Microsoft developer blames Google for the switch to Chromium engine in the next version of Windows 10

[GoodBytes]

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

1) Why would we talk about that? It's a completely different topic.

2) You're comparing apples vs oranges. Apps not working on other platforms is because the code is platform dependent by nature of the different APIs. The reason why an Android app didn't work on WP is because WP did not use the same APIs as Android. Microsoft created their own proprietary APIs for Windows phone (UWP).

It is the same. You have cross platform frameworks, you have web apps, you have many tools at one disposal.. problem is supporting a platform, costs money. Supporting a website for a specific set or a minority group of users who chooses something different then the rest, will not get support. It cost money to develop, ensure that the website and all its functionality works properly on every web browsers. All web browsers have their issues, where web developers needs to account for.

 

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Don't change the subject.

I am not changing the subject. It is the same subject. It is the consequences of the action taking by web browsers. They are given up, and caving in into Chrome.

 

 

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You said that the reason why some websites only work in IE is because companies deliberately blocked other browsers browsers, so that they can charge extra money for adding it in later.

 

I say that's bollocks

Well your opinion doesn't change facts of reality. That is also a big reason for in-house development that more and more companies choose to go with instead of contractual work, among many other advantages of an i-house solution such as speedy support and quickly adapt to changes of the company.

 

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

and the reason why some websites only work in IE is because Microsoft created their own standards and did not follow the W3C standards, which meant developers had to essentially created two separates websites.

You know, if conditions exists, and you can pull which web browser is being used.

 

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

One that worked with IE, and another one that worked with every standard-compliant browser. Since that required twice the amount of work, a lot of them settled for just supporting IE, which is what Microsoft hoped for and one of the main reasons why they didn't follow the standards to begin with.

Exactly what Google is pushing to. Read the article I posted.

 

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Please don't spread a bunch of misinformation about how Microsoft only developed their own proprietary web technologies because "it helped speed up progress".

Of course it is. If you read the article I posted from Ars, you'll see that Google is doing the very same. They are creating web technologies to boost specifically their platforms at the cost of having a truly open web standard.

 

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It took them 4 years to pass Acid2 for crying out loud. Even if you make the massive assumption that Microsoft developed their own technologies to speed up progress, that is no excuse for not supporting the standards that already exists.

When you are on top, why would one care? (You get to slowing down you demise of being on top)

 

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

They clearly deliberately made IE incompatible with existing standards, and forced their own which only worked in IE.

Why recreate the wheel for things that they have a solution for? It's open, but there is no business case to be made.

 

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That caused developers to have to code their websites specifically to support IE. Developers were left with three options because of Microsoft's decision to not follow standards:

1) Use the W3C standards to create a website which worked in all web browsers except IE, since it didn't support the open standards.

2) Use Microsoft's proprietary technologies to create a website that only worked in IE, because IE was the only browser that supported Microsoft's own stuff.

3) Essentially develop two websites. One which used the W3C standards for support in all browsers but IE, and one version which IE supported.

Option 3. and that is what we will shortly see with Google.

 

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

1) You again make a false dilemma argument where you pretend like you either do your own proprietary stuff, or support standards, when in reality you can do both.

Explain to business department for funds for your team to support both. I am greatly sure they'll run back to you and say: "yes, priority 1!" to you, and open the budget for your team to work on that.

 

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You're extremely delusional if you actually believe any of this.

Perhaps... but I am not delusional that Google is the pinnacle of perfection company, that they have done 0 harm, and that they are the underdogs, trying to fight their way through a world against them for this wonderful free utopian world.

 

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You do realize that you're the one trying to push conspiracy theories in this thread, right? You're the one claiming that developers deliberately blocked non-IE browsers from working on their websites because they wanted to charge companies twice for developing the website.

They are not theories, they are facts. Go in the industry and you'll quickly see that you see the world in rose tinted glasses on the matter. A company is there to make money not charity.

