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

71–80 of 175 posts

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#71

Post by dao- »

Ygg2 wrote: post #69
dao- wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty sure Firefox does that by default. Ahem, no. > It gets highly annoying, sometimes. The thing you made up gets highly annoying, sometimes?

> Ahem, no. I'm referring to this: https://twitter.com/bert_hu_bert/status/1561650689474011136 Maybe it was removed after August, but it was in Firefox only a few months ago. And for the record, FF android prioritizes Google searches over history leading to accidentally visiting the Google search for a web page I often frequent.

> I'm referring to this: https://twitter.com/bert_hu_bert/status/1561650689474011136

That doesn't seem to say anything about what gets transmitted to or from Google? Certainly it's not your visited URLs.

> And for the record, FF android prioritizes Google searches over history leading to accidentally visiting the Google search for a web page I often frequent.

For search suggestions we send what you've typed, not full URLs. I'm not sure what happens when pasting a URL but I would recommend using Paste & Go in that case. Search suggestions can be disabled too in the app settings.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#72

Post by sccxy »

sanxiyn wrote: post #5

> Apple cares about making a browser that renders web pages just adequately enough to be acceptable I think this is biased. It's closer to "Apple cares about rendering currently existing web pages superbly" while "Google also cares about rendering future web pages". Once upon a time, V8 won benchmarks and ran demos faster but JavaScriptCore rendered the web faster. This was mainly due to JavaScriptCore having an opti…

Apple breaks existing web sites all the time.

I have reported several rendering bugs. Those are usually fixed in a year or so.

But you cannot update Safari without iOS update, then those sites stay broken for years.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#73

Post by mike_hearn »

izacus wrote: post #40
password4321 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to speak for Apple why Safari is where it is. Pro: battery life Con: lagging behind on some features

The fact that lack of Safari features drives people through taxed AppStore is just an accidental Apple side effect right? ;) Google is utterly evil for driving people towards web Ads for profit, while Apple drives people into their 30% tax AppStore by pure altruistic battery concerns?

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 to build, so why would they get talked into building what amounts to a second competing OS just because it suits Google? It's maybe like asking why Google doesn't build super slick native Mac app equivalents for everything they offer. Why isn't there a native Google Maps app on macOS for example? Of course from Google's perspective that sounds unreasonable - they've got their own platform and would rather use it, why would they invest so much into Apple's? It's sort of the same thing but in reverse.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#74

Post by endgame »

yakubin wrote: post #51
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 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…

With ads on websites, it's more as if upon glancing at the banana, the vendor went through your pockets, photographed your ID, and sent it off to who-knows-where.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#75

Post by RunSet »

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.

Further reading:

https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/10/why-its-ok-to-...

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#76

Post by safety1st »

yakubin wrote: post #51
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 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…

Also, let's not forget what's really going on as a part of this "transaction," which is that a website is sending data to my computer, which I own. That data includes requests for my computer to perform certain operations, show me some ads, maybe hand over my online banking passwords, etc. etc.

I am absolutely within my rights if I instruct my computer to honor some of these requests and not others. Any other perspective is crazy when you think about it. I own the computer, I choose the programs that I run. I'm not leasing this computer from Google or from the business that owns the website in question.

This is really a matter of property rights. If somebody wants me to use a computer which is unable to block ads, they can offer to lend me a free computer which has that limitation, I suppose. I mean I'd say no, but other people might say yes.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#77

Post by glogla »

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.

> 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.

For sure!

But what were the things they wanted to do that browsers couldn't? Was it removing tracking everything, shoving more and more ads down everyone's throat and turning Web into their walled garden?

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#78

Post by SalimoS »

bmn__ wrote: post #67
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).

> it's your media player job to skip the uninteresting part of a video you're watching ? Of course. That's why Sponsorblock exists. Who is in control? I am in control over my time, my attention, not the middlemen between the video author and me.

The same as adblock exist (im not agains ad blocked, im using them already it's just trying to explain that the moment you requested the webpage it's up to the website to put whatever it wan't(his right), the job of your browser is to display it and your right to refuse the ad, hide it, block it or automate it in the browser level by an extension or your OS level (blocking DNS)

PS:in another comment i tried to explain how i see it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33919824

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#79

Post by SalimoS »

xg15 wrote: post #68
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).

I never requested the ad.

no you request a resource (webpage) the ad was sent to you by the owner of the resource (it's his right to put whatever he want the the webpage) as your right to not request it/block it

PS:in another comment i tried to explain how i see it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33919824

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#80

Post by jansan »

sccxy wrote: post #72
sanxiyn wrote: post #5

> Apple cares about making a browser that renders web pages just adequately enough to be acceptable I think this is biased. It's closer to "Apple cares about rendering currently existing web pages superbly" while "Google also cares about rendering future web pages". Once upon a time, V8 won benchmarks and ran demos faster but JavaScriptCore rendered the web faster. This was mainly due to JavaScriptCore having an opti…

Apple breaks existing web sites all the time. I have reported several rendering bugs. Those are usually fixed in a year or so. But you cannot update Safari without iOS update, then those sites stay broken for years.

Exactly. This bug (broken overflow:hidden for rounded corners) took 11 years to be fixed. But how long from will it take until we can assume that all iOS users will have a Safari version that does not require the dreaded isolate workaround.

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68196

Also, I have the feeling that there is exactly ONE person working on Safari. I always run into the same same when reporting or browsing bugs. I hope that this is either an alias used by many developers or the poor guy is making a ton of money.

Post reply on HN