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

Android 8.0 Oreo, thoroughly reviewed

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 130 posts

Re: Android 8.0 Oreo, thoroughly reviewed

#61

Post by Mindwipe »

izacus wrote: post #43
Mindwipe wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be an excellent way to force Google to switch distribution of all content via YouTube to HTML5 EME with Widevine DRM, given it's pretty clear their music agreements prohibit permitting this.

Most of YouTube content isn't music though. Why are they so user hostile - e.g. why can't I listen to talks/podcasters in the background while browsing the internet?

I'm not sure that's actually true in practice.

I think a better question is why would a talk/podcaster be using YouTube for distribution?

Re: Android 8.0 Oreo, thoroughly reviewed

#62

Post by Touche »

kinlan wrote: post #51
avaer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to be able to tell my browser what it should tell the pages it's loading, especially if pages are leveraging it to do things against my will. That applies to blocking Google ads, as well as fixing Youtube malfeatures. Of course, it's understandable you won't see this from a browser paid for by Google. But you can't paint in broad brush strokes like "I don't think hiding side-effects or user actions helps any…

I'm disputing the fact there was a casual offhand design, and I don't think hiding the state of the render or the browser helps anyone not least developers who need the information about the state of their page. I'm not saying that there can't be meaningful response from the browser to user hostile actions, I don't think anyone disagrees. There's a broader question about a user's will and the sites intent especially…

Thank you for staying level-headed here. This is indeed a gray area question, and it's worth having a debate over. No one is clearly in the right.

Re: Android 8.0 Oreo, thoroughly reviewed

#63

Post by sdrothrock »

Jedd wrote: post #20

After my Pixel updated recently to Oreo, being frustrated by a constant notification for Twilight (a red-tinting background app) and starting to search on google for a solution -- I discovered quite a lot of people have been asking 'how to suppress notifications on oreo' recently. FWIW you can control the notification snooze timeout, but you're going to need Tasker [1] (or similar). Interestingly I evidently bought t…

https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/6xuqkc/how_to_...

Does this work for you?

Re: Android 8.0 Oreo, thoroughly reviewed

#64

Post by Touche »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #60
kinlan wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm disputing the fact there was a casual offhand design, and I don't think hiding the state of the render or the browser helps anyone not least developers who need the information about the state of their page. I'm not saying that there can't be meaningful response from the browser to user hostile actions, I don't think anyone disagrees. There's a broader question about a user's will and the sites intent especially…

> There's a broader question about a user's will and the sites intent especially when it comes to business plans of the site The site's business plans are not my problem. Basically, my phone and my computer should do what I want. Why is there even an API to make a video player enter/exit full-screen mode ? That's 100% a user decision and there is no valid reason why that should ever be exposed to JS.

What if I want to present an X button that the user can click to exit fullscreen? How would I do that without a programmable API?

Re: Android 8.0 Oreo, thoroughly reviewed

#65

Post by dashundchen »

izacus wrote: post #43
Mindwipe wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be an excellent way to force Google to switch distribution of all content via YouTube to HTML5 EME with Widevine DRM, given it's pretty clear their music agreements prohibit permitting this.

Most of YouTube content isn't music though. Why are they so user hostile - e.g. why can't I listen to talks/podcasters in the background while browsing the internet?

Try Firefox for Android - it allows background nedia streaming, and even puts controls in the notification drawer. It also allows adblocking, extensions, has the amazing reader mode which makes the most unusable websites readable again.

The current version 55 is a little slower than Chrome on my 3 year old phone, but performance in the past few major versions has definitely improved. The nighty developer build of Firefox 57 absolutely flies.

Mozilla is doing an amazing job with their Firefox modernization, it's a shame how little attention it gets on Android.

Re: Android 8.0 Oreo, thoroughly reviewed

#66

Post by harrygeez »

hateful wrote: post #54

They lost me at "light grey notification panel"? I spent some time trying to get the dark grey one to black with no luck - and now it's even worse.

you can probably achieve it by modifying framework-res.apk. At least it worked on Nougat, copied the colors from Pixel to get its blue theme on my Nexus 5

Re: Android 8.0 Oreo, thoroughly reviewed

#68

Post by kuschku »

Touche wrote: post #62
kinlan wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm disputing the fact there was a casual offhand design, and I don't think hiding the state of the render or the browser helps anyone not least developers who need the information about the state of their page. I'm not saying that there can't be meaningful response from the browser to user hostile actions, I don't think anyone disagrees. There's a broader question about a user's will and the sites intent especially…

Thank you for staying level-headed here. This is indeed a gray area question, and it's worth having a debate over. No one is clearly in the right.

Well, the legal answer clearly places one side in the right (the user has the right to modify websites that are shown on their system however they wish to, and the right to circumvent all measures on that site, as in the countless ABP vs. ... cases has been ruled).

The historical answer does the same, as browsers were explicitly designated User Agents, as their whole purpose is to act in the name of the user, and fulfill whatever the user wishes to, which also clearly places the will of the user over everything a website may wish to.

How you interpret this is obviously left to you...

Re: Android 8.0 Oreo, thoroughly reviewed

#69

Post by johnhenry »

dinnouti wrote: post #35
lukepothier wrote: post #11

If it's true that Chrome on Oreo genuinely prevents picture-in-picture for YouTube specifically , that's a troubling precedent to set. Why not allow all websites to enable/disable PiP (maybe via a meta tag, in the way that tab theme colours already work)? If I query https://m.youtube.com while emulating a Nexus 5X, the response contains: Is that what is preventing PiP on YouTube or is it some sort of underhanded inte…

Wondering if relate to YouTube Red sales.

It's always bothered me that you have to pay for this extra service in order to get audio to stream in the background.

Re: Android 8.0 Oreo, thoroughly reviewed

#70

Post by pas »

Touche wrote: post #64
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a broader question about a user's will and the sites intent especially when it comes to business plans of the site The site's business plans are not my problem. Basically, my phone and my computer should do what I want. Why is there even an API to make a video player enter/exit full-screen mode ? That's 100% a user decision and there is no valid reason why that should ever be exposed to JS.

What if I want to present an X button that the user can click to exit fullscreen? How would I do that without a programmable API?

That should be a browser option. (Show exit full-screen button or not.)

Also, especially for video, the browser should be able to play it full screen without any distractions.

Of course, there are optional enhancements (subtitles, or different audio tracks) driven via JS. And for those the controls have to go somewhere.

Ideally, if there were a standard for those, the browser could handle it. (But then we're at the problem of an ever bloating browser.)

Post reply on HN