 

[Guest]

Lol video playback tests on browsers are a bit nonsense btw since most of the time there is an hardware decoder behind it and has no differences between, at least for software decoders there is a different implementation which I remember for Chromium to be ffmpeg

[LAwLz]

35 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

It is the same. You have cross platform frameworks, you have web apps, you have many tools at one disposal.. problem is supporting a platform, costs money. Supporting a website for a specific set or a minority group of users who chooses something different then the rest, will not get support. It cost money to develop, ensure that the website and all its functionality works properly on every web browsers. All web browsers have their issues, where web developers needs to account for. 

No it's not and I am honestly amazed that you do not see the difference.

Those cross platform frameworks for applications are more complex to use, does not always support all the features of the native APIs, and usually perform far worse too (take a look at Electron for an example).

With web standards on the other hand, the performance is great, it is extremely well documented and propitiatory standards are almost non-existing nowadays.

Supporting multiple platforms for your application has major drawbacks.

Supporting multiple web browsers on your website today costs next to nothing.

 

And you still ignore the fact that Microsoft willingly created the compatibility issues to begin with. They were the ones who refused to implement support for the standards.

The cross platform frameworks you refer to actually works on for example iOS and Android. It is apples vs oranges here because Microsoft made sure cross platform did not work with IE. It's like if Google deliberately made the cross platform frameworks incompatible with Android (which they haven't done).

 

35 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

I am not changing the subject. It is the same subject. It is the consequences of the action taking by web browsers. They are given up, and caving in into Chrome.

You did change the subject. We were not talking about Mozilla being concerned over the Blink monopoly.

You said that web developers were conspiring and deliberately blocked other web browsers from working, so that they could change extra for removing the blocks.

I said that was bollocks and gave a more logical explanation.

You replied with "Mozilla are concerned about Blink having a monopoly". Completely irrelevant to the conversation we're having.

 

35 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Well your opinion doesn't change facts of reality. That is also a big reason for in-house development that more and more companies choose to go with instead of contractual work, among many other advantages of an i-house solution such as speedy support and quickly adapt to changes of the company.

Prove it.

 

35 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

You know, if conditions exists, and you can pull which web browser is being used.

Yes, but since Microsoft did not support the web standards (again, go read about Acid2 for one of the major examples of the fuckery Microsoft did in IE) developers would have to basically create two websites. One that worked in IE, and one that worked in all other browsers. Microsoft deliberately doubled the amount of work developers had to put in to support all browsers. If IE had supported and followed the W3C standards, the workload would have been cut in half.

 

35 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Exactly what Google is pushing to. Read the article I posted.

35 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Of course it is. If you read the article I posted from Ars, you'll see that Google is doing the very same. They are creating web technologies to boost specifically their platforms at the cost of having a truly open web standard.

Which article?

And "Google does it too" is not a counterargument. You need to actually prove what I said is wrong, not just go "others does it too".

If you mean the "the web now belongs to Google and that should worry us all" then I'll kindly ask you to stop changing the subject again. We are talking about your claim that developers deliberately blocked other browsers so that they could change extra for just removing the block.

 

35 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

When you are on top, why would one care? (You get to slowing down you demise of being on top)

Because you are harming the industry greatly and putting a needless amount of work on developers.

It's pure evil.

 

35 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Why recreate the wheel for things that they have a solution for? It's open, but there is no business case to be made.

Recreating the wheel was exactly what Microsoft did. They developed their own standards when open ones already existed.

 

35 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Option 3. and that is what we will shortly see with Google.

Ehm... Have you been replaced by a bot or something? Your posts makes no sense at all. It's like talking to someone who just spits out random words that doesn't follow the progression of the conversation.

 

You: Developers are conspiring!

Me: I think it's a more logical explanation that Microsoft fucked developers over so they took the easy way out.

You: No Microsoft didn't do that!

Me: Here is my evidence for why I think that's what happened.

You: Google will do it too and therefore you're wrong. Microsoft were innocent and it was all the developers faults!

 

I have tried to follow your train of though and reread your posts several times, and I feel very confused.

You're not responding to my arguments at all, and you're throwing around wild accusations and bringing up completely unrelated things as "counterarguments".

