content licensing. 2012 Netflix had access to vastly more of everyone else's library, so it was closer to an indexed search of what was available that one could watch and then getting that video onto your screen. Over time, other companies understood that they were underpricing their content and Netflix was reaping the benefits. Once ext…

> Spotify faced a similar crossroads and decided to broaden beyond music once they started losing bidding wars for licensing. I wasn't aware that Spotify lacked much in the way of mainstream western music. Are they having licensing issues?

Just today two of the albums Spotify recommend to me as "Discover this" were unavailable, so they seem to be having some sort of issue with that.
Post reply on HN