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

91–100 of 175 posts

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#91

Post by amake »

Vinnl wrote: post #64
gmurphy wrote: post #52

I am the glen briefly referenced here - I miss working with Evan, and I could write chapters about the magical alignment he talks about that we swam in, and how I yearn to feel that sense of directionality and purpose again - one of the many reasons I left Google last week. I am so thankful I got to take part in the Chrome adventure with so many people I still call my friends. Also the close button was only not funny…

Heh, that's this article I presume: https://techcrunch.com/2009/08/05/chromes-new-feature-click-... That is indeed hilarious.

Yes, the very one linked from the article itself.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#92

Post by jansan »

izacus wrote: post #81
poszlem wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that part of the blog post is probably the best example of: “it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

This obviously goes both ways - some people also utterly refuse to understand just how many businesses exist because of the revenue driven from ads. Which then results in some comments here that are utterly detached from reality. It's kinda tiring really - seeing people constantly bark past each other with no understanding of nuance. But that's the modern internet I guess.

Not only frome the ads revenue, but also from being able to advertise their product to others. That is the original idea of ads. You have a products that you think is useful to others, and you need a way to let others know that this product exists and can be purchased.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#93

Post by sanxiyn »

mike_hearn wrote: post #73
izacus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Google did build Google Earth for macOS. I am not sure whether this supports or opposes your points. Probably supports.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#94

Post by LunaSea »

xg15 wrote: post #87
LunaSea wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are since you are able to read the article which wouldn't be possible without the ad.

It's perfectly possible to view the article without the ad if I use an adblocker.

No, because the article wouldn't have been written without the ads.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#95

Post by criddell »

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 have no problem with a business that wants to generate revenue through ads. If you want to place an ad on a billboard or on a bus or in a newspaper or a non-tracking ad online, great!

The business that I'm boycotting with uBlock Origin is the one that tracks me as I move around the internet and builds a dossier on me that they sell ads against.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#96

Post by jansan »

Vinnl wrote: post #64
gmurphy wrote: post #52

I am the glen briefly referenced here - I miss working with Evan, and I could write chapters about the magical alignment he talks about that we swam in, and how I yearn to feel that sense of directionality and purpose again - one of the many reasons I left Google last week. I am so thankful I got to take part in the Chrome adventure with so many people I still call my friends. Also the close button was only not funny…

Heh, that's this article I presume: https://techcrunch.com/2009/08/05/chromes-new-feature-click-... That is indeed hilarious.

I have to admit this is one of the funniest pranks I have seen in years.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#97

Post by traverseda »

LunaSea wrote: post #94
xg15 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perfectly possible to view the article without the ad if I use an adblocker.

No, because the article wouldn't have been written without the ads.

I'm okay with that. I can't help but think the internet was better when it was mostly unpaid hobbyists and personal blogs without commercial interests.

The problem is that people are using their ad budget to compete with free content, but the free content is still going to be there it will just appear higher up in the search results if various bad actors aren't paying for a bunch of SEO.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#98

Post by jbirer »

I will always support Chrome over Firefox because they are not politicizing their project, they just serve you and leave the politics to politicians. They earned their market dominance for being great and supporting things that Firefox did not at the time. I am OK with monopolies of good products, I don't really care about using an inferior product for the sake of lack of monopolies.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#99

Post by bmn__ »

LunaSea wrote: post #94
xg15 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perfectly possible to view the article without the ad if I use an adblocker.

No, because the article wouldn't have been written without the ads.

That's false. Perhaps the author would not have bothered to write the article without securing economic compensation of some form, but advertisement is not the only possibility.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#100

Post by LunaSea »

bmn__ wrote: post #99
LunaSea wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the article wouldn't have been written without the ads.

That's false. Perhaps the author would not have bothered to write the article without securing economic compensation of some form, but advertisement is not the only possibility.

That is incorrect. Most people don't pay for content.

You can see how well donation links work on content sites and open source projects for proof.

Post reply on HN