 

 

35 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Explain to business department for funds for your team to support both. I am greatly sure they'll run back to you and say: "yes, priority 1!" to you, and open the budget for your team to work on that. 

If you can't afford to fund both, then you should focus on the open standards. It is what is best for the industry as a whole. Using a monopoly to disadvantage competitors by not supporting the open standards and instead push proprietary ones is borderline illegal and should never be encouraged.

(In before you go "aha! that is what Google might do in the future!" as if I ever made the opposite claim)

 

35 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Perhaps... but I am not delusional that Google is the pinnacle of perfection company, that they have done 0 harm, and that they are the underdogs, trying to fight their way through a world against them for this wonderful free utopian world.

Neither am I. Strawman much?

You do realize that I can say bad things about Microsoft, without glorifying Google, right?

But I think you should hate on Google for the right reasons. Spreading misinformation about "Google deliberately slow down Youtube for Firefox and Edge users!" when the person who made that claim corrected himself shortly after is bad. I do not want to see you bring that up again, because it's incorrect.  If you cared about the truth, and not just throw any dirt you can find at Google, then you would remove that last part from your post and go "I was wrong about that part. Google didn't do anything to ensure Firefox performed poorly on Youtube".

 

35 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

They are not theories, they are facts. Go in the industry and you'll quickly see that you see the world in rose tinted glasses on the matter. A company is there to make money not charity.

Prove it.

 

 

Let's take a step back and define what we're actually debating here.

You said that back when IE had 90% market share, web developers would purposefully ensure that their websites were locked down to only work on Internet Explorer. The reason they did this was so that they would get paid in the future to make different browsers compatible too.

 

My response to that claim is that I think it is a bullshit conspiracy theory you dreamed up to shift blame away from Microsoft and on to developers.

The real reason a lot of websites only work(ed) in IE was because Microsoft developed their own set of standards and ignored the official W3C ones. We can clearly see this by looking at things like the Acid2 test, which was created to highlight how poorly Microsoft supported the official CSS standards. A website created to work in IE would not work in any other browser, and vice versa. Developers didn't block non-IE browsers from accessing an otherwise fully compatible site. It was Microsoft who made sure W3C-compatible sites didn't work in IE.

[S w a t s o n]

Yeaaaa, all I can say is I'm disappointed the Edge team felt the need to use Chromium instead of Gecko (Firefox). I unfortunately do keep Chrome on my system because yes sometimes sites will ONLY work on Chrome, like when shit used to ONLY work on IE. Google owning YouTube and implementing features that run best on Chrome is expected unfortunately so I can't give them too much shit. Honestly I'm more about blaming web developers or their product managers that aren't giving them resources to optimize for all platforms.

If Firefox ever gives in I will happily uninstall and install the inevitable FOSS fork.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, S w a t s o n said:

Yeaaaa, all I can say is I'm disappointed the Edge team felt the need to use Chromium instead of Gecko (Firefox). I unfortunately do keep Chrome on my system because yes sometimes sites will ONLY work on Chrome, like when shit used to ONLY work on IE. Google owning YouTube and implementing features that run best on Chrome is expected unfortunately so I can't give them too much shit. Honestly I'm more about blaming web developers or their product managers that aren't giving them resources to optimize for all platforms.

If Firefox ever gives in I will happily uninstall and install the inevitable FOSS fork.

Web developers have a choice, if they support more than one platform the site would be bloated as hell, and you don't want your site to be like that, so supporting the major browser is the best thing to do

[S w a t s o n]

1 minute ago, Lukyp said:

Web developers have a choice, if they support more than one platform the site would be bloated as hell, and you don't want your site to be like that, so supporting the major browser is the best thing to do

That's not how that works.

[duncannah]

Why should website developers have to make sure some proprietary non-vital function is working on some other browser anyway? It would just seem like it was functioning as normally, yet people just put blame to the site straight away just because they have their own browser

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, S w a t s o n said:

That's not how that works.

That's how big sites work, it's not just a plain HTML file 

[S w a t s o n]

5 minutes ago, duncannah said:

Why should website developers have to make sure some proprietary non-vital function is working on some other browser anyway? It would just seem like it was functioning as normally, yet people just put blame to the site straight away because they have their own browser

Problem is it's often just a basic function, or the site just doesn't load, or loads brokenly.

9 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

Web developers have a choice, if they support more than one platform the site would be bloated as hell, and you don't want your site to be like that, so supporting the major browser is the best thing to do

Case in point, I'm using LTT just fine on Firefox and it works just as well on Chrome and Edge. Most websites should not expect any "bloating" for having proper HTML5 and CSS that renders well on a given browser.

 

There's literally no reason that any one engine should considered the default and therefore other browsers are "more work". Google chrome didn't even exist very long ago.

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, Lukyp said:

That's how big sites work, it's not just a plain HTML file 

No not really, it's extremely feature dependant. You can't just say big site and assume it's bloated because any browser can use the features.

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

Web developers have a choice, if they support more than one platform the site would be bloated as hell, and you don't want your site to be like that, so supporting the major browser is the best thing to do

That's not how websites work.

You code your website after the W3C standards and then they will work in all browsers. You do not need to create special code for each browser you want to support.

 

Web standards works by the W3C and other standardization bodies saying "this is how websites should be written, and this is how they work when written this way" and then it is up to browser manufacturers to make sure their browsers renders the sites correctly.

 

If for example a website contains an image tag like <img>, then that exact same command gets sent to the browser no matter which browser you use. It is then up to your browser to follow the standards on how to interpret <img> and display it for the user.

 

 

Websites are not like when a game developer has to write the program using DirectX to have it function on Windows, and then also ship the game with a bunch of other, special code in case someone starts it on GNU/Linux since that OS doesn't have DirectX.

 

 

That's why having your browser support the open web standards (Microsoft's browser historically haven't) is so important. If all browsers follow the same standards (which they generally do these days, since Microsoft stopped being assholes) then a developer can just write the website once, without a bunch of duplicated functionality for different browsers, and everything just works.

[duncannah]

Just now, S w a t s o n said:

Problem is it's often just a basic function, or the site just doesn't load, or loads brokenly.

What I meant was Edge's "video acceleration" function, having it not working wouldn't have been quite apparent in the first place, because the video is still working; the said function is not vital

[Guest]

1 minute ago, S w a t s o n said:

No not really, it's extremely feature dependant. You can't just say big site and assume it's bloated because any browser can use the features.

 

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's not how websites work.

You code your website after the W3C standards and then they will work in all browsers. You do not need to create special code for each browser you want to support.

 

Web standards works by the W3C and other standardization bodies saying "this is how websites should be written, and this is how they work when written this way" and then it is up to browser manufacturers to make sure their browsers renders the sites correctly.

 

If for example a website contains an image tag like <img>, then that exact same command gets sent to the browser no matter which browser you use. It is then up to your browser to follow the standards on how to interpret <img> and display it for the user.

 

 

Websites are not like when a game developer has to write the program using DirectX to have it function on Windows, and then also ship the game with a bunch of other, special code in case someone starts it on GNU/Linux since that OS doesn't have DirectX.

 

I think you all misunderstood what I said

I meant that not every browser implements those standards or new features at the same time, so one smart web developer would make sure they are available on the most used ones, that's it, unless you do some dirty client side checking which makes it bloated as hell as I've seen certain sites doing that

 

[S w a t s o n]

3 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

 

 

 

I think you all misunderstood what I said

I meant that not every browser implements those standards or new features at the same time, so one smart web developer would make sure they are available on the most used ones, that's it, unless you do some dirty client side checking which makes it bloated as hell as I've seen certain sites doing that

 

I mean this happened with Firefox not being able to access some Netflix streams and other shit due to resisting implementation of DRM. Yes sometimes features are implemented in one browser before another for various reasons. However, going ahead with forcing that feature onto the website in essences forces you to use Chrome, which is the entire problem.

Basically because Google is willing to play ball and everyone uses Chrome, we now have a DRM standard that's pretty shit just integrated into W3C now which affects ALL browsers

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

I think you all misunderstood what I said

I meant that not every browser implements those standards or new features at the same time, so one smart web developer would make sure they are available on the most used ones, that's it, unless you do some dirty client side checking which makes it bloated as hell as I've seen certain sites doing that

Yeah, that's true.

But if you need to be on such a cutting edge that you're implementing standards that have not been deployed in more than maybe one browser, then you should be pollyfilling anyway. Especially since you often need to ensure compatibility with older browsers.

 

 

1 minute ago, S w a t s o n said:

I mean this happened with Firefox not being able to access some Netflix streams and other shit due to resisting implementation of DRM. Yes sometimes features are implemented in one browser before another for various reasons. However, going ahead with forcing that feature onto the website in essences forces you to use Chrome, which is the entire problem.

Basically because Google is willing to play play and everyone uses Chrome we now have a DRM standard that's pretty shit just integrated into W3C now which affects ALL browsers

Fun fact: Chrome and Firefox on Windows not being able to view some Netflix streams is 100% a restriction imposed by the DRM, and not because of some technical limitation or lack of standard support.

Chrome in ChromeOS supports 1080p Netflix streams.

Chrome on Windows only supports 720p Netflix streams.

 

The reason is because the DRM used by Netflix (PlayReady, developed by Microsoft) do not trust third party browsers. It only trusts browsers that are shipping with the OS (more specifically, Edge if you're on Windows, and Chrome if you're on ChromeOS).

[Sauron]

On 12/17/2018 at 7:50 PM, GoodBytes said:

The reason is that Google uses it's monopoly on services like YouTube that it has, to contentiously update their websites and web browser with changes so that Chrome performs fine on them, and break or slows down other web browsers engines, like Edge, Opera (before they switch to Chromium engine) and Firefox.

Obviously this is true and should be grounds for an antitrust lawsuit (although as you mentioned, microsoft is the last company that ought to complain about it). With that said, the Firefox team still powers through all of this - what's microsoft's excuse? Edge, and IE before it, have been years behind the competition pretty much ever since competition existed, and that's not google's fault (for the most part).

 

Perhaps there are other factors at play; for instance, edgeHTML was the only engine out of the major 3 to not be open source in any capacity. Isn't it possible community contributions have given the other two a boost?

 

And it also doesn't help that MS has this annoying habit of trying to do things out of standard and expecting everyone else to just deal with it... if their APIs were more streamlined, it would be much easier to avoid the wrenches thrown in their cogs by google.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, S w a t s o n said:

I mean this happened with Firefox not being able to access some Netflix streams and other shit due to resisting implementation of DRM. Yes sometimes features are implemented in one browser before another for various reasons. However, going ahead with forcing that feature onto the website in essences forces you to use Chrome, which is the entire problem

Lol I've seen worse things in my life you can't imagine I begged god to bring back the internet just as it was in the 91's 
 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Yeah, that's true.

But if you need to be on such a cutting edge that you're implementing standards that have not been deployed in more than maybe one browser, then you should be pollyfilling anyway. Especially since you often need to ensure compatibility with older browsers.

Yee doesn't often that frequently on the major browsers, but I've seen those happening in my nervous browser-hopping often in both phones and pc browsers, the phone ones are quite spicy and funny to see lol

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Obviously this is true and should be grounds for an antitrust lawsuit (although as you mentioned, microsoft is the last company that ought to complain about it). With that said, the Firefox team still powers through all of this - what's microsoft's excuse? Edge, and IE before it, have been years behind the competition pretty much ever since competition existed, and that's not google's fault (for the most part). 

The whole "Google is deliberately slowing down Firefox and Edge on Youtube" is a load of bollocks. It doesn't make sense (at least not in the two cases mentioned in the OP) and there is no evidence for it.

[S w a t s o n]

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Fun fact: Chrome and Firefox on Windows not being able to view some Netflix streams is 100% a restriction imposed by the DRM, and not because of some technical limitation or lack of standard support.

Chrome in ChromeOS supports 1080p Netflix streams.

Chrome on Windows only supports 720p Netflix streams.

 

The reason is because the DRM used by Netflix (PlayReady, developed by Microsoft) do not trust third party browsers. It only trusts browsers that are shipping with the OS (more specifically, Edge if you're on Windows, and Chrome if you're on ChromeOS).

1080p in windows store app and I guess 4k if you have kaby lake?

Edge is the only browser that can do 4K as well only with Kaby Lake or higher so I wonder how this change affects that

[Sauron]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The whole "Google is deliberately slowing down Firefox and Edge on Youtube" is a load of bollocks. It doesn't make sense (at least not in the two cases mentioned in the OP) and there is no evidence for it.

It's not a matter of slowing things down, it's a matter of deliberately breaking support for other engines' acceleration techniques.

 

As for evidence, the Firefox guys gave a pretty detailed description of some things google does:

Quote

YouTube page load is 5-times slower in Firefox and Edge than in Chrome, because YouTube’s Polymer redesign relies on the deprecated Shadow DOM v0 API only implemented in Chrome. YouTube serves a Shadow DOM polyfill to Firefox and Edge that is, unsurprisingly, slower than Chrome’s native implementation.

You can check this for yourself if you're that skeptical. There's no reason for Google to use deprecated APIs except to hinder their competition; and sure, they're allowed to use what they want on their platform, but as with Microsoft, their monopolistic position might infringe on antitrust.

[FITorion]

I have no trust in Google.  The only thing I ever used Edge for was to download Firefox.

[GoodBytes]

53 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No it's not and I am honestly amazed that you do not see the difference.

Those cross platform frameworks for applications are more complex to use, does not always support all the features of the native APIs, and usually perform far worse too (take a look at Electron for an example).

No they are not. Nothing that  software developer can't handle.

As for the lack of some native APIs (which many apps don't use), can easily be handled, and they don't perform far worse. Do you have any proof on this?

 

Quote

With web standards on the other hand, the performance is great, it is extremely well documented and propitiatory standards are almost non-existing nowadays.

Never said otherwise.

 

Quote

Supporting multiple platforms for your application has major drawbacks.

Supporting multiple web browsers on your website today costs next to nothing.

So you are suggesting that a monopoly is the way forward.

 

Quote

And you still ignore the fact that Microsoft willingly created the compatibility issues to begin with. They were the ones who refused to implement support for the standards.

The cross platform frameworks you refer to actually works on for example iOS and Android. It is apples vs oranges here because Microsoft made sure cross platform did not work with IE. It's like if Google deliberately made the cross platform frameworks incompatible with Android (which they haven't done).

The web at market was very different back in the days. I remind you that before you had sites where they used Java Applets for menus 'cause you could not do this kind of things with Java-Script/CSS at the time. But no where I am defending Microsoft actions on this. They have done what made the most sense in terms of business at the time. Time have changed today.

 

Quote

You did change the subject. We were not talking about Mozilla being concerned over the Blink monopoly.

We are talking about the consequences of a monopoly. How many times do I have to repeat.

 

Quote

You said that web developers were conspiring and deliberately blocked other web browsers from working, so that they could change extra for removing the blocks.

I said that was bollocks and gave a more logical explanation.

You logic is rose tinted ones. The reality is that these contracts are not done by experts in the field, else they would do it in-house. Computer Science/Software Engeer fields where not really a thing back then to even have expert. They go and say "It needs to work when people presses the blue "E" and goes to website", level, and not "It need to comply with W3C standard and works with all web browsers currently and be future proof, here are all the details we are looking for...". I mean you could have that back then to some level by saying "it needs to work with everything and anything".. but they'll pay a premium for this.  It's time and that is money. Again, the world of before is different than today.

 

If your website is 15 million dollars to do for IE only which works with 90% of people, and 20 million for that 10% added, and you are already begged for 15 millions from multiple investors. Which one will you pick? You'll probably go and pick the 15 million dollars, and later, once money rolls in, and there is a demand, you'll be ready to invest 6-7million to update the website to add the other web browsers.

 

Quote

You replied with "Mozilla are concerned about Blink having a monopoly". Completely irrelevant to the conversation we're having.

Heuummm, Once Edge switches, Chrome has 80% market share (in the PC world)... again we are talking about the consequences of the switch by Microsoft.

 

 

Quote

Prove it.

Prove by contradiction.

 

Quote

Yes, but since Microsoft did not support the web standards (again, go read about Acid2 for one of the major examples of the fuckery Microsoft did in IE) developers would have to basically create two websites. One that worked in IE, and one that worked in all other browsers. Microsoft deliberately doubled the amount of work developers had to put in to support all browsers. If IE had supported and followed the W3C standards, the workload would have been cut in half.

Sure. Never said otherwise. Google tries to do similar things, to control the web, so that users are locked down to Google controls, like Microsoft.  I remind you that Google did cut off funding to Mozilla Firefox, they have done things to make their service only work best with their web browser.

 

 

Quote

Which article?

Proof that you don't read a thing. You read what you want to read.

 

Quote

And "Google does it too" is not a counterargument. You need to actually prove what I said is wrong, not just go "others does it too".

What? We are talking about Google taking control of the web.

 

Quote

If you mean the "the web now belongs to Google and that should worry us all" then I'll kindly ask you to stop changing the subject again. We are talking about your claim that developers deliberately blocked other browsers so that they could change extra for just removing the block.

Referencing history to learn about, to avoid past action to repeat themselves is NOT changing the subject. But because this goes against your agenda, you acting like subjects are  being changed when they are not. You have no argument.

 

Quote

Because you are harming the industry greatly and putting a needless amount of work on developers.

It's pure evil.

No business massively fast growth is ever done cleanly and not even close to fully be socially responsible.

But what has been done has been done, we have to learn from it, avoid repeating history.

 

Quote

If you can't afford to fund both, then you should focus on the open standards. It is what is best for the industry as a whole. Using a monopoly to disadvantage competitors by not supporting the open standards and instead push proprietary ones is borderline illegal and should never be encouraged.

I fully agree.

 

Quote

Spreading misinformation about "Google deliberately slow down Youtube for Firefox and Edge users!" when the person who made that claim corrected himself shortly after is bad.

It just happens that ALL web browsers non Chrome base are affected. Safari, Edge and Firefox.

Here is the conversation:

I don't see him taking back or removed any tweets. He acknowledges the problem with the web browser, (and hold and behold, almost 6 month later and multiple version of Firefox, YouTube still performs like crap under Firefox, but that is beside the point), but that is pretty much it. Did I miss something?

 

Quote

I do not want to see you bring that up again, because it's incorrect.  If you cared about the truth, and not just throw any dirt you can find at Google, then you would remove that last part from your post and go "I was wrong about that part. Google didn't do anything to ensure Firefox performed poorly on Youtube".

You don't get to tell me what I can or can't say. I report the news from trusted sources, and make a discussion.

 

Quote

Prove it.

Counter prove it.

 

Anyway, I am done fighting with your non-sense.

[Misanthrope]

So: pretty much what Microsoft has been wanting to do with IE and Edge as well? Sounds like he's just upset Microsoft didn't get to do it first. They probably could have but they forgot to actually make IE worth using to begin with instead of just being pushed as a standard first before it won users due to nicer functionality and features.

[GoodBytes]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

So: pretty much what Microsoft has been wanting to do with IE and Edge as well? Sounds like he's just upset Microsoft didn't get to do it first. They probably could have but they forgot to actually make IE worth using to begin with instead of just being pushed as a standard first before it won users due to nicer functionality and features.

I think he is more upset that all his work goes to the bin... but who can blame him.

 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, S w a t s o n said:

1080p in windows store app and I guess 4k if you have kaby lake?

Edge is the only browser that can do 4K as well only with Kaby Lake or higher so I wonder how this change affects that

wut do you mean netflix restricts the processor where you can run 4